Beware of Blue Strawberries

It seems like every spring I need to solve a crisis around blue strawberries, mythical creatures that someone is exploiting for fame or fortune. Here we are again.  

Several years ago a clever student asked a rhetorical question to the internet about the utility of a blue, "GMO strawberry". Despite no such critter, the internet exploded, causing the US strawberry industries to have me draft a press release. It was that crazy. 

All because of a photoshopped strawberry. The CMO.  Computationally Modified Organism.

Here we are again.  It turns out that unscrupulous off-shore entities are dealing in fictitious plants.  I was alerted to ads on Ebay and Amazon that present these photoshopped seeds. 

According to the sellers these are novel products for the garden.

Notice that most of these get rather poor ratings, on par with unicorn jerky and bigfoot-fur sweaters.  Things that don't exist never perform to the buyer's satisfaction.  

Most of the reviews claim that the seeds never germinated or that they were stopped at customs.  Some buyers report growing plants, but nobody with a fruit.  Vendors probably kill real strawberry seeds by heating them and then sell them as legit, so you get seeds that just don't do anything.  One born every minute, and their money is in the hands of the swindler. 

The German anti-GMO movement has even used this fötöshöp method to heighten disgust of a technology around a fruit that does not exist. 

My guess is that someone realized that they could exploit gardeners' interest in novel plants, and photoshop is a lot faster than the decades or breeding needed to make them.

So once again, there are no blue strawberries.  Or black ones.  Or glow-in-the-dark green ones.  Strawberries are sweet and nutritious, one of the best fruits on the planet. It is easy to see why they are the target of exploitation. 

Be careful out there.  We all are interested in novel flavors and colors, and now there is a market willing to exploit that.   

A Frosty Mug of Glyphobia

When the news broke across the internet that beer was contaminated with glyphosate, my first response was to crack a cold can of Sierra Nevada and read the story. 

Soft-science activism has already concocted claims of physiologically-irrelevant detection of glyphosate in breast milk and fresh soybeans.  I don't partake of such commodities under normal circumstances.  But now beer!   You've crossed a line glyphosate.  Them's fightin' words. 

Or perhaps not.  Once again, we are reminded of two basic rules.

Beer contains high amounts of a potent carcinogen that accounts for a tremendous number of deaths each year.

1. We are extremely good at detecting extremely little. 
2. The dose makes the poison. 

How much glyphosate is there?  Well according to this analysis:

Yikes! Herbicides are detectable in my beer, and what's scary is that we can actually identify molecules that are almost not there. 

According to these data there is somewhere between 460 parts per trillion (equivalent to one second in seventy years) on the low end and 29.74 parts per billion (about one second in a year).  That's not scary, that's remarkable that we can detect something at those levels.

I didn't see the data or methods, and I have not been able to find them on the interwebs. This is not a published, scientific work, but since when does that matter?  This isn't honest science, this is fear mongering. 

However, I do believe that these levels are within the range of detection, and quite possibly legitimate, as glyphosate is used on grain in Europe.  The grain is not GMO. Glyphosate is used as a 'harvest aid' or herbicide applied to the crop to ensure that all the grain is dry at a same point at harvest.

So let's assume that these data are reproducible and spot on. Should you stop drinking beer? 

At the highest dose detected (30 ug/L) you'd have to drink a lot of beer to get to anything close to a physiologically relevant dose of the herbicide.  According to the German BfR, you'd need to drink 1000 L of beer in a day to hit acute toxicity levels. 

I don't know about you, but I lose my motivation for drinking beer after about 4 L in a sitting.  That's 0.4% of the level needed to get effects from glyphosate in the worst-case scenario. 

But there are a couple of other notes worth mentioning.  The use of glyphosate means that other harvest aids (paraquat or gramoxone) with much higher acute toxicity are not used. 

Also worth noting, alcohol is the most dangerous chemical in beer. According to the CDC, 10,000 ppm (or about a week out of that year) will kill you.   

Alcohol is also a known carcinogen.  While glyphosate is present at 30 ppb, alcohol is present at (assuming a 5% ethanol beer) at 50,000,000 ppb.  The IARC calls glyphosate a "probable carcinogen" based on limited/no data, and rates ethanol a Type I carcinogen based on mountains of data.

The point is simple.  This is more fear mongering. If these folks really cared about carcinogens in the diet they'd be writing articles about the beer itself and the dangers of alcohol-- in obfuscating acute choices and contributing to disease through chronic addiction. Instead they focus on a molecule at the foggy edge of detection, using it to scare concerned people away from modern farm technologies. 

