Genetic Maize - Navigating the maze of GMOs

University of Calgary archaeologists found corn starch residues in ancient pottery shards. “Their discovery shows the spread of maize out of Mexico more than 9,000 years ago occurred much faster than previously believed and provides evidence that corn was likely a vital food crop for villages in tropical Ecuador at least 5,000 years ago (U of C website, EurekAlert).” As described in the paper “Directly dated starch residues document early formative maize (Zea mays L.) in tropical Ecuador”, residues of maize with both soft and hard endosperm were found on cooking pots and grinding tools, indicating that both types were grown by the people there.

Importantly, although we do not deny that maize played a significant role in Andean ceremonial life, our results show that it was indeed consumed as food as part of a diverse subsistence system. Our results indicate that a greater percentage of hard endosperm versus soft endosperm maize was cooked in the pots analyzed from Loma Alta. The higher percentage of soft endosperm maize present on the grinding stones may indicate extensive milling of soft endosperm maize to produce flour, resulting in a higher recovery rate from those artifacts. Other starches identified in the ceramic residues show that maize was one of a complex of crops exploited [including manioc, arrowroot, chili peppers, and jackbeans].

In other words, the evidence shows that early Ecuadoreans started using the traditional ingredients of Central American cooking from a very early date. The authors of this paper remind us that “There are dietary reasons why maize, beans, and chili peppers would be cooked together. Whereas maize is deficient in the essential amino acids lysine and tryptophan, and in niacin, legumes contain these essential dietary components and the consumption of maize and beans together complement each other and are nutritionally complete; chili peppers are high in vitamin C, which increases the absorption of iron.” The evidence also shows that the Ecuadoreans had been farming crops such as squash and beans well before the arrival of maize.  To me, this shows that these people were willing to adopt new farming strategies, even if they had not seen them before.

The residues also show that the people were cooking in very sophisticated ways, such as “the addition of lime (calcium hydroxide) Ca(OH)2, lye (sodium hydroxide) NaOH, or wood ash (potassium hydroxide) KOH” to “increase the temperature at which starches gelatinize, as does the addition of salts and/or sugars to the water.” This is known as alkali or alkaline cooking, and is a good way to improve the amount of bioavaliable iron in maize tortillas. Lactic acid works too, as described by Amy Proulx in her interesting paper “Fermentation and Lactic Acid Addition Enhance Iron Bioavailability of Maize”.

It so amazing that these people knew what were the best ways to obtain nutrients from their available plant foods over 5000 years ago! We might all be better off if we took their advice.

• Leave a comment... (0)

Reason magazine has always had rational articles on technology, including genetic engineering. Their commenters are also surprisingly lucid, understanding that technology can be used to help people live better lives while also protecting the world around us. A recent article titled “Demon Seed: How fear of life-saving technology swept through Africa” discusses an new book, “Starved for Science: How Biotechnology Is Being Kept Out of Africa” with author Robert Paarlberg.

He doesn’t say it overtly, but in his words I hear that we need a compromise. People in the US and Europe want a greater personal connection to their food, as evidenced by the organic and local food movements. This is certainly not a bad thing, but we can not reject all technology. Rejection of all technology would mean a return to a type of civilization that few Americans or Europeans would like - one where most people must spend the majority of their time producing their own food.

Genetic engineering is a solution for a lot of problems in agriculture. Of course it isn’t the solution, but there is no legitimate reason to reject it. Even if we in affluent societies can justify the rejection of technology in agriculture, we have no right to force our opinions on people in societies that we can barely understand.

In the article, Paarlberg says that corporations have no monetary incentive to develop seed for subsistence farmers, so we need to use public and philanthropic money to develop new genetically engineered crops. He ends on a positive note:

Just last week in Nairobi the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and African Agricultural Technology Foundation announced that they would be going forward with the drought-tolerant maize project that I describe in chapter 5 of my book. I’m very pleased that the Gates Foundation has seen the opportunity that this new technology provides. It would be too bad if drought tolerant corn were being grown in Iowa in 2010 and not available to the farmer who really needed it in Africa.

• Leave a comment... (2)

Researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison report that “organic forage crops yielded as much or more dry matter as their conventional counterparts with quality sufficient to produce as much milk as the conventional systems; and organic grain crops: corn, soybean, and winter wheat produced 90% as well as their conventionally managed counterparts”. In their paper, “Organic and Conventional Production Systems in the Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Systems Trials: I. Productivity 1990–2002″, the researchers point out that the 90% is an average. In 34% of site-years, mechanical weed control methods were not successful, resulting in only 74% yield compared to conventional. In the remaining 66% of site-years, yields were 99% of conventional. Producing as much or more with fewer inputs is definitely the right direction in a world where inputs are becoming more and more expensive. The full paper is available for free viewing until 19 April 08 at the Agronomy Journal.

