What environmental groups don't understand about biotech

It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.

- Charles Darwin

On May 27, the "Take the Flour Back" environmentalist group plans to take "mass action" in efforts to remove more than $1 million worth of research in biotechnology. Their purpose, according to their website, is one of "mass decontamination" of what they see is a threat to farmers, the food supply, health of consumers, and biodiversity. What this protest group doesn't understand is that it's exactly this kind of research that they, as environmentalists, should be placing on a pedestal.

In an interview with Karl Haro von Mogel, Rothamsted's biologist Dr. Gia Aradottir explains the details of the experiments the protest group wants to uproot at Rothamsted Research Station in Harpenden, England: The research is on a variety of wheat that is genetically engineered to emit aphid alarm pheromone (E)-β-farnesene (EBF); in other words, the scientists are testing plants that can produce their own non-toxic aphid repellent, using pheromones. An aphid-resistant wheat variety could lead to less use of pesticides overall, less pesticide runoff, less effects on beneficial plants and insects in the surrounding environment, less possibility of pesticide resistance.

This is precisely the kind of research that could help lead to the "marriage" of organic agriculture (the kind that is pesticide-free) and genetic engineering called for by plant geneticists such as Pamela Ronald (see her most recent blog post "Thinking Beyond Organic"). It's also the kind of research that former AAAS president Nina Fedoroff has  said (see my prior post here) will help prevent an eventual Malthusian crisis in combination with severe loss of biodiversity.

Contrary to the beliefs of the "Take the Flour Back" group, the research could mean a better crop for farmers, more dependable wheat production for the food supply, and an ultimately greater protection of biodiversity. EBF and similar pheromones are also already emitted by several other plant species, so there should be no indication of it being a potential health hazard.

However, despite pleas of reason from Rothamsted for the group to not destroy years of expensive research, the anti-GM group insists that the aphid-resistant wheat is still a danger. They point to findings from another environmental group, Friends of Earth International, that GM crops have led to increased amounts of herbicides and pesticides, not less. They also harp on the idea that the synthesized gene bears more resemblance to one found in a "cow" versus a "plant" -- an obvious scare tactic -- and they question Rothamsted's assertion that their publicly funded results won't be sold off to a agrochemical companies.

Without a doubt, in the last few weeks, biotechnology-proponents have been following this story (along with the Kashi "controversy") with disbelief. The distrust the general public has toward genetically engineered foods has reached new levels. That is unfortunate, because biotechnology is the most promising technology we have for protecting the environment in our ever-changing, ever-more-populated, world. With real threats of arable land and water scarcity, loss of biodiversity, disease-resistance, and global warming all looming over us, environmentalists should welcome biotechnology as one of our most important technologies for countering the forces of change.

Perhaps what these protesters and the general public need is a serious understanding of the history of agriculture and why biotechnology is critical for the future. For instance, genetic manipulation has gone on for thousands of years in plant breeding. And, in the last 50 years or so, mutations have been induced through technologies such as thermal neutron radiation. New methods of genetic modification and gene transfer should be considered simply as extensions of previous technologies.

Rothamsted has the right idea, calling for an open discussion, in hopes of educating the public about the potential benefits of biotechnology. Let's hope it's enough to save their research from destruction! Learn more at Sense about Science.

Update Oct 3, 2012: Good news - The GM wheat trial has been successfully harvested! That's despite  the protest group and significant damage following a break-in. I received the following message today via email because I signed the "don't destroy research" petition at Sense about Science:

Dear Petition Signatories 

The GM wheat trial crop at Rothamsted Research has been harvested. It is far too early to talk about results yet, but the team at Rothamsted wanted to let you know about the harvest and to pass on their thanks. The protest group who said they were going to destroy the crop earlier in the summer did not have enough support to carry out their threat; this was because of you. 

Professor John Pickett said: "The team and I were overwhelmed by all the messages of support we received from the petition signatories. You all have a significant role to play in ensuring this important, independent scientific study continues to progress so we can better understand whether this technology could help us deliver more environmentally sustainable food production in the future. We are only half way through our experiment and to ensure we get robust scientific results we need to continue the experiment next year and then get the data thoroughly analysed and independently peer reviewed for all to see. After all the great work done by Sense about Science this year, we hope next year's phase will pass without the threat to damage it." 

