Gene Modification
Will This Lawsuit End Gene Patenting?
Published May 23, 2009 @ 10:17AM PT
Leslie Madsen Brooks writing at BlogHer wants to know if the end is near for gene patenting:
Earlier this month, the American Civil Liberties Union joined the Association for Molecular Pathology, the American College of Medical Genetics, the Boston Women's Health Book Collective, and numerous other plaintiffs--including individual breast cancer patients--in filing a lawsuit against Myriad Genetics, the U.S. Patent Office, and the directors of the University of Utah Research Foundation. Myriad Genetics has patents in the U.S. for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, the presence of which has been linked to an increased risk of breast or ovarian cancer.
The suit alleges that such gene patenting is unconstitutional, in large part because "ease of access to genomic discoveries is crucial if basic research is to be expeditiously translated into clinical laboratory tests that benefit patients in the emerging era of personalized and predictive medicine," and such patents restrict the use of the genes. ...
I have three knee-jerk reactions to that ... No. It seems very unlikely. When pigs fly.
If the basic right to patent genes is thrown out, as it had bloody well ought to be, Monsanto, Syngenta, Pioneer and all the rest will lose their iron grip on the genetically modified seeds that are their ticket to banking-industry-like fees and higher pesticide sales. I know patent law is theoretically about the public good, but come on.
Patent law, like virtually all else, is about securing the ongoing right to profit for people already making massive profits. That's one of the greatest goods our legislative and judicial system recognize.
We have figured out by now that hardly anyone in government believes all that civics class stuff, right?
(Photo series: James Tan Chin Choy on Flickr.)
Just Say No To GMOs
Published May 20, 2009 @ 10:52AM PT
From a May release of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine:
... Despite these differences, safety assessment of GM foods has been based on the idea of "substantial equivalence" such that "if a new food is found to be substantially equivalent in composition and nutritional characteristics to an existing food, it can be regarded as safe as the conventional food."4 However, several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signaling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system. ...
In a statement about the release issued by Jeffrey M. Smith, author of Seeds of Deception and Genetic Roulette, he highlighted numerous animal studies that demonstrated adverse reactions to genetically engineered foodstuffs and said:
... AAEM states, “GM foods have not been properly tested” and “pose a serious health risk.” Not a single human clinical trial on GMOs has been published. A 2007 review of published scientific literature on the “potential toxic effects/health risks of GM plants” revealed “that experimental data are very scarce.” The author concludes his review by asking, “Where is the scientific evidence showing that GM plants/food are toxicologically safe, as assumed by the biotechnology companies?” ...
That evidence is apparently nowhere. Genetically modified organisms have been released into the food supply with no proof of safety other than that people don't instantly keel over when they eat them.
It's unfortunate, but the only way to guarantee that grain and soy products aren't their GM alternates is to either eat weird grains like teff (mmm, Ethiopian food) or buy organic breads, pastas, etc. The rest of the food supply is heavily contaminated with GM foods as there's no requirement to label these ingredients.
Is it just a coincidence that food allergies have jumped significantly since GM crops were introduced? Maybe. Maybe not, it might be the pesticides, it might be other food additives or environmental toxins. But you know, it'd be nice if we could have conclusive scientific studies performed on the question because we deserve to know.
There are other countries where the government makes food companies tell people if GMOs are in their food, but sadly, the US isn't one of those places. Where it is required, people have made their disinterest in being guinea pigs plain and manufacturers have had to respond.
(Photo series: James Tan Chin Choy on Flickr.)
Helping Farmers
Published May 12, 2009 @ 08:30PM PT
And I only mean the title somewhat ironically.
First, there's good news about Pigford Remedy Claims Act, which the Obama administration will finally put some budgetary muscle behind.
The Pigford Act is based on a class action case that successfully proved in court that the federal government farm programs had been systematically discriminating against Black farmers. As Eddie Gehman Kohan writes at Civil Eats, this is a two-fer: doing the right thing and helping a group of farmers who usually have smaller farms.
But then with the other hand, the Obama administration is going to be actively promoting biotech. As Tom Laskawy writes, not only is biotech part and parcel of encouraging the use of toxic pesticides, it costs more while delivering very little:
... But while I’m not willing to overlook Vilsack’s presentation of the false choice of GM seeds as key to food security, I would hope that he’s serious about bringing what he referred to as “agricultural science” front and center. Because if he does, he’ll see that perhaps, at last, the research tide has turned against GM seeds. Most notably the Union of Concerned Scientists just released an analysis of 20 years’ worth of scientific research designed to determine the extent to which GM seeds have improved overall crop yields. The answer? Only one GM crop—Monsanto’s RoundUp Ready corn—has shown ANY yield increase. And it has managed a mere 3-4% total increase over 13 years. That’s it, folks. No huge jumps in productivity. No magic seeds.
... Unlike the US, the UN understands all this, which is why they released a report declaring that organic techniques are ideal for answering the developing world’s agricultural needs. In fact, adopting the basic organic techniques of composting, mulching, and crop rotation could double or even quadruple current yields in Africa. Take that, Monsanto!
Of course, organic practices aren’t patented. There are no license fees or expensive supplies. No flying in compost from Iowa or manure from North Carolina. Just education and investment in “human capital.” ...
And consider the toll of pesticide-based agriculture:
... research by one of the most respected medical institutes in India recently found that farming villages using large amounts of pesticides have significantly higher rates of cancer than villages that use less of the chemicals.
... Singh says he noticed one of the first troubling clues in the late 1980s and early '90s: Peacocks — India's national bird — disappeared from the fields. Over the years, seven people in his family got cancer — and three of them died. People in Jajjal and surrounding villages got cancer, too.
Singh says he saw that many fellow farmers were overusing pesticides and not handling the toxic chemicals safely. ...
Someone promoting pesticide use might zero in on the fact that the farmers were handling these chemicals improperly. They might point out that taking illiterate subsistence farmers out of the equation and modernizing farming, industrializing it, would solve that.
But look, these increases in cancer and other diseases are seen in farm country in the US, where the literacy rate is somewhere around 99 percent and farming is a highly capitalized industry.
It's a question of how fast farmers are being exposed to carcinogens and neurotoxins that by and large don't degrade and are being sprayed on food that the farmers and everyone else eats. This stuff doesn't break down into plain water, it often accumulates in the bodies of the people and animals who eat it.
If high doses of pesticide are bad for you, well, wait a while and you'll get one. Just keep eating. Wait a few generations until all the living things on the planet are saturated in them, and we'll all be getting the exposure rates of these villages in rural India. I hate to think how toxic the fish population will be, and fully expect that my grandkids will end up being raised to think of all fish as poisonous if we keep doing what we're doing.
While it is possible for people to decrease the activity of unhealthful genes through lifestyle changes, even cancer-promoting genes, when you can end up with teenagers and 20-somethings with deadly cancers that weren't seen in their families 100 years ago, there's a problem that goes beyond lifestyle. There's a problem that goes beyond diet.
If we want to really help farmers, lets stop encouraging them to use expensive, unnecessary technology that can give their families cancer. Let's build up their knowledge repertoire and the range of crops they can earn a living by selling. Let's stop paying lip service to the vital work they do and actually incentivize them to have a safe workplace.
What Sustainability Means
Published May 04, 2009 @ 03:18PM PT
As Michael Pollan and many other people have repeatedly said, sustainability refers to things that can go on for a very long time. (The temptation to say forever is strong, but look, even the sun is going to burn out eventually.)
Sustainable practices are ones that can continue for the forseeable future without diminshment, at the least.
The official definition is more of an economic argument about not disadvantaging the future for the sake of the present, nor disadvantaging those in the present for the future. Yet the economy exists within the context of the environment and its capacity to support life; which should be obvious, but apparently isn't to everyone.
Vilsack Promises to Boost Biotech Crops
Published May 01, 2009 @ 05:50AM PT
Sad, but ultimately unsurprising. There was a Monsanto rep on the selection committee:
... Just back from the G8 summit in Italy, Vilsack pledged today to bring a “more comprehensive and integrated” approach to promoting ag biotech overseas. ...
Chances are, he means livestock, too.
