Data mining and GMOs

Posted on May 6th, 2008 in Environment, farming, news, research by Anastasia

In order to make sound conclusions about different types of genetically engineered crops and to plan for the future, we’ll need to have sound data about any possible environmental effects of said crops. Researchers from a variety of institutions and disciplines* plan to collect that data. Harvesting Data from Genetically Engineered Crops**, published in the 25 April issue of Science, explains that we can use existing data about pesticide and fertilizer usage, water quality, and information about birds, amphibians, and other animals - if we can connect that data to what types of crops the farmers are planting. A news story, UA Scientists and Colleagues Call for More Access to Biotech Crop Data, has been posted by the U of Arizona. The authors conclude their proposition:

The United States has the world’s most extensive history of using GE crops and one of the world’s best continentalscale programs in environmental monitoring. Combining these two sources of information
provides an opportunity to lead the world in identifying agricultural pathways for the future that best serve people and the environment. Providing scientists access to data on GE crop use at the county scale is a small and relatively inexpensive step with enormous scientific and public benefits.

There’s not much to say about this, other than “Bravo!” No matter what the data shows, it will be valuable. For example, I’d like to know if there is a connection between use of Bt crops and numbers of birds in fields. I’d like to know which pesticides are actually used in what amounts on all of the different varieties of Bt and glyphosate resistant crops. With this knowledge, we can decide if we should restrict or encourage use of particular types of farming practices in order to produce the most human benefit with the least environmental impact.

* The authors are from the Environmental Studies Inst at Santa Clara U, the Dept of Entomology at U Arizona, the Dept of Botany and Plant Sciences at UC Riverside, the Dept of Plant Sciences at UC Davis, The Nature Conservancy, the Dept of Biology at Loyola U Chicago, and the Dept of Biology at U Nebraska.

** I don’t know if it’s legal for me to post a link to the pdf here. If you know the rules, please fill me in!

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • Technorati
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook

GM rice may be answer to arsenic contaminated soils

Posted on May 5th, 2008 in farming, food, genetics, news, research by Anastasia

In India and other Southeast Asian countries, large areas of the bedrock naturally contain arsenic (As), which leaches into the groundwater. The FAO estimates that up to 500 million people are at risk of being exposed to dangerous levels of arsenic in both drinking water and in the crops that were irrigated with the groundwater. The problem was investigated by the FAO in Bangladesh in 2006. They found that:

[A]rsenic levels in the grain of different varieties of rice in Bangladesh were as high as 1.8 parts per million, compared to levels of just 0.05 parts per million in Europe and the US. Contamination was even greater in leafy vegetables - in amaranthus and spinach, arsenic content can be double or triple the levels found in rice. For drinking water, WHO recommends a maximum arsenic level of 0.01 parts per million, which indicates that for some people, staple food crops such as rice may be an important source of exposure to arsenic.

Until now, the farmers essentially have three options: leave the fields fallow, plant rice and hope it doesn’t have too much arsenic, or attempt to plant a crop that doesn’t need as much water.

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • Technorati
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook

But, how safe is it? On transgenics, cisgenics, and mutants.

Posted on May 2nd, 2008 in food, genetics, regulation, research by Anastasia

Good news from Africa - “Scientists and crop researchers at Kenya´s Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) developed the new wheat seeds over the past decade. Through a process called ‘mutation plant breeding’, they applied radiation-based techniques to modify crop characteristics and traits.” In 2001, KARI plant breeders released Njoro-BW1, their first mutant wheat variety. It is drought tolerant, moderately resistant to rust (a fungus), has good yield, and good flour quality. “Kenya´s plant breeders soon will release a second mutant wheat variety, code-named DH4, which shares most of the same good qualities of Njoro-BW1.” [Golden Wheat “Greens” Kenya´s Drylands]

It is indeed good news that Kenyan farmers have these lines of wheat with such improvements over unimproved varieties. However, radiation based so-called mutation plant breeding could have unintended changes in the genome. This technique, widely used in both organic and conventional crops, literally bombards the seeds with radiation. The seeds are allowed to germinate, and interesting mutants are used to create new lines. The problem is that multiple mutations can occur in the same seed, and some of those mutations may go undetected.

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • Technorati
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook

Exposed: the great organic myth

Posted on May 2nd, 2008 in Environment, farming, food, nutrition, pesticide by Anastasia

The biggest problem I have with the media is that they never post references. Unfortunately, both writers that I disagree with and those I generally agree with are guilty of this. The Independent article “The great organic myths: Why organic foods are an indulgence the world can’t afford” posted yesterday has the headline: “They’re not healthier or better for the environment – and they’re packed with pesticides. In an age of climate change and shortages, these foods are an indugence [sic] the world can’t afford, argues environmental expert Rob Johnston”.

He makes a lot of good points, but without proof, the points are nothing. I’ll just run through the list pointing out some flaws and gems in the article.

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • Technorati
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook

On rice, water, and wine

Posted on April 29th, 2008 in farming, food, news by Anastasia

The NY Times has had some very good articles on the rice shortages. “A Drought in Australia, a Global Shortage of Rice” has some first hand information about conditions in Australia that are worsening the shortages in Southeast Asia.

Asia has its own problems, including floods and food-unfriendly government policies, as I described in “Rising rice prices not caused by biofuels“. However, Asians have been increasingly dependent on Australian rice, instead planting cash crops for export in their own fields. Droughts and economics in Australia have resulted in decreased rice harvests just when the food was needed most. Worse, limited water rights mean that farmers in Australia have to choose what crop to plant. The price of wine grapes is higher than that of rice, so the farmers did what they had to do.

Sadly, as I’d gleaned from other reports, the shortages doesn’t seem to be anyone’s “fault”, with no one thing to blame. Instead, it’s a mash of mostly unrelated events and conditions that have come together in an unforeseen way to create a terrible result.

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • Technorati
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
Next Page »