Síle Lane, Sense About Science said: "We were thrilled by the support for the researchers. We are still reading through the comments 6060 people left on the petition. This is ongoing research so it's good for the scientists to know there's so much support for them from so many people. The questions you sent us have been a great way to clarify the research and Frances Downey is going to continue this. If you have further questions get in touch with her at fdowney@senseaboutscience.org.” 

We have gathered some of the comments of support for the researchers from petition signatories, politicians and high profile supporters here (PDF)http://www.senseaboutscience.org/data/files/Dont_destroy_research/Dont_destroy_research_public_support_June_2012.pdf 

The questions researchers worked hard to answer are herehttp://www.senseaboutscience.org/pages/plant-science-qa.html 

There’s a time line of the summer's events, including Rothamsted's offer to debate with Take the Flour Back before the protest, here:http://www.rothamsted.ac.uk/Content.php?Section=AphidWheat&Page=Protest 

Protestor Hector Christie was ordered to pay £3,850 in compensation to Rothamsted Research in August after breaking onto the site and causing property damage. He failed to disrupt the experiment: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19373852   

If you would like to get general news from Sense About Science you can sign up for our newsletter here http://www.senseaboutscience.org/pages/support-us.html and keep up to date with the fantastic work of the researchers at Rothamsted on their websitehttp://www.rothamsted.ac.uk/

Thank you again for your support. 

The future of nutrition research

There is little question that nutrition provides the foundation of health and wellbeing and that research into better nutrition is central to enabling a population live healthier, more productive, and longer lives.

With this perspective in mind, the American Society for Nutrition assembled a working group of leading nutrition thought leaders to identify a list of nutritional research areas that required greater or further analysis and prioritization.

In a symposium entitled "The Future of Nutrition Research" on Tuesday at Experimental Biology 2012 (#EB2012), these thought leaders outlined what was generally agreed as the six areas of nutrition research that deserved attention.
The areas of the research comprised of the following:

1. Understand variability in responses to diet and food—a broad area that includes research in epigenetics, proteomics, and metabolomics.
2. Understand the nutritional impact on healthy growth, development, and reproduction
3. The role of nutrition in health maintenance—with emphasis in determining how nutrition and fitness play into optimal health of the body (immune, cognitive, skeletal, and muscular function) over a lifespan.
4. The role of nutrition in medical management—how nutritional factors influence disease and response to therapy.
5. Nutrition-related behaviors—identifying how food choices can affect or become imprinted on the brain.
6. Understanding the food supply environment—investigating the “farm to fork” influence on diet and physical activity and how biotech and nanotech can play a role.

The group also identified five tools in need of further development of which would be required to overcome barriers of nutrition research. The following tools, they said, would enhance the efficiency of research in each of the six areas listed above.

1. Databases—for collection and assessment of food intake data.
2. Biomarkers—needed to improve tracking and monitoring of food intake and response to treatments.
3. Omics—biomarkers that provide data on how genes interact with nutrients, their metabolites, and proteins.
4. Bioinformatics—application of computer science in biology and medicine.
5. Cost-benefit analysis—tools to calculate and compare costs of interventions.

The multi-disciplinary working group included John Milner, of the National Cancer Institute, Dennis Bier of Children’s Nutrition Research Center, Houston, Catherine Ross of Penn State University, Z. Li of University of California, Los Angeles, David Klurfeld, of USDA, J Mein of Monsanto, and Pat Stover of Cornell University. Each of the individuals of the group presented about their respective areas.

A way forward: Meeting vitamin and mineral needs globally

Lindsay Allen

Efforts to curb or eliminate vitamin and mineral deficiencies globally have existed for almost a century, although there are now still as many questions if not more than ever before about what the next steps should be. There are seldom solutions that are simple to guide public policy internationally and there remain large challenges when it comes to making informed recommendations. 

