Things Are Getting Complicated Out There

So how much is too much genetic modification?

That seems to be the question of the month.

In a move that made me read things twice, it appears as if the pro-GMO world of conventional grain-for-food farming is taking offense at the next step in GMOs - that of corn engineered for industrial purposes, specifically for ethanol production.

And the concerns are the same concerns that organic farmers have against GMOs overall: unintended contamination.

The North American Miller's Union, which represents companies such as ConAgra, General Mills, and Archer Daniels Midland, has come out swinging against Syngenta's recently USDA-approved alpha-amylase corn, not because it is a GMO, and not because it isn't safe, but because if even a small amount Syngenta's corn (as small as one kernel in 10,000 according to NAMU) contaminates the corn intended for food stuffs, it could result in, as the trade publication Seed Today noted:

"Corn chips that crumble in the bag. Cereal that's soggy before you can get it to your mouth." 

Definitely First World problems, but problems nonetheless.

The FDA says Syngenta's corn is safe to eat. But the presence of the enzyme alpha-amylase (which is derived from genes from a micro-organism that lives near heat vents at the bottom of oceans) would cause the corn to degrade when subjected to heat and humidity, thus making foodstuffs unstable. The amylase-enhanced corn is attractive from an ethanol-production standpoint because it would eliminate some of the costs associated with the current methods of breaking down the starch in corn to produce ethanol.

What's interesting to me is that contamination is what organic farmers have been concerned about for years with GMOs. This concern has grown more urgent with the recent USDA approval of GMO alfalfa, which has the potential to spread widely and contaminate organic alfalfa, and thus put the organic meat industry at risk. But what we're hearing from lobbying giants like NAMU is that GMOs that may contaminate organic farms are OK, but GMOs that may contaminate conventional farms are not.

However you feel about GMOs, you have to admit that this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

"We love biotech. We don't question the safety. It's just a question of can we still make the food products we make now," if grain is contaminated, Mary Waters, president of NAMU told Seed Today. 

The Wall Street Journal covers the story here. And here's the New York Times' take.

Stepping back from the squabbles between the GMOs intended for food and those intended for industrial purposes, I don't think the industrial corn is a bad idea from an energy policy perspective. If there was ever a time that highlighted the United State's dependence on foreign oil (well, other than the 1970s) it has been the past decade. The current unrest in the Mideast has caused oil prices to spike again and has pulled back the curtain on some of the unsavory lengths to which the United States is willing to go in order to secure a steady supply of oil. These political concerns, coupled with our ongoing recession and the need to grow jobs, no doubt helped Syngenta on its multi-year quest for USDA approval. And remember, lots of people don't want to actually eat GMOs, American farmers are pros at growing corn, and ethanol is a growing industry despite its downsides of gobbling up, oh, gazillions of gallons of water and its potential for pollution. So, even though corn isn't a terribly efficient grain from which to make ethanol, perhaps growing GMO crops - including corn - for fuel isn't a bad idea (Brazil, an energy-independent country, doesn't think so). But more on the United States' energy policies later.

I just think it's ironic that a group that has been so pro-GMO now wants regulations for the new kids on the scene.

###

Orange Things

I just have to say this: I love Nicholas D. Kristoff. I really do. His efforts to raise awareness of crimes against women and girls worldwide have been heroic. And his overall work to shine a light on areas of inequity and poverty are enough to qualify him for, if not a full saint, then at least someone working his way up the rungs of the sainthood ladder. But his Thanksgiving day column that encouraged the development and use of biofortification of certain crops in developing nations gave me pause.

At first glance, one might wonder what's wrong with breeding crops to incorporate iron, zinc, Vitamin A or other important vitamins and minerals into their edible parts. After all, these substances can save vision and lives. As he noted,

"It may turn out that one of the best ways to save children's lives, or to save women in childbirth, doesn't involved doctors, but rather, high-tech seeds." 

Sounds simple, cheap, and easy, right? At the risk of being all wet-blanket-y about it, I think it sounds neither simple nor cheap and also as if it has great potential for unintended consequences.

There are two avenues of research here - conventionally bred crops produced in the public domain, and genetically modified ones developed and owned by corporations. Developing nutrient-dense crops available to anyone is a noble idea and enabling families in Africa to grow vitamin-packed orange sweet potatoes instead of the typical white sweet potatoes that they always have grown is a great idea. However, once it gets more complicated than that scenario, I have concerns.

For one thing, I have long been uncomfortable in rushing science in the name of helping impoverished countries. After all, the United States and Europe are still grappling with the role genetically-modified crops - of which many biofortified crops would be - can play in feeding their citizens, especially in light of the facts that pests are growing resistant to some of those expensive, herbicide-intensive crops and the long-term implications of ingesting those crops are not fully understood even by those who embrace them.  It also seems like bringing back the buggy whip when you consider that some of the crops that are proposed will require pesticides and herbicides, chemicals whose use citizens in the developed world are trying to minimize, due to the mounting evidence of their health and environmental hazards. So why do we think making ever-more complicated plants and encouraging their use in impoverished areas are good ideas - especially when individuals in developed countries are clamoring for simpler, organic, back-to-basics clean food? Is cast-off technology from the developed world the best we can offer to developing countries?

Some may argue that that imperfect solutions are better than nothing when the stakes are as black and white as survival versus death . There is a grain of truth to that argument, which basically falls under the heading of "don't just sit there, do something." However, we already have a perfect solution - vitamins exist in pill and powder forms and some designer waters are already enhanced with some of those vitamins. The problem is that vitamins are too expensive for many developing countries, and the logistics of getting them to every person on a regular basis can be daunting. However.

For-profit companies do just that.

Let's repeat that sentence.

For-profit companies do just that.

They just don't do it with vitamins.

But they do it with cigarettes. And they do it with soft drinks. It no longer surprises me when I see the cheery red and white of Coca-Cola products in the Amazon basin in Brazil or a kid puffing on a Marlboro in Thailand. It seems when the bottom line is at stake, human ingenuity finds ways to source components of products, assemble those products, and then figure out how to market, deliver, and sell them regardless of the challenges presented by the location. For example, by harnessing local ingenuity and providing a profit incentive, Coca Cola has mastered the logistics of getting its, shall I say,  product-of-questionable-nutritive-value into the most remote reaches of Africa. And I believe one of Coke's products is vitamin-enhanced water.

Therefore, for this particular problem, it may be better to practice what Buddhists know: "Don't just do something, sit there." Just sit there and think. Look around. Take a page from Melinda Gates' play book and learn what we can from what Coca-Cola already does.

One of the reasons I would encourage the public health world to look for a simpler solution is firsthand knowledge of how long it can take to create these complicated plants and then figuring out how much of them individuals would have to ingest in order to attain certain levels of the vitamin. Years ago, I used to manage a series of seminars for the American Cancer Society. These seminars were very high-level. The audiences were top-line national medical and scientific reporters. The presenters were the researchers who push the envelope, like the ones who brought you Gleevac, virtual colonoscopies, and basic knowledge about cancer including oncogenes and suppressor genes. The panel chairpersons were directors of national cancer centers, Nobel laureates, and Mary Lasker Award winners. The seminars were three days of intense science and emerging research.

One presentation in 1996 showcased a scientist from Roswell Park Cancer Institute who presented her research on "Transgenic Plants as a New Vaccine Source." The specific project she was working on was inserting hepatitis B antigens into bananas. Once eaten, the theory was that the antigens would effectively vaccinate the banana eaters against hepatitis B,  a leading cause of liver cancer around the world. This edible vaccine would be especially useful, the scientist postulated, in developing countries, where cost and logistics create obstacles to vaccinating the local population.

Sound familiar?

Fourteen years after that presentation, there is still no banana/hepatitis B vaccine. A quick Google search of "hepatitis vaccine banana" returned 27,000 hits, showing that research is still going strong on this concept. But still no edible vaccine.

I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this. We already have vitamins and vaccines against many diseases. What is being proposed - biofortification of existing plants to enable them to carry vitamins - is expensive research. Then, intensive education programs must be carried out so that individuals in countries that need these plants can learn how to grow, harvest, and cook them. And no one has done the research - asked the individuals who will be expected to grow these plants - if they are interested in changing their social norms to eat orange sweet potatoes instead of the white ones, or golden rice instead of white rice. And, last I checked, these plants are still in development.

So, with all due respect to the researchers and to Mr. Kristoff, I'd rather put my money on creating partnerships between the public health world and Coca-Cola or other global brands to oversee the distribution of vitamins that we already have, instead of investing a lot of money into a more complicated situation. The price seems to be a red herring at some level - after all, individuals seem to have the money to purchase Coke products, as evidenced by Mexico's astonishing 665 per capita ingestion of Coke products in 2009. Or, if you want to go further with this concept, Coca-Cola already makes VitaminWater. Couldn't the public health world work with Coke to develop a VitaminWater to deliver the key vitamins lacking in certain parts of the world?

We already have vitamins. Multi-national corporations have distribution systems and perhaps even products that can be tweaked to provide specific nutrients to children, or pregnant women, or the elderly. What seems simple to me is not the creation of complicated seeds that require costly chemicals and unpredictable weather to grow, but a linkage that would combine the best of the knowledge from the public health world and the infrastructures of big corporations in order to get those vitamins where they can do a lot of good.

PS to Mr. Kristoff. I still think you rock.

###