A less positive note can be found when we consider how unpredictable agriculture can be, with insects, weather, and fungi just to name a few. University of Illinois researchers found that high CO2 levels cause plants to loose their ability to defend themselves against herbivorous beetles. This could become a serious problem, considering that CO2 levels have been steadily rising. Climate change is already causing huge fluctuations in weather patterns, including droughts, freezes, and floods. A destructive wheat fungus has recently spread from Africa into the Middle East and Asia…

Is it realistic to expect organic methods to keep up with all of these things and more? Is it realistic to expect traditional plant breeding to bring us the solutions quickly enough to prevent monetary loss or worse? I just don’t think so. However, I don’t think we should totally abandon organic, either. I’ve long been a proponent of a new type of farming that intelligently blends traditional / low-input / organic methods with modern technology to achieve the very best possible crops for farmers, consumers, and the environment. It turns out that I’m not the only one who thinks so!

Dr. Pamela Ronald of UC Davis is the co-author of the upcoming Tomorrow’s Table: Organic Farming, Genetics, and the Future of Food, with her husband Raoul Adamchak. Their bios from Oxford University Press:

Pamela C. Ronald is a Professor in the Department of Plant Pathology at the University of California, Davis. Her laboratory has genetically engineered rice for resistance to diseases and flooding. Her work has been published in Science, Nature… She is an elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Raoul Adamchak has grown organic crops for twenty years, part of the time as a partner in Full Belly Farm, a private 150-acre organic vegetable farm. He has inspected over one hundred organic farms as an inspector for California Certified Organic Farmers (CCOF) and served as a member and President of CCOF’s Board of Directors…

Dr. Ronald shares her thoughts on the possible union of organic and genetic engineering in The New Organic In the Boston Globe. She writes: “To meet the appetites of the world’s population without drastically hurting the environment requires a visionary new approach: combining genetic engineering and organic farming.” My favorite paragraph is towards the end of the article:

Pitting genetic engineering and organic farming against each other only prevents the transformative changes needed on our farms. There seems to be a communication gap between organic and conventional farmers and between consumers and scientists. The stakes are high in closing that gap. Without good science and good farming, we cannot even begin to dream about establishing an ecologically balanced, biologically based system of farming and ensuring food security.

I wholeheartedly agree that communication between scientists and consumers needs to be improved. This is why I blog. This is why I am in the process of writing up some of my lab protocols to be posted on OpenWetWare. This is why I make an effort to comment on articles involving genetic engineering on sites like Wired and Grist. I want people to know that I’m here. I am a scientist, I am reasonable, and I am a good person.

Dr. Ronald is also a good person. The Sacramento Bee tells about her efforts to use genes from native rices in Mali to improve agriculture for poor farmers there. The wide reaching series, “Seeds of Doubt“, doesn’t contain any science, but does provide a window into patent issues and consumer confusion for those who know little about the issue of GMOs. It also provides a few glimpses into Dr. Ronald’s private life and her personal ethics.

Like Dr. Ronald and her husband, I beleive that the two types of scientists and farmers (sustainable agriculture and genetic engineers) need to communicate and work together. This is why I attend ISU’s Sustainable Agriculture Colloquium whenever my courseload allows. I’m even considering a Sus Ag Graduate Minor, depending on how it affects my genetics coursework and research. The partnership can only happen if every scientist and every person on each side of the issue works to share and understand each other. I’m willing to take steps. Are you?

The future of agruculture could be bright or dark. It all depends on how we choose to act.

Thanks to Ethicurian for bringing the article The New Organic to my attention. I’ll never know how they manage to cover so many sources!

Photo credit: Christian L. via Flickr.

• Leave a comment... (6)

In a recent post, I discussed how Amflora potatoes are harmless, and could help industry produce starch using less energy and water. Unfortunately, approval for the potatoes was denied on March 12 by the European Commission, even though all applicable regulatory agencies have declared it to be safe. According to GMO Compass:

The Amflora potato was developed by BASF and an application for its approval for cultivation was submitted in 2003. Subsequently, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) conducted a scientific safety assessment. Upon the conclusion of tests in 2005, the EFSA declared the Amflora line to be identical to conventional potatoes with regard to its effect on the environment.

On the basis of this declaration, the EU Commission recommended the approval of Amflora for cultivation within the Union. However, this recommendation was unable in 2007 to find support from a qualified majority of ministerial representatives of Member States in the European Council. As foreseen by EU law, ultimate responsibility for approval then was conferred to the Commission. This decision now has been delayed.

The most frustrating part of this non-decision is that no specific issues are listed. For example, if the Comission was concerned that the antibiotic resistance genes in the potato would spread, they should specifically ask BASF and other companies to only submit for approval plants that use other types of markers. The same goes for groups like FoE. It would be a lot easier for everyone if they made an effort to learn the science and made educated recommendations on what they do and do not want. Simply rejecting any form of genetic engineering only betrays their ignorance and their unwillingness to accept new technologies. No compromise will be possible without this effort to understand all sides of the issues.

• Leave a comment... (0)

Twitter has a feature that allows you to watch certain keywords. I like to keep my finger on the pulse of the GMO debate, so I follow “GMO”. This one made me laugh out loud:

heard best excuse ever for turning down a sysadmin job offer: moving to germany because whole foods is using GMO in their food.

Surely, moving to another continent is a logical response!

PS: I have about 10 news stories to get to - hopefully this weekend.

• Leave a comment... (0)