Making food without photosynthesis

By Tom Linder

We live in interesting times. The specters of overpopulation and climate change are constantly in the headlines. The possible threat of global food shortages as a result of increased food demand and climate change-induced crop failures is hovering just over the horizon. And we keep hearing the same mantra: we can’t go on producing and consuming food the way we used to. So how can humanity get out of this fix with the minimum amount of societal upheaval and ecological disaster? If we are to fundamentally alter our food production practices, we must start with a bird’s-eye view of the basic biophysical principles of our current food production system. We may need to begin making food without photosynthesis.

Fundamentals of food

Why not begin by addressing the two most basic questions of food production and consumption – namely, what is food and why do we need to eat it? Let’s start with the answer to the second question, which is simply that food is anything that provides us with two things: (1) metabolic fuel to power our thinking, our movements and our development from a fertilized egg to an adult individual; (2) building blocks to make, repair and maintain the tissues of our bodies.

So whatever food is, it has to satisfy those two criteria. There are three categories of chemical compounds that do just that: carbohydrates, protein and fats. (We also require vitamins and trace minerals for maintaining our bodies but for simplicity’s sake we will focus on these three major macronutrients.) So all types of food are in essence some configuration of carbohydrates, protein and fats with some micronutrients thrown in for good measure.

food components are carbohydrates, protein, and fats — What is food? A collection of carbohydrates, protein and fats, with assorted micronutrients.

All of these three categories of macronutrients can only be made by living organisms. Granted, some organic precursors – like amino acids, which are the building blocks of protein, have been shown to form spontaneously in nature under specific conditions. (This is probably how life started eons ago.) However, the rates of formation are way too slow to sustain contemporary organisms. As animals, our fundamental problem is that we cannot synthesize carbohydrates, proteins or fats directly from inorganic precursors that occur in the surrounding environment. To be more specific, there are three chemical elements that make up the bulk of these macronutrients – carbon (C), nitrogen (N) and sulfur (S), all of which are inaccessible to us in their inorganic forms such as carbon dioxide (CO₂) and molecular nitrogen (N₂) in the atmosphere as well as dissolved sulfate ions (SO₄^2–) in soils and seawater.

What that means in practice is that another organism first has to assimilate (“fix”) these three elements by incorporating them into their own biomass as carbohydrates, protein and fats before we then can acquire those macronutrients in turn by eating that organism. Pretty much all the carbon that we ingest was originally fixed by photosynthetic organisms like algae and terrestrial plants.

Up until the early 20^th century, all the nitrogen that we derived from our food (nearly all in the form of protein) was originally fixed by specialized bacteria in soils and the oceans. Even with the advent of industrial nitrogen fixation (which I will get back to at the end of this post), we still rely on plants, fungi and various microorganisms to convert inorganic nitrogen compounds like ammonia, nitrate and urea into protein. Sulfur, which we also acquire as protein, can be assimilated in its inorganic forms by most organisms with the exception of animals.

The biophysical limits of food production

Now that we have defined what food is, we can start to explore the current limits of global food production capacity based on agriculture, aquaculture etc. What should be clear at this point is that we do not suffer from a shortage of carbon for food production. Consider that in addition to all the CO₂ in the atmosphere (more than 700 billion tons), there are essentially limitless reserves of carbonate-containing rocks in the Earth’s crust. What is limiting are edible forms of carbon i.e. those same carbohydrates, proteins and fats I keep mentioning.

So what ultimately limits our global food production capacity is the rate at which inorganic carbon i.e. CO₂, is converted into biomass. (An additional problem is that most biomass on the planet is in the form of cellulose that make up wood, leaves and straw. Although cellulose is a carbohydrate, it is not directly accessible to us because we cannot digest it. That is why we keep livestock – they are essentially walking biocatalysts for the conversion of indigestible plant materials like grass and leaves to things we can eat and drink – meat and dairy.)

Taken together, the theoretical upper limit for current global food production practices is determined by the photosynthetic capacity of the entire planet. The total amount of CO₂ that is converted into biomass on land and in the seas every year is known as net primary production (or NPP for short), which has been estimated at 105 billion tons of carbon per year. That might sound like a lot (and it is) but all of those 105 billion tons are not accessible to us for food production. At the moment, the proportion of NPP that has already been appropriated by humanity for food, fuel and fiber has been estimated at 25%. Because of the biophysical constraints of contemporary agriculture (i.e. the need for arable land, sunlight, fresh water and favorable climate conditions), it is believed that this number cannot increase much further.

There are some low-tech options out there on how to get around these constraints. One key factor to consider is that photosynthetic activity is not spread uniformly across the surface of the planet. Instead it is concentrated into patches of high rates of photosynthetic carbon fixation, such as grasslands and forests. At the same time there are huge areas where little or no carbon fixation occurs – polar regions, deserts and nutrient-poor zones of the open ocean. If photosynthetic activity can be increased in an area with low natural photosynthetic carbon fixation, this would effectively increase global NPP.

desert irrigation to make food with photosynthesis — Green circular fields in the desert resulting from irrigation. Image via Wikimedia Commons.

One way to increase photosynthetic activity would be for example by irrigating arid soils for agricultural production, as is done in the Wadi As-Sirhan Basin in Saudi Arabia. The problem of course is that this requires significant amounts of fresh water, which in the case of Saudi Arabia comