Sunday, April 17, 2016

Tips on Selecting a Hormone-Free Chicken

Tip 1.  Go buy a chicken. 
Tip 2.  Enjoy. 

This free range chicken is certified as "No Added Hormones", which is correct, because hormones are not used on chickens. 

     Without a doubt, today across America concerned consumers will purchase poultry selected because producers promise it is free of hormones. I would bet dollars to doughnuts that most don't know what hormones are or why they would even be used.  However, hormones are in the elusive cluster of compounds known to be evil in food, but nobody really knows why. 

Hormones are one of the corners of the Rhombus of Food Anxiety

Saturday, April 16, 2016

Talking Biotech #32 -- In Search of Celiac-Safe Wheat

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. 

Wednesday, April 13, 2016

Voluntary Labeling Needs Momentum

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 labeling requirements satisfy the "right to know."  They also would not be mandated by law in other states.  Following VT's guidance with voluntary labeling eliminates the need for new, costly, confusing, state-by-state laws. 

If you add the words that fit the Vermont law, then there's no need for new rules-- no need for other state laws. 

Vermont can then spend the money enforcing their law and spending the millions to test safe food for perfectly safe ingredients. 

It also forces the hand of activists-- they got what they wanted, a label (except on VT cheese).  They must now change the target, demonstrating it was never about a "right to know" in the first place.  

The ball is in the court of food manufacturers. If a label that a few folks want, and nobody will read is there, then there is no reason to force it by law, which leads to the clunky, expensive problems in logistics and testing.  It also eliminates the mess of litigation inevitably to follow. 

The real advantage?  Add a few words. Then we can start focusing on how to help people and the environment with technology instead of distraction with first-world problems. 

Tuesday, April 12, 2016

Talking Biotech -- Coffee Episode!

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.

Saturday, April 9, 2016

McGuire et al. Breast Milk Study Fallout, COI, and Sensationalism

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 influence of companies in why scientists say and do the things we say and do. 

Therefore, I didn't really care.  While I have had interactions with companies and industries of many kinds over the years, nobody ever had any influence over my research or outreach.  Nothing to hide. No big deal. 

Shortly thereafter, USRTK filtered my emails for sentences that could be damning out of context, and systematically distributed them to willing journalists. Some journalists declined to do anything with my words-- they saw it as how they were being used by activists to lynch public scientists.

One popular science journalist even said, "I read the 5000 emails and this guy is a damn boy scout." 

However, a select few were enthusiastic to twist the stories of a public scientist that doubled as a key "inner circle" strategist and lobbyist for Big Ag, namely Monsanto.  They told false stories of how I was a central strategist in the defeat of the California labeling effort, cherry-picking emails that had no such information.  I read about how I was paid by Monsanto to bully a 14 year old girl.  

After I composed myself from laughing I realized the damage this would do, and endured, and still endure the wrath of hate from factions of the public sworn to harass public scientists, simply because they do their job. That job -- to perform the highest quality research and interpret the literature for a public that has questions. 

Why the Science Community is Weak

I've had many thoughts on the matter.  However, one was clear-- I was not impressed with the scientific community's response.  Our national organizations looked the other way, scientists ran for cover. A few spoke out, valiantly, but for the most part, the hush was deafening in support of career public scientist that was suffering.

The scars are permanent. It changed me as a person, it hurt my reputation, and anyone performing a Google Images search will see the smear that Lipton, Borel, Mike Adams, and a gaggle of others seeded, as they offered red meat of a non-story or manufactured narratives to an activist throng poised to destroy the career of a scientist. 

Well I survived.  Changed, but not out, focused more on my lab and my role as a leader in my field, especially in communication. My focus is not the radical wing of a scientifically bankrupt movement. My focus is to share the beauty of our findings with a public that desperately needs real answers, and does not know who to trust. 

I want to earn that trust, and I have. I will continue to do that. 

But one thing is for sure. I swore to myself I would not sit quietly when others were unfairly attacked.  Nobody should have to endure what I endured. 

No Glyphosate in Breast Milk EOM.

Dr. Shelley McGuire is a lactation specialist at Washington State University.  She was asked to test the activist claims, as she is an expert in analyzing breast milk-- a chemically-complex liquid that presents various challenges and caveats to analysis (that activists are free to ignore). 

The report examines breast milk from 41 women using a recently published LC/MS method.  The method of detection can take months to devise, so such work merits independent publication. 

This reputable report demonstrates that the high-resolution proper result are not consistent with the fearful claims on an activist website.  

But what is reported?  Let's analyze the piece that came out this week in Forbes online, by a credible journalist and respected science communicator --  Monsanto-Linked Study Finds No Monsanto-Linked Herbicide Glyphosate In Breast Milk

I'm not sure how many more times you can mention the word "Monsanto" in the title, so maybe a little tip to the bias of the piece going in. 

And also of note, many companies make glyphosate (the herbicide) not just Monsanto.  I'd guess that the majority of human exposures stem from residential use of glyphosate-based products, of which Roundup is just one.  I always buy the generic version at 1/3 the cost for use in my garden. 

But "Monsanto-Linked" is code for "you can't believe it" and the author knows that. 

The article states: 

The study, however, is weighted with conflicts of interest that include having three Monsanto employees as authors. The first two authors also have received grants from Monsanto, and the costs of the chemical analyses for the study were covered by Monsanto. This study is not, however, the only one reporting this outcome.

This really bothers me as a scientist.  The author is willing to discount the findings, or at least sees them as "weighted" (e.g. suspect) because employees of Monsanto are authors, and the company at least partially covered the costs of this expensive analysis. 

Classic. Right form the Merchants of Doubt playbook  While ultimately stating the outcome of the work correctly, the implication is that the work is tainted, somehow suspect, and worse, a victim of its own transparency!  She implies a conspiracy between the journal, a professional society, a respected scientist, and an ag-biotech company. 

Instead, can we please discuss data?  Can we discuss the methods?  What is it about the detection that you find inappropriate?  What is questionable from an analytical chemistry standpoint?  Why are the data not to be trusted?  That is what journalists should be asking! 

To imply that association with a company is tantamount to misconduct with the data/methods not discussed, is seriously off base, and impugns the integrity of Prof. McGuire and her research team.  

The validity of scientific results and their interpretation takes place in the peer-reviewed literature, not in Forbes.  Unfortunately the first salvo that necessitated this situation came from an activist group on a website that claimed to find glyphosate in breast milk using a noisy test and published on a website piloted by a team sworn against genetic engineering.  

McGuire's group took the risky task to pursue the truth and perform the proper test, scientifically testing the hypothesis that glyphosate in breast milk was detectable. They showed, using proper scientific methods, replication and dissemination, that it was not. 

That is the story.  Quality, transparent science, sound methods, and and independent lab show that the people that manufactured data for the Stunning Corn Comparison are likely not being honest here either. 

The real story for a journalist should not be that McGuire's work is suspect because of associations with a company.  It should be a comparison and contrast against the on-line report from an activist group's noisy assay with no controls versus a properly-performed study.  It should teach the public what the differences are, and how they can better equip themselves to understand what is legitimate science, and that activist drivel devised to scare them. 

But that does not get clicks.  

Sticking it to Scientists

Maligning a legitimate scientist due to associations, with no evidence of wrong-doing and complete transparency throughout the process is a much juicer story that fits the popular narrative that our best-- most respected public scientists are just dupes of Big Ag that should be shamed into silence, and eventually out of public service.

And this coming from an author that won the Maddox Prize 2014, awarded to someone standing up for science despite adversity. 

Of course, the author does step back and make it look like this might be one "lens" the public could use to see the situation, striving for a sense of objectivity.  However, the use of other terms, like calling McGuire's association with Monsanto a "slumber party" are highly disturbing, implying the popular quid pro quo myth. 

The original article has since been adjusted to remove some of the language first used to inflate the scientific collaboration to the intimacy of a corporate fluid-swap slumber party

McGuire was kind enough to be interviewed on the Talking Biotech Podcast -episode 30.    She explained that the association with Monsanto was because Monsanto houses the world's experts in glyphosate detection.  That's why she worked with them.  That's what we do in science. We find the best possible collaborators to do the job. 

Plus the results were all verified by an independent laboratory. 

McGuire was forthright and transparent with her associations, as it should be.  Only to be trashed by the internet's jury as a slumber-party stooge that can't be trusted. 

My Final Thoughts.

Our scientific integrity is not defined by cherry-picked emails and lazy journalists glad to smear a scientist to cash a check --- It is determined by our peers and the most rigorous scientific standards. 

Our legacy is determined on the advances that line the library shelves and seed new discovery-- The New York Times lines the bottom of the birdcage. 

Our impact is determined by the solutions we deliver that help people and the planet-- Their impact is measured in mouse clicks generated by sensational claims with thin facts. 

Our value is measured in the lives we touch, the students we train, the problems we solve. Critics' value is measured in how much they can stop us from doing it.  

Time will be kind to scientists they seek to defame.

Months ago, I literally repeated that over and over as I cried myself to sleep as I planned my exit from this discipline.

We don't need to earn journalists' respect. They need to earn ours. 

I wonder how many of them will have the courage and character to apologize someday. 

Friday, April 8, 2016

Voluntary Labeling Spreads- Time to Move Goalpost

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 I've said from the beginning, it is not about a right to know.  It is about causing hardship to farmers that choose to grow these products and orchestrating scarcity of the products in a de facto ban.  

Watch for more voluntary labels as July 2016 approaches.  You'll see labeling reflect Vermont's demands, and nobody will really care.  If everyone labels voluntarily in other states, then legislation is not necessary, defeat the plan of a patchwork of state-by-state rules, definitions and exemptions.  

Then watch that goalpost move!   

Wednesday, April 6, 2016

Wine and Herbicides

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 is shown. 

Plus 1ppb of a safe compound that at worst is thought of as a "probable carcinogen" based on a data point or two among thousands, is nothing to worry about. 

Wine contains 130,000,000 parts per billion (13%) a proven carcinogen-- ethanol!