Lindsay Allen, Ph.D., R.D, who is the 2012-2013 recipient of the E. V. McCollum International Lectureship in Nutrition, discussed a new way forward to improve the health of infants, children, and pregnant women internationally on April 22 at the McCollum Lecture organized by the American Society for Nutrition at Experimental Biology 2012 in San Diego. She currently serves as the Center Director of the USDA, ARS Western Human Nutrition Research Center. 

She discussed the challenges faced in global research and policy on micronutrient deficiencies as well as new methodologies on the horizon to improve research. She also called for the bringing together of more nutritional biology expertise—such that was present at the meeting—to assist in overcoming the difficulties in nutritional research such as ethical considerations when performing intervention studies in pregnant women and children.

In her presentation, Allen pointed out that modern technologies could assist in surmounting the unreasoned differences in recommendations of micronutrient intake such as that of iron or folic acid from one age to another either upwards or downwards. For example, there are measurements now available that can make use of samples of saliva, hair, or urine.

"I think that the methods we have been using like growth of babies, biochemical markers in blood are just not picking up changes in metabolism and immune function," she said. "You have these special tools to do genomics, metabolomics, and looking at gut microbiota. If we can draw in the expertise and ideas as well of people in the society and put all those different things in context of the studies we have ongoing, then we can really understand what’s happening when we give micronutrients to people."

She added, "The way forward is to bring that kind of expertise into the kind of rigorous field work that people are doing in developing countries.”

Another next step proposed by Allen is to encourage more basic nutritional science to be done in the United States of which could have an impact on health across the globe. For example, she said, there is more research needed in how micronutrients are absorbed in the diet and how micronutrients interact with each other. 

Moreover, Allen noted, there exists a greater need for research in methods development. For example, the development isotope analysis could bring new tools for use in international micronutrient deficiency research.

Former E.V. McCollum lecturer Andrew Prentice, Ph.D., who introduced and closed the lecture, called Allen’s presentation a "comprehensive tour de force" of micronutrient research and policy. He said Allen proposals presented a more agnostic approach to micronutrient research versus having various camps, such as the zinc promotional camp or iron or vitamin A. The key is to ask questions more intelligently.

"It would be so lovely if we could come up with very simple solutions and say we know that this is the policy process that we should undertake. It’s just a matter of implementing it," Prentice said. "In one or two cases that is true. Vitamin A supplementation of children has very clear-cut benefits. But with most of the other micronutrients we really don't know what to do, in whom to do it, at what levels to do it, and what would be the benefits."

Read more about Allen's talk in Nutrition Notes Daily, a publication circulated by the American Society for Nutrition.

Phosphorus and food's future

James Elser, Ph.D.

What can we do about phosphorus and food's future?

The 15th element in the periodic table is not something that comes to mind for most people when they reflect on causes of global food crises of the past. Overpopulation, climate change, crop disease, and soil erosion are more likely to deemed as the instigators of disaster scenarios.

However, phosphorus is essential for every living thing on this planet and, according to estimates, the world's phosphorous -- needed for fertilizing plants -- will peak within half a century.

It turns out there's so much biological demand for phosphorus that it's a limiting factor for life on this planet. The critical nature of phosphorus for the future of crops was well emphasized when Franklin Deleanor Roosevelt was president, but lately government leadership has yet to bring more awareness to the problem of dwindling supplies.

James Elser, Ph.D., hopes that will change.

"That's my dream, that President Obama will say the word 'phosphorus.'" he said, jokingly (or maybe not so much).

Elser, who as a child once wished to become a priest, is on a lifelong journey to save humankind from an entirely different, serious calamity: soaring food prices and widespread world hunger because of phosphorus unavailability.


As an ASU life sciences professor, he studies and teaches "biological stoichiometry," a theory that has it that the existence of living systems depends upon the balance of multiple chemical elements (such as carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus) that make up ecology and evolutionary dynamics.

On Sunday, July 10, Elser presented on "Phosphorus, Food, and Our Future," for the Humanist Society of Greater Phoenix in Mesa, Ariz.

Most people might think of phosphorus as a mineral needed in minor amounts daily – along with calcium – to keep their bones healthy and strong. It's needed nutritionally to hold your jeans up, but that’s not all.