A Sustainable Food Supply, Pt 1
Published April 22, 2009 @ 09:37AM PT
What does that mean, to have a sustainable food supply? It simply means that our production of food today should feed people today, but not restrict the production of food by future generations. And expert after expert insists that this is the way policymakers should prepare to do it, whether alone or with other prescriptions of varying merit:
... taking full advantage of the opportunities for sustainable agriculture created by biotechnology ...
They might make wild claims like these:
... A generation ago, the Green Revolution delivered a jolt to farm productivity through the improved use of irrigation, fertilizer, and crop breeding. Today, we must rely on biotechnology to deliver many of the same benefits in what might usefully be called the Gene Revolution. The genetic enhancement of crops already has brought us large increases in yield. More is on the way, especially if we allow biotechnology to take advantage of all it can offer, from drought tolerance in wheat and maize to biofortification in rice. ...
Yeah, and what'd we get from that Green Revolution just a few decades later? Dying waterways and depleting aquifers. It has trapped farmers in debt, water shortage, and cycles of ever increasing pesticide and fertilizer use as the pests develop resistance and the soil becomes depleted.
Then about those biotech benefits, they have yet to materialize. They don't increase yield. The products' spread can't be controlled, making ever more of the plant genome the private property of companies like Monsanto and Syngenta. Major nutrition gains and drought tolerance would be nice but aren't in evidence.
Meanwhile, high yields, higher nutrition and greater drought tolerance can be realized right now through organic agriculture. Though someone like Joel Salatin isn't going to grow a filthy rich multinational from it, so it has few big league promoters.
As Vandana Shiva explains so well, the real point of genetically modified seed is to make a profit and monopolize food sources, not to make farming sustainable.
(Photo credit: twoblueday on Flickr.)
Supporting, Undermining Global Food Security
Published April 16, 2009 @ 09:16AM PT
It's the case in the world of federal legislation that many people have their hands in any given legislative pie. A large bill has numerous parents, and the process is difficult and time-consuming enough that in general, if you get a thing or two that you want in the final product, you take your win and go home.
I get that. It's the way business is done.
Indeed, when you can get a strong Senate coalition to approve a measure that will ease global hunger, an aim that's strongly supported by the president, hey, celebrate.
Though somebody, somewhere, needs to keep an eye on the bigger picture.
The Global Food Security Act of 2009, S. 384, will mandate the acceptance of genetically modified crops as part of US foreign assistance. Which unfortunately means that what it gives to Africa and S. Asia with one hand, it likely takes away with the other.
That part of the bill needs to come out.
Now it must be admitted that traditional farming, while it's had notable achievements and fed all the people we descended from for many generations, had the occasional total collapse. Old school crossbreeding gave us many wonderful foods, but mobility and information sharing weren't what they are now and they were far more at the mercy of the weather.
Though the Green Revolution, where high-yield hybrids were added to new well-drilling, irrigation and synthetic fertilizer technology has in many cases tossed the baby out with the bath water.
Consider that India's current elections in Punjab, where the Green Revolution was embraced wholeheartedly, have as a major campaign issue the ongoing farmer suicides in the region. It's being reported that 4 kill themselves every day, with the toll having reached 1,600 in 2007.
They can't get proper loans for capital intensive farming, for the new seeds, new chemicals, and new wells that need to be dug as the water table drops ever lower, so they have to go to loan sharks. Green Revolution crops are good producers, though only if they're pampered. Then if anything goes wrong, like the rains aren't great or prices collapse, they end up deep in debt with no way out.
Farmers who don't commit suicide may lose their land to developers or government fiat. They move to some slum in a city where there's little hope of work for them and have to buy what they might once have grown. One way or another, small farmers stop farming and their expertise is lost along with any unique crop breeds they once cared for.
Every indication is that genetically modified seeds are an advantage over Green Revolution hybrids only in that they make a lot more money for their producers.
Now countries that have tried to keep genetically modified organisms out of their borders may be blackmailed into giving up. Even if you approve of genetically engineered crops, is it really the US' business to make that decision for other countries? I don't think so.
Which is why I'd appreciate it if you'd read up on this bill and contact your representatives to ask them to remove the biotechnology section from S. 384, even if you've already written them in support of it. There's no good argument for forcing this on the unwilling.
(Photo credit: visualpanic on Flickr.)