Talking Biotech #25

Talking Biotech Podcast #25 talks about color-changing flowers and the safety of strawberries, one of the "Dirty Dozen".   It is an episode about the brilliant things we can do, and the safe things we currently do, with technology.

Please Stop Foodbabe-ing!

The new headline circulating in the pro-genetic-engineering social media space is depressing. With joy and gusto, it is being promoted and circulated by those that appreciate the utility of genetic engineering and chemical inputs to safely address specific ag challenges. 
  

The above article appears on Deadstate.

The claim is that compounds approved for, and used by, organic production are potentially dangerous. Well, not so much potentially dangerous as outright carcinogenic.  

The main shock to most readers is that organic production uses any chemical inputs at all, as the organic halo implies that no chemicals are used.  Of course, we know that to not be true, it is just other chemicals that may be used. 

But just like other chemicals, the dose makes the poison.  For the most part these chemicals have low toxicity, and virtually no risk if applied properly and washed from food. 

Fighting manufactured fear with manufactured fear?  Why adopt Food Babe tactics if you loathe Food Babe tactics?

Clearly the Deadstate article goes on to spell out the worst-case scenario for each compound.  Just like table salt, sugar or water, anything can kill you dead if you ingest too much of it the wrong way. 

This is the wrong way to make a point about food and farming.  You don't misrepresent another production system, just because evil people aggressively misrepresent science about conventional ag or genetic engineering. It does not win hearts and minds, and seems confusing and divisive to the people that want education and information. 

This needs to be a scientific discussion.  What are the safest technologies that can be used to produce more food with fewer inputs?  It does not matter what you call them.  

Remember, this is not an organic versus conventional, or organic vs genetic engineering debate.  But let's not criticize safe inputs that help farmers, organic or conventional. 

And yes, I understand that many facets of the organic industry would love to see me driven from science, and they have financed a campaign against me.  Their ways are unacceptable, and an eye for an eye leaves everyone looking like a pirate.

That helps nobody and is a distraction from the needed conversation.  

Answering Students' Questions about Bananas

There was a spirited discussion on Twitter about yesterday's blog.  I pointed out that Iowa State University had a faculty member that is an expert in cartotenoids and their bioavailability.  She was given the task of testing the soluble levels of beta-carotene from the genetically-engineered banana that contained this nutrient. 

In response to her being asked to perform this test, a petition circulated and 57,000 signatures were gathered.  Today there will be a protest/delivery of the petition.

The discussion on Twitter was basically one woman hurling insults at me and telling me that what I posted was not true, that I need to "get on Google and do some research", and that I'm just an industry lackey.  She insisted that I respond to "the questions from students" which I'm happy to do today below.

I'm happy to answer the questions for this Twitter-er.  I suggest you do visit Twitter and enjoy the entire dialog.  My guess is that since she's sure I'm just an industry shill, my answers won't matter much anyway. However, true to my word, I'm glad to take a stab at it. And for the record, I'm 100% publicly funded, and grants can be seen on my research website. 

The questions were a breeze to answer. The bigger issue revealed is two-fold.
  
1.  These questions come from people that do not understand how science works.  The experiments at ISU set out to test a hypothesis, that consumption of beat-carotene enriched bananas would increase the serum levels of vitamin A and its precursors, and understand the time course. That's all.

2.  An anti-genetic engineering movement must stop any steps where this technology can show to have potential benefit and minimal risk.  The tests at ISU are just one step in the process of deployment of this technology. Before materials are deployed, it is good to know if the technology makes sufficient amounts of bioavailable compounds.  This test can determine that.  Therefore, some feel that it must be stopped.  


I don't speak for ISU or the researchers performing the experiments. However, at the insistence of the Twitter-er, I'm glad to provide my answers to those questions. 


Question 1

Give a brief explanation of why you are here, your area of expertise, and how you can apply your expertise to this critical dialogue.

KF:  I've been a public scientist for almost 30 years and currently work as a Professor and Chair of a leading fruit and vegetable department in a major US Land Grant University. My background is in molecular biology and genomics, and I work directly/indirectly with many crops in the nation's #2 horticultural crop state. I've read extensively on biofortification and metabolic engineering of crops for increases in folate, beta carotene, and other vitamins. 

Question 2

Do you think this banana will impact the issue of malnutrition, and the connected issue of hunger, in Uganda and East Africa? If so, how? If not, what alternative solutions might help address these issues?

