England’s plan for GM trees, and the possible ramifications

Another one of our weekly guest posts from Jonathan Javitt:

A group of researchers from the University of Southampton are hoping to establish a settlement of genetically modified poplar trees on land owned by the Forestry Commission as part of a research project into biofuels. Sounds good on its face – modified trees that may help us solve some of our oil dependency problems. But it’s not that easy. The truth is, these trees would present a whole other set of problems.

Clare Oxborrow, A campaigner for the eco-friendly organization, Friends of the Earth, explains the potential problems: “Our concerns with GM trees are even more serious than crops because trees are very long-lived. They are inherently geared up for spreading seeds and pollen because of the way they reproduce. There’s a huge potential for cross-pollination. It could have a really negative impact and cause widespread ecological damage.”

The proposed plantation would be the first attempt to cultivate genetically modified trees in Britain since 1999, when activists destroyed 115 plants. Those particular trees were super-trees – they had been modified to grow at four times the rate of a normal tree. That means they used more oxygen, more resources(what resources?), and could reproduce and pollinate faster. Campaigners have said that they will fight the new, similar plan amid warnings that allowing the move to go ahead would be “an unknown and worrying risk” for Britain’s ecosystems.

Meanwhile, eco-organizations are cautioning that the government should think carefully before giving the project the go-ahead. As I talk about in Capitol Reflections - and as with any scheme involving genetic modification - there is no doubt much more than meets the eye, and many serious issues to consider, on both sides of the argument. True, my book is fiction but many of the debates and issues raised in it are things that are happening on the forefront of the genetically modified foods movement. The American people as a whole need to be made more aware of this movement as we address issues like the one mentioned above.

Jonathan Javitt is a physician and scientist who has served as a senior White House health adviser in the past three presidential administrations. He currently serves as Senior Fellow in the National Security Health Policy Center. Visit his site (capitolreflections.com) and his first book, Capitol Reflections is on sale on Amazon.com.

BioBeer -- It Doesn't Get Any Better Than This...

Along the lines of 'Better Living Through Genetic Manipulation', scientists at Rice University have created a beer that could enhance your chances at longevity:

"BioBeer, as it's called, has three genes spliced into special brewer's yeast that produce resveratrol, the chemical in red wine that is thought to protect against diabetes, cancer, Alzheimer's and other age-related conditions."

Full article accessible here in Discovery news.

I wanna know, though, how does it taste? Would you drink this?

Treacherous Kisses?

Our weekly guest post from Jonathan Javitt, author of Capitol Reflections:

Genetically modified (GM) beet sugar is generally used to make Hershey's Kisses – but that will no longer be the case in Brazil. The company recently announced it won't use GM beet sugar in its Brazilian-made products, but Hershey has not made any such promises for its US products.

In light of this, a number of consumer watch-dog groups in the US are urging people to take action; several years ago, Hershey told U.S. consumers it would not use genetically engineered sugar. But now genetically modified sugar beets are being planted commercially in the US and Hershey is utilizing sugar made from these plants for their hugely popular “Kisses” candy.

Additionally, the nation's largest sugar manufacturer, Crystal Sugar (from whom Hershey buys its sugar), said in the past that they would not be using GM sugar beets and indicated that herbicide-resistant varieties developed using biotechnology would not “be sold, given away, distributed, or planted.” But it doesn't look like that promise has been kept.

The New York Times reported last year in an article, “Round Two for Biotech Beets”that the sugar manufacturer abandoned its promise not to use genetically-modified sugar because public resistance to GM foods seems to have faded. Crystal Sugar and others now support the cultivation of GM beets because it will increase yields. According this article, beet sugar is unlike many GM foods in that the sugar molecule in GM beets is identical to the sugar molecule made by non-GM beets. Sugar, as a pure, crystalline substance contains no genetically modified strands of DNA or proteins.

GM beets are produced by Monsanto, which is a concern to many consumer groups – and agriculture activists - because of perceived dangers of Monsanto’s pesticide resistant technology and the aggressive marketing to farmers who don't use their products. The GM beets are called Roundup Ready Beets because their DNA has been altered to survive applications of Roundup weed-killer.

Consumer groups are concerned about the introduction of GM foods for human consumption in the US because there are no clear requirements for pre-market safety testing. The nation’s food safety laws were written before GM foods were conceived and although those laws focus on proving the safety of food additives and adulterated foods, genetic modification is considered neither an additive nor an adulterant.

While these issues are debated, still others are worried about Monsanto's central role in our food supply. As I mention in my book, altering the food supply could potentially play a big role – and cause big problems – in our society. In the “real world,” this is easy to see - increasing use of GM seed and food gives Monsanto – a GMO giant - a great deal of control over the production of food, and only a handful of corporations like Monsanto are involved in agricultural biotechnology.

British GMO Protests Highlight Global Divide

Our weekly guest post by Jonathan Javitt, author of Capitol Reflections:

In July, Malawi became the second African country to approve biotech crops, and as food prices continue to rise, this is a trend that will doubtless be continuing. More countries are turning to genetically modified crops for agricultural assistance.

In Britain, opposition to these types of crops is quite prevalent - nearly all of the 54 U.K. pesticide-resistant crop trials attempted in the past eight years have been attacked, according to media reports. Protesters are destroying the experimental crops to prevent biotechnology companies from spreading genetically modified organisms (GMOs) more widely in Europe and the developing world.

Thanks to this bio-vandalism, research of GMOs has been forced to come to a near-halt. European Union legislation requires research groups and facilities to let the public know the location of the trials, making it easier for opponents to locate the research sites.

GMO protests go beyond the US and the UK - 200 South Koreans protested GM crops in May, and 300 Brazilian activists attacked a farm owned by global agribusiness company Monsanto, a developer of biotechnology products, in March.

But are people getting as carried away as it might sound? One analyst believes extreme protests are overemphasized by the media, in part due to efforts by the biotech industry to discredit the opposition.

In my novel, Capitol Reflections, I note that many people are concerned that new GM techniques are developing so rapidly that there isn't an extensive enough screening process to weed out potential hazards before products hit the market. They're concerned that long-term assessments of environmental and health effects are lagging behind discoveries. This could mean – as is the case with genetically modified coffee in the book – that products are introduced to the market that appear to be beneficial, but can end up having unforeseen detrimental effects.

This Little Piggy Went to Market (or Not?)

We're pleased to have a guest post today by Jonathan Javitt, author of Capitol Reflections, who wrote this for the Women's Bioethics Blog:

Imagine a cleaner pig. Thanks to researchers at the University of Guelph in Ontario, you don't have to imagine – they've engineered them. It has nothing to do with their appearance – the look just like any other pig – but the difference can be found in their genetic makeup, specifically in their “cleaner” manure.

Your typical pig doesn't have the capacity to break down phytate - found in much of the food that pigs eat – thus going undigested, ending up in their manure and subsequently, in other places as well. It can get into the water supply, leading to algae growth, and it can get into the air – especially when a large number of pigs live together on ranches. In short it can cause real environmental problems.

In hopes of ending these problems, study leader Cecil Forsberg and colleagues genetically engineered pigs, dubbed Enviropigs, that can digest more phosphorus.

So how is it done? According to the study, “by introducing a bacterial gene for the enzyme phytase into Enviropigs’ genome, the pigs secrete the enzyme in their saliva and expel up to 60 percent less phosphorus in their manure than their non-transgenic counterparts.” These cleaner, environmentally-friendly pigs are just one genetically engineered animal living in experimental labs in North America. Others include fast-growing salmon, disease-resistant cows, and goats that produce antibacterial milk. All of them, right now, are awaiting FDA approval.

In my novel, Capitol Reflections, I talk about the complexities of FDA approval for modified foods – or animals – and the problems that arise because sometimes there aren't enough checks and balances in place (since genetically modified foods is based on relatively new science.) Those opposed to genetically modified organisms (GMO) worry that there isn’t enough information about them yet to safely bring them to market.

It's easy to see both sides of the argument. Items that are genetically modified typically serve a purpose for the “greater good” - faster growing grains for countries afflicted with famine, fish that would help end over-fishing, and of course, pigs that don't pollute – but is that a reason to give them fast track approval and open them up for consumption? Do people really know what could unfold if this type of technology is mismanaged or mis-applied?

With a heated political season upon us, it's interesting to consider the role of policies and politicians in the GMO debate.

Jonathan Javitt (capitolreflections.com) is the author of Capitol Reflections and a Washington insider, physician and scientist who has served as a senior White House health advisor in the past three presidential administrations. His book is available on Amazon.com at this link.

Top 10 New GMOs for 2007

From Wired Science News, a countdown of the top 10 organisms that didn't exist on Dec. 31, 2006.

1. Ashera GD hypoallergenic cat (although there seems to be some questions as to whether these really have been created -- see this link.)

2. Butanol-producing E. coli

3. Artful fluorescent tadpoles

4. Insulin-producing lettuce

5. Super CO2-absorbing trees

6. Rapid vaccine-making button mushrooms (funded by DARPA)

7. Glow-in-the-dark cats

8. Cancer-fighting Clostridium bacteria

9. Schizophrenic mice

10. Yeast with poison-sensing rat genes

For the full article, click here.

Yeah, but does it taste like chicken?

Tissue Engineering, which holds the promises for solving the ethical dilemmas of embryonic stem cell research and organ donation, may now also provide a solution to the ethical dilemma of animal slaughter -- humane mass production of meat reared not on the farm, but in the laboratory. University of Maryland researchers explain that, theoretically, enough meat to supply the world, and in a way that's better for the environment and human health (not to mention the animal's health!). Now that's progress!