"The running joke is that phosphorus holds your genes up. It holds DNA together, every base pair," Elser said. "Ribosomes, needed to make proteins, are also very rich in phosphorus."

The story of phosphorus, he explains, actually begins earlier, in the stars where phosphorus was made, then appears in plants that become our food and eventually as a major element in our own DNA and bones.

What’s the source of all the phosphorus we now eat?

Rewind back to the 60s, one of the key features of the "green revolution" – along with high-yield crops and improved irrigation – was creation of phosphorus- and nitrogen-rich fertilizer. The source of the phosphorus: mines.

Mining phosphorus has sustained us for some time, but we're running out. Whatever phosphorus available is "all we’re going to get," Elser said, and efforts to make it synthetically as in the stars have failed.

The problem lies in the fact that geological sources of phosphorus are not widely distributed. They are primarily found in sedimentary remains. In other words, they are a fossil resource and not renewable.

"We don't have 20 million years to wait for [dinosaurs to die off again and give us more phosphorus], do we?" Elser said.

Most of the phosphorus we obtain for food in the U.S. comes from a mine near Tampa, Florida and production isn't meeting internal demand.

In the future, it's likely we'll import most of our phosphorus from Morocco. The country was recently found to contain the greatest reserves of phosphorus. Morocco has enough a reserve to export its "white gold" (as Bloomberg BusinessWeek once called it) for the next 300 to 400 years bringing a lot of promise to the country’s future.

What it will cost to other countries, however, may be bad news in times of global food insecurity for a rising global population that will reach near 11 billion people by 2050. Take particular countries such as China, which use up to 39 percent of the world's phosphorus, who will need to depend on Morocco's export.

"Those people are going to need to eat and make bones," Elser said. "And as they become more affluent, they’ll want to add more meat to their diets."

Meat is a particularly phosphorus-intensive product, which brings up yet another reason for eating lower on the food chain as a way to support sustainability. This doesn't mean becoming vegetarian, Elser says, but he suggests considering at least becoming a "demitatarian"—making menu choices involving servings with half the normal meat portions.

Another major source of phosphorus in the diet is processed foods, particularly soft drinks containing phosphoric acid. Limiting these foods could, in fact, be a bit healthier for people too.

However, dietary restrictions alone won't cut our dependence on phosphorus imports. The fact is, most of the phosphorus mined and used on our wheat and corn crops is lost to erosion and runoff.

"It goes downstream," Elser says.

Downstream means it becomes a pollutant leading to eutrophication, a situation where fertilizer in lakes and oceans becomes a feast for phytoplankton creating large dead zones.

Dead zones? How could it be that what’s necessary for life be deadly? The reason is because resulting algal blooms suck up all the oxygen and drive other life forms into non-existence.

Farming methods that limit fertilizer use, control erosion, and reduce runoff could go a long way to prevention of phosphorus loss meanwhile controlling pollution.

The other thing that's coming is biofuels, which is thought to help us with our climate problem, but the problem with that scenario is that these crops will require fertilizer. The growing demand on fertilizer increases demand on phosphorus.

"The numbers are not small," Elser said.

Demand spikes of fertilizer for biofuel production will contribute to rising food prices that could produce a situation similar to the 2008 food crisis. This is a concern, Elser says, because hungry people are likely to drive unrest, including terrorism, and compromise food security around the world.

Elser says we need a new form of alchemy—by solving the problem of waste and dead zones through making them into resources and productive zones. It’s a "reduce, reuse and recycle" type of solution.
His research involves several areas of science including geology, biology, and agricultural technology.

Recycling phosphorus has to do with making a resource of crop, animal, food, and human waste. If we're getting energy and phosphorus out of waste, even urine (sterile and containing about two-thirds of phosphorus lost from the body), we could do a lot to save phosphorus.

In Switzerland, for example, they’ve put in measures such as toilets that capture urine for recycling phosphorus. Elser says toilets are "a way forward for the developing world and the developed world" and even Bill Gates has invested in developing toilets that hold onto phosphorus for South Africa.

He adds that we need to re-imagine and re-engineer other ways of creating cities and infrastructure to hold onto and reuse our phosphorus.