KF:  This has nothing to do with the hypothesis to be tested. The experiments are designed to examine bioavailability of beta-carotene and its derivatives from consumption of biofortified bananas.  However, I can answer.  Bananas are used for cooking in Uganda and areas of East Africa.  They are a daily staple for many and are threatened by diseases. They also are deficient in key nutrients. Genetic improvements for disease resistance and nutrient content could have positive effects on malnutrition.  At least the governments of these countries seem to think so. They all have extensive programs in these areas. Transgenic bananas have been demonstrated to be resistant/tolerant to banana bunchy-top virus, black sigatoka, Fusarium, and Xanthamonas, as well as produce more beta carotene. 

Question 3

There are concerns that the design of this study is inadequate, particularly testing these bananas on female ISU students who are not the intended target of these Vitamin A enriched bananas. Given this critique, how was the research designed and how have safety concerns been addressed? (If you are not involved in the research process for these bananas, what concerns, if any, do you have concerning the safety or validity of the testing procedure or the potential impacts on the intended recipients in Eastern Africa?)

KF:  The experiment is designed to examine bioavailablity of the compounds from bananas consumed.  The toxicity thresholds for beta-carotene is well understood, as is the level of beta carotene in these bananas. There are no unique safety risks. "There are concerns" is not a scientific question. What are the concerns?  What is the plausible hypothesis that suggests unusual risk?

The experiment does not directly have any impact on recipients on Eastern Africa.  The experiment is to test the bioavailabiltiy of beta carotene from bananas carrying beta carotene. 

Question 4

Ideally, how should public universities be involved in GM biofortification and human testing? And to what extent is transparency, particularly regarding control or ownership of these technologies, important, particularly when dealing with staple food crops?

KF:  You are asking my opinion, so my answer is not based on data, it is what I think. I think the universities are the optimal systems to develop and test such products.  Transparency is always important. 

Question 5

Finally,  what critical issue or issues concerning this study have been left unaddressed or inadequately discussed thus far in our conversation? Perhaps consider your closing perspective on the issue.

KF:  The experiments at ISU are designed to test the bioavailabilty of beta carotene from bananas consumed.  For the experts at ISU, this is a relatively simple test that can quickly yield answers.  If the compounds are not bioavailable in physiologically-meaningful levels, then there is no reason to continue, or new plants with higher beta-carotene expression need to be devised.

Closing perspective- Dr. White is an expert in carotenoid bioavability. She understands the enzymes and processes in their synthesis, conversion and measurement. She is the best person to examine the question if beta-carotene is available after bananas are consumed. 

A Protest Over Bananas in Iowa

Monday, a group of well-fed students and jumpers-on will march with signs. In a world full of actionable atrocities, these folks have centered their time and energies on a scourge that threatens the progress of mankind-- A dozen ISU students will be paid to eat bananas that carry a banana gene that allows the fruit to produce beta-carotene, a precursor to Vitamin A.  The orange stuff in carrots.  

Say it isn't so. 

An apparently vitamin A sufficient and sighted student dons a banana costume to protest bananas being developed to provide nutrition to the developing world.  A passer by checks out the happenings, then rubs his butt in confusion. 

One year ago I was in Ames, IA at Iowa State University.  The banana trials were supposed to begin then, and the story was on the lips of students and faculty.  Twelve lucky students would get $900 to eat bananas and then have their blood monitored for Vitamin A bioavailability. Five-hundred students answered the solicitation. 

Why is this happening at ISU, a place not traditionally thought of as a banana mecca?  It is because of a Food Science professor, Dr. Wendy White. She's a world expert in measuring cartotenoids in the blood, and interpreting their many forms. 

She was assigned these trials because she is the expert in that area.  If you are going to feed Vitamin A bananas to people, it helps to know that the Vitamin A produced is in a usable and bioavailable form. Dr. White had absolutely no interest in genetic engineering or the controversy, but immediately found herself at ground zero. 

It's a year later and I don't remember all the details, but she mentioned protests, threats, and lots of nastygrams.  Dr. White is soft-spoken, sweet and kind.  She has top-notch students that are great to talk to and are excited about science. She does not understand, or deserve, the grief for simply doing the work she is recognized for doing well.  Plus, these experiments could help those suffering from vitamin A deficiency, and provide the up-front testing that critics say does not happen. 

Stephan pretty much nails it. 

The bananas make more beta-carotene because of the installation of a banana gene. Dr. James Dale from Queensland University of Technology developed the new banana, transferring a gene from a wild banana from Fiji to the bananas consumed as daily food in Uganda and other parts of Africa. There they might represent 70% of the dietary calories.

