Illumination 2.0

This week's podcast talks about the efforts at Kansas Wheat Innovation Center and the work of Dr. Chris Miller.  He's searching for wheat varieties that lack the sequences in the proteins that comprise gluten (giladin and glutenin) that trigger immune response. These could be very helpful in breeding new varieties. There also are gene-editing solutions in the works.  With guest host Kevin Klatt from Cornell University. 

Over the last few years I've watched battles brew and millions of dollars be spent on a silly proposition-- how do we legislate a means to separate good food from good food with a decoration on the box? So in my ever-evolving opinion-- voluntary labels are the solution, but the industry must move fast before new legislation is on the ballot, and before activists move the goalpost.  The issues of labeling food that contains hints of ingredients that were produced in a plant that has been genetically engineered are extremely problematic.  Scientists see little utility, as it confuses the public, provides zero useful information, stands to scare consumers, and if mandated, will substantially raise prices.  Every state will have different rules (and Vermont will not require cheese made with GMO enzymes to be labeled, go figure) and segregation of materials is already leading to more issues for growers. More on that later.  The way around? Voluntary labels.  The Vermont la

While we don't normally think about it, it comes from a plant!  Making matters worse, coffee production has an array of challenges that could threaten availability.  I'm not talking about late-night Dunkin Donuts weirdos. Diseases, pests, and a variety of other issues may become formidable barriers between you and that crazy awake feeling.  The podcast features Hanna Neuschwander from World Coffee Research.

Why I'm Standing Up. Last year my email records were willingly released to activists without a lot of worry. I've been a public scientist for 30 years or so working in research about light and its role in plant growth and development. All public funded, except for a sprinkle of strawberry industry funds.  Nobody really seems to get too excited about that.  But I always enjoy engaging the public in discussing any science topic, especially in agriculture and especially in genetic engineering. Some people get very excited about that.  The organization that requested my records, US Right to Know (USRTK), is highly funded by elements of the organic movement. That's not organic farmers per se , or organic researchers. They like me just fine-- I support lots of organic research.  The search was financed by a radical wing of the movement sworn to decry modern farming and its technological ornaments.  I took US-RTK at their word that they were simply looking to understand in

As I mentioned last month , several food companies are using the Vermont language on their food labels nationally, and doing so voluntarily.  This is perfect for the people that demand a "right to know" despite the fact it does not tell them much.   Campbell's and others are brilliant for making the voluntary change, and doing it in accordance with Vermont's rules.  You want to know?  Here you go!  Smucker's is not made with GE ingredients, but there are potentially traces of something in there... Corn?  Cottonseed oil?  Their voluntary statement is a C.Y.A. so they can sell in VT.   The voluntary labels provide the information that activists wanted-- anyone wanting to know if there is an ingredient present through genetic engineering can see that.   Here's the problem for them: If every product is voluntarily labeled, then why do we need state laws to force products to be labeled?  After all, you wanted a right to know, and know you know.  As

Here we go again.   The folks over at Moms Across America have been posting lots of information about herbicides showing up in places they don't belong.  The most recent is their alleged detection in wine.  The claim levels around 1ppb, which is realistically detectable, but they make many mistakes in the assay. 1. No negative controls.  2. No method shown for extraction/detection 3. No technical replication (one sample is all that is read) 4. And many more! In comparison to actual carcinogens, not too shabby! I don't doubt these numbers could be true in reality, but I don't think these are worth considering.  They are not peer reviewed.  The come from a website where MAM has fabricated data in the past, like in the Stunning Corn Comparison.  Plus, their organic farm shows equivalent detection, which means they are either using glyphosate or that the detection is providing some noise at the baseline, like from cross-reactvity.  Again, no negative control

This week's podcast interviews Drs. Shelley McGuire and Thomas Colquhoun.  Both are experts in examining various biological matricies for rare compounds, and discuss recent internet claims that glyphosate is showing up everywhere.  Listen to the podcast here.