"We don’t have a human phosphorus cycle [or loop]," Elser said. "Cycles are sustainable. We’ve forgotten that. That’s what we need to create."

Some examples of how to re-engineer a food system include localized agriculture that makes it easier to keep phosphorus, technology to reduce erosion, and using phosphorus-collecting toilets.

Genetically engineering crops and animals to use phosphorus more efficiently may be solutions too, Elser told me. For example, "enviro pigs," are pigs engineered to produce the enzyme phytase to break down phytate and, some GM crops can better extract nutrients from the soil as many wild plants do.

"We've kind of bred plants to be stupid, selecting them for production with fertilizer," Elser told me. Compare these plants to some that grow in some of the harshest landscapes on Earth. The genes of those plants could be introduced to reduce need for fertilizer.

Will people in the U.S. need to worry about phosphorus and soaring food prices any time soon? Elser isn’t worried about the developed world so much as underdeveloped nations.

"My worry is that they can’t afford phosphorus now," Elser said.

What about recovering phosphorus from dead zones and other measures to obtain phosphorus from rock? The problem with dead zones, Elser said, is that they are deep and wet. And, rocks just don’t contain enough of a concentration making it worth doing.

“It took tens of hundreds of millions of years was used to reorganize matter into Morocco," he said. "The phosphorus is still there. But when we distribute it everywhere, it becomes more difficult."

Interested in more information on the problem of phosphorus? Get updates from Elser's Web site at http://sustainablep.asu.edu/ or follow @sustainP.

Printing organs for transplants

Advances in medicine are allowing us to live longer than ever, but with our older age comes a greater risk that our organs will fail us. In fact, the shortage of organs available for transplant increases by the day, according to Anthony Atala who spoke at TEDMED.

In his talk, posted in March, Atala presents developments in regenerative medicine including new devices that use the same technology of scanners, fax, copy machines and printers. Instead of using ink in their cartridges, they simply use cells.

On stage, Atala shows us how one of these devices works, actually printing a kidney in as little as seven hours. It's mind bending.

I feel as though I'd like to show this video to every person I know. This is our future medicine. This technology will no doubt keep us living longer than ever. One day, like salamanders, we will be growing our own organs whenever needed -- kidneys, livers, lungs, etc.

Can you even imagine? Eat and drink whatever you like, ruin your liver and kidneys, then have new ones printed in all but a few hours, and you're as good as new?

It's almost sickening.

Hydroponics and health

I've had friends of mine try to get me into hydroponics before, but I haven't ever been truly interested until today, when @TheEconomist tweeted links to these videos on "vertical farming," the brainchild of Dickson Despommier, professor of public health in environmental health sciences at Columbia University.

The magazine reports mainly on this urban-type agriculture as a way to bring local, sustainable food to places like New York City, the logistical problems, and what this might mean for battling climate change. There was also mention of how hydroponics allows for introduction of nutrients in the water, reduces need for fertilizing, and how it being a closed system recycles water.

And, the interview (below) with Despommier speaks to how this idea could potentially turn the "parasitism" of cities into productive ecosystems.

These are neat topics, although I still wonder about how realistic it is on a grand scale based on concerns about use of artificial lighting, expense, and so on.

However, from a nutritional standpoint, urban agriculture does lend to great possibilities for producing food that is healthier, cleaner and safer. As I see it, the possibilities for human health is endless.

Urban agriculture allows for much more control over heavy metals with use of refined minerals in the hydroponics fertilizer. Plus, you could standardized to reasonable exactness, the amounts the plants would receive of minerals. Then, with a controlled environment, the potential of having a standardized product comes into the picture too.

This might sound really lame to some people, but it's a nutritionist's dream -- Can you imagine walking into a grocery store and seeing fruits and vegetables with standardized nutrition facts panels complete with quantities of minerals, and possibly vitamins and phytonutrients?

You could also do a much better job controlling and enhancing the flavor of plants, which is highly dependent on what comes through the water. By adding in concentrated extracts, for example, of vanilla or orange, you could give plants certain notes or essences.