You can hear Dr. Dale talk about it on my podcast, here.   

The news says that protesters have a petition with over 57,000 signatures condemning this test. 

I'd love a copy of that petition.  I'd like to have the names of people recommending denying access to life-saving nutrition and access to agricultural innovation to Africans. 

Someday when health problems are solved with a banana that delivers the nutrition of a carrot, I'd like to send them a note reminding them that their privilege stood in the way of progress that saved lives. 

THEATER & ARTS REVIEW: Seeds -- Opening Night!

I was extremely fortunate to be attending the Crop Connect Conference in Winnipeg the same day that Seeds opened.  I mean, how often are you in canola country, at a canola-heavy conference, and get to see a play about canola? Plus, I've been through these court records and know that story well. A small outing of farmers, canola industry folks and a scientist or two headed downtown and take in the performance at Prairie Theater Exchange.

    

Seeds is a play written by Annabel Soutar.  It chronicles the Percy Schmeiser affair, the story of a Saskatchewan canola farmer that was sued by the Monsanto Company because he was illegally growing genetically-engineered canola off license. The popular activist internet myth that likely seeded the script says that Schmeiser was the innocent victim in a classical David vs. Goliath episode, that company thugs sued him for a few seeds blown onto his property. Yet actual court records tell a story of a guy that illegally obtained technology and then planted over a thousand acres of it, using plenty of Roundup herbicide to select for engineered plants.  He was found guilty and lost again on appeal.

On its surface the story is a challenging one to develop into a compelling live performance, especially as the author attempted to keep the dialog close to actual court records and documented conversations. However, the work has a groovy halo coming in, as a typical arts community would likely be thrilled with a play trashing the Big MON. The creepy way science is portrayed had the audience pulling for the little guy going in.

The stage was a clever mix that switched between Schmeiser's home, courtrooms and fields. It always had an eerie science glow about it.

Despite the inherent limitations, the director pulled off an interesting performance by juxtaposing fast changes, lines from interspersed characters and quite a few laughs. Video screens behind the stage presented additional information and added context to the scenes.

The cast was sharp and convincing, with some playing multiple gender-bending roles.  One well-bearded actor donned a sari and admonished others as Vandana Shiva.  The forth wall was never a fixture.  The fast costume changes, slick blocking and solid acting throughout were a lot of fun from a performance perspective.

The problem I had was in how Soutar and the director chose to tell this story.  Company people were always sleazy, brash and angry.  Scientists were portrayed as numbskulls, except for the ones that (history tells us) truly were the numbskulls, and they were given great credibility in the script. They echoed the common false claims around genetic engineering. These probably came of as credible and reinforcing to theater goers that only hear the Chipotle/Food Babe warnings about crop technology. If the writer actually interviewed any of the millions of scientists familiar with the technology those lines were not included. Their words would have been consistent with the company’s claims and made Goliath look like a genius. That play would have been over in twenty minutes.  

So rather than spend more time on the scientific evidence that discredited Schmeiser, the writer takes an ad hominem approach and goes after him by attacking his character with personal interviews of people in his hometown. Most seemed to impeach his credibility, and others claimed to have sold him the illegal seeds.  The author wanted to pose the thought that maybe David’s crushing by Goliath just may have been deserved.

But it didn’t need to go after the man’s credibility, because the science knew the facts about the seeds.  The evidence showed that he planted traited seeds over 1000 acres and used glyphosate to select for tolerant plants.  Goliath was right, as courts would determine.

However, that’s not the take-home message from the play.  The conclusion left the question open. It brought into question the patenting of life, the control of seeds, and the role of corporate venom in going after the little guy.

You didn’t walk away feeling like this was a crime solved.  Instead, the author threw a blanket over the chalk outline, the smoking gun and shell casings and in a closing soliloquy asked the audience, “What do you think?”  Most non-scientific theater goers likely walked away feeling like the big bad company harassed some poor schmuck, and that that poor schmucks should get to save seeds on their land.

The whole night was extra fun because the real-life version of one of the characters in the play, Trish Jordan from Monsanto Canada, was present in the audience along with our group.  She was quite pleased that the character was articulate and the "actress was gorgeous" and felt the portrayal was pretty solid.  

To me, the play could have focused on the importance of protecting the rights of others, particularly toward protecting gains made from intellectual property. It could have addressed the importance of protecting innovations and how research costs money.  It missed that mark, and that’s a central point of the whole affair.

That said, I wonder what the author would say if I recorded the play with my phone and then sold copies online.  After all, I did have a paid ticket…