Thursday, January 22

Would you eat genetically modified food

Our immediate reaction may be to say we would avoid eating GMF based food due to the risk to our food source and possibile undesirable long term side effects.

But it is a difficult question becuase of the complex biology and many conflicting scientific views concerning GMF’s safety or otherwise. Patented GM food also represents a concentration of control and ownership over the global food cycle which similiarily applies to new medical discoveries and drugs. The legal protection afforded new patented discoveries with royalty rewards is usually reasonable enough, however whether or not a revision is pertinent to GM foods and medicines (which universally affect our wellbeing) is an unduly complex matter better suited to a separate future posting.

There are many claimed advantages to GMF; reduced need for fertilizers whose run off results in huge problems of leaching into adjoining lands and river systems, more drought tolerant features which conserve our precious water, crops that are resistant to diseases, improved yields and so forth versus the risks of a reduction in our crop diversity, the risk of possible (as yet unquantifiable scientific data as to why this should happen ) undesirable long term biological changes such as the release of killer viruses or contagion to micro orgasms which might attack us and to which we may not be able to find a cure, the risk that the claimed advantages are overstated and the concentration of an exclusive DNA based complex technology to hold poor countries and farmers to ransom.

What is GMF food?

One contentious point concerns the definition itself and the reluctance in many commentaries to succinctly provide an easily understood definition. What we are talking about is any activity that alters genes, (genetically modified) since genes are units of genetic material which make up a string of DNA which enables or carries the directions for cells to perform a specific function.

A definition

GMF must involve the modification of DNA by man made intervention.

If such a definition is appropriate, and it seems to me it is, then we have been consuming genetically modified food for thousands of years; from the time when homo- sapiens first made the major transition from a society of hunter- gatherers to communities supported by harvested agriculture able to sustain its inhabitants beween seasons. Archeological evidence confirms agricultural communities engaged in a wide variety of genetic engineering; in selective breeding, cross pollination and in taking cuttings for subsequent regeneration of altered plant genealogy, since all plants are capable of a single cell development. They generated many new species which not only improved crop yields but were more suited to the rapidly changing weather patterns following the end of the last Ice age.

The proponents of genetic engineering argue they are continuing this age old tradition by using methods such as naturally occurring soil bacteria as the agent to change plant genealogy and alter its DNA composition for improved outcomes. What is clear however is that this new technology represents a much more rapid alteration of a plants genealogy than what occurred in the past and hence its long term effects remain unknown.

Current GMF procedures use an agent (such as soil bacteria) to infuse the desired gene and marker genes to indicate changes within a plant’s DNA. Proponents of GMH counter the argument about long term unforeseen biological risks to remind us that we have been consuming plant genes for thousands of years for no known ill effects, nor have we suffered from soil bacteria present in the soil or marker genes which are no different to any other gene. Problems have arisen much more to do with the domestication and breeding from wild animals for human food comsumption which exposed us to new viruses and pathogens.

Naturally enough there will not always be general agreement between farmers as to the best way to farm alongside nature. There are the large scale technologically based farming that is more reliant on chemicals versus those in favour of a more bio diversified approach that relies more on nature for its sustainability.

Some farmers are keen on the GMH technology while others are more wary or totally against it since they fear it will contaminate their existing crops. Farmers have already tentatively adopted the latest technology and GMH crops have been grown in over 22 different countries by over 10 million farmers from the early nineties.

In Australia in Victoria the government has recently reversed a long standing ban on the planting of genetically modified canola to allow farmers to adopt this technology.

How long ago did GMF first begin?

The latest scientific research puts the time frame for agriculture at about 10,000 years ago (although some assert the date to be as early as 13,000 years as the world emerged from the 'Ice age' ) when the earliest experiments arose in genetic engineering as farmers created the first maize crop from Mexican wild grass. See

Hence humans for the past 10,000 to 13,000 years or so have practiced this form of gene manipulation to create food combinations that otherwise would never have evolved naturally. Practically all of the cereal crops and fruit we consume today have already been genetically modified in one way or another in the past. In the natural plant world there are an enormous number of compounds that are produced and chemicals to make them attractive or otherwise to bugs. Some are beneficial for humans, some benign and others reach very high degrees of toxicity. Nature uses many different interesting forms of chemical reactions such as ants who have been so engaged in genetic engineering for over 50,000 years. See

Selective breeding of plants is also a form of genetic engineering, e.g., only those plants that have the desired characteristics are chosen for further breeding and so on and until such time as a resistant strain is found. If you wanted to create a corn resistant to a fungus, you plant corn and observe how individual plants react to the fungus, replanting the seeds least effected and so until you have created that strain best resistant to the fungus in question.

It is also true that many new species have been bred in this selective manner to reduce the initial harmful known level of toxicity to acceptable levels so that the new variety can be safely added to the human food choice.

What's the different about modern day GMF processes

In the past the practices involved thousands of new genes being added to existing plant genealogy and so the effects were more of a lottery spread over longer periods until the best results were finally achieved whereas today the technology allows for single rapid gene changes. Hence genetic based laboratory engineering is now more specific as it allows scientists to select a single gene for a single characteristic and transfer that DNA from one organism to another - even between different species. When scientists genetically modify plants they do so by inserting another gene into the plants existing genes. Only a small number of cells will take up the new gene which will be identified by marker genes for subsequent collection. There are many different biotech technologies used to subsequently infuse the genetically modified plant tissue into plants such as by using soil bacterium as the agent.

The plant seeds are then grown to ensure the gene modification remains intact. Sometimes the gene technology works by effectively 'switching off 'a particular gene characteristic such as allowing fruit to ripen more slowly which diminishes its wastage during packing and transportation.


Once you undertake research into this question what emerges are many shades of grey rather than the definitive answers that seem to fiercely divide communities who are either emphatically for or against GMF Food.

I am afraid there is no common methodology when dealing with nature and how to respect and learn from her. At the end of the day it is more to do adaption and contined vigilance than anythng else. Mankind has been attempting to mimic nature from time in memorial and our endeavors in genetic modification are no exception.

Hence it would be a very good outcome if the sensible genetic modification of crops was able to substantially reduce our reliance on both herbicides and pesticides and lead to more nutritious agriculture. The burning question however is whether or not it is injurious to long term health and to the environment. So far no direct link or undesirable health effects are known, albeit recent large scale production only dates back to the period from the early nineties. Certainly it is important we maintain seed banks of existing types and varieties so that in the future larger scale agriculture is not wholly dependant upon a handful of varieties.

It seems sensible then to proceed slowly and observe the outcomes of GNF crops for any unforeseen heath outcomes.

Food is our source of security and constant vigilance is required over its safety and in understanding through food labeling what we are consuming.
Currently there is a global treaty, called the BioSafety Protocol which regulates any trade in genetically modified food. The EU requires all GMF foods to be labeled, as apposed to the US which does not require transparent labeling of GMF foods.

I think as there are unanwered questions regarding the safety and risks associated with GMF foods, the public should be given the freedom of choice about what they are eating and hence all GMO products should be appropriately labeled. The European Union legislation provides the best approach in the form of labeling -the presence of gene-modified elements must be stated on food packaging if any ingredient contains more than 0.9 per cent of gene-modified components.

The national Academies Press in their comprehensive report indicate some concerns over the results of animal testing but I agree with the overall conclusion of this independent research institution as stated:

Genetic engineering is one of the newer technologies available to produce desirable traits in plants and animals used for food, but it poses no unique health risks that cannot also arise from conventional breeding and other genetic alteration methods. Any of those methods could result in unintended changes in the composition of the food.

The report concludes that all altered foods should be assessed on a case-by-case basis before they are sold to the public to determine whether unintended changes in the composition of the food could adversely affect human health. Surveillance after a food is on the market might also be needed in some cases
. See for the full report.

Wednesday, January 14

Treat the patient

What has happened to the US bailout package? Ask top Senate Democrat majority leader Harry Reid who said on Tuesday the Senate was likely to approve the $US350 billion package this week as President-elect Barack Obama asked outgoing President George W. Bush to request lawmakers to unlock the second half of the bailout package approved last October. But many are echoing their concern about where the money is going “What we really need is something with more details so that we can truly make those decisions about how the money is gonna be spent," said Democratic senator Ben Nelson who echoed general concern.

But you may recall I agreed with what was originally planned under U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s troubled Asset Relief Program, or that the $700 billion rescue package would be used to repurchase the toxic debt securities held by institutions which were causing the underlying credit crunch and resulting in stalled lending. The amount of toxic debt removed would have been 4/5 times the original value, since the securities to be disposed of through the reverse auction system would have been at a fraction of their original value. In the longer term there was good chance the funds would be fully recovered when the securities were finally liquidated or sold and hence the cost to the taxpayer could be zero. But instead of proceeding on that basis funds were channeled into direct type bulk payments to recapitalize banks and rescue companies including American International Group Inc and Citigroup.

Yet the continued barrier to private investment in financial institutions remains the very large quantity of these toxic assets which remain in the Balance Sheets of the major institutions despite write offs amounting to nearly a trillion dollars. Until this cancer is finally removed the patient will continue to be in a dire position. I think there is real risk the new stimulus package to be approved by incoming president –elect Barrack Obama will be far less effective unless the financial system is itself cleared of the mess with accompanying adequate regulatory control that ensures less reckless risk taking in the future.

Monday, January 5

Old bush track

I hear the crunch of fine gravel underfoot
Fine dust baked along a rivers bush track
Shaded curtains of yellow tree spray
Reflected in eddies and fast currents display

In the noonday stillness, hear the bush rhyme
Resounding chords of the lost dreaming time
When the sky was black and rains never stopped
Until they washed away that old bush track

Hunters and gatherers remembered the flood
No longer have camps by the rivers in the scrub
Those tribes danced to the tune of a hunt
No longer, no more, spear and club now defunct
Posted by Picasa