Anyway, I might have to head down to Tucson, Arizona, to check out what's currently largest system of hydroponics in the country -- and maybe have a bite of something tasty.

I might also have to order me some kind of home hydroponics system.

What is the ideal design of future humans?

Natasha Vita-More

There have been quite a few interesting subjects discussed at H+ @ Caltech today regarding the future of the human experience in light of exponential increases of information, artificial intelligence and medical breakthroughs.

But what's to become of humanity's long tradition of creating art and design that is used to express ourselves, as a way to communicate who we are, that exists as a projection of our own personas?

This afternoon, cultural strategist and designer Natasha Vita-More discussed the question she is contemplating, "Will we wear technological interfaces as a means of expression, or will the technologies wear us?"

In this new age of using digital avatars, or creating virtual personhoods, it is unclear how human-technology interfaces are going to change what we think of when we consider on our own personas.

Vita-More discussed briefly her work in developing a prototype of a future body, a "Primo Post Human," and how we may be able to eventually design our own bodies enhanced with multi-functional technology and built for ultra-longevity. 

"We're redesigning and resculpting our own identities," Vita-More said. Or, in other more techy terms, "the user-agent observer guides the enhanced atrributes of its own system." As wearable methods of technologies emerge and converge, she explained, we're only going to see more merging of techno-personas in the future.

As she explains it, on a slide: "Currently our biology can either enable physical expressions of our personalities, or can turn us into captives through physiological addictions. The fusion of personhood and technology forms a narrative in exploring perceptions of human enhancement in media design and science." 

Plus, with new technologies that will enhance our brains, like mind uploading--looking into the brain and copying it--there's really no telling what our perception of "personhood" will be. Human enhancement will ultimately change the way we think of expression. 

What Vita-More argues is that, as technology progresses, that art and design should continue to play a role, and that we "not to leave the humanity in the human behind."

She showed us some of fantastic visuals of her design work, which you can read about and see here and here. Plus, see Lisa Donchak's (@lisadonchak) summary post of her talk here.

Although I'm not an artist by any stretch, I did find myself thinking about this talk for a while afterward for what it means to humanity. I tried to imagine a future without art and design in it. It would be a sad place indeed.  

Humanity's Future: Information Overload

Robert Tercek

At H+ at Caltech (#hplus) this morning, Robert Tercek gave us an introduction to humanity as we know it and how a sudden increase of information will transform it forever.

"The process of improving human life has always been governed by information," Tercek said. Now we're in this new information transformation age, or what he calls living in the era of B.S., or "before singularity."

Just as electricity, vaccines and plumbing once radically changed health of humans in history, we will eventually gain the knowledge to completely change the way we think about health, as well as radically increase the human lifespan in the future.

It will happen by using anti-aging therapies like those posed by Aubrey de Grey, as well as other scientists, increasing knowledge about the human genome, or in other ways never before thought.

Plus, these huge increases of info are changing life as we know it in other ways; for example, the way we use energy today. "We're going to look back at this period and see it as tremendously inefficient," Tercek said.

Tercek goes on about how information drives the advance of civilization. The first major one was speech, followed by writing, for example.

And he points out pretty amazing facts about how the Internet is wiring the world:

- we have people tweeting and blogging, communicating to the world right now
- 35 hours is being uploaded to YouTube per minute
- Facebook sees 2.5 billion uploads of photos per month
- we'll eventually upload all of humanity's knowledge from universities to the Internet.

"Every 2 days we create as much information as we did up to 2003," Tercek said, which is the most info created in all of human history, a history that has been bound by the limitations of the book for the last 500 years. 

"If you look at the advances of the last 15 years and look at the next 15," Tercek said, this gives us quite a lot of reason to be amazed about what the future will bring. 

Then, Tercek gave several more examples of how past advances in increasing information changed the world like the printing press, and how new technologies using "metadata" like mobile devices are changing the world again. 

Plus, he gives us a picture of the future with automated cars (that you can program to pick you up using your iPad), and mentions also Sixth Sense mobile interfaces (which is what I happen to want for Xmas this year). 

In short, information overload is going to make life pretty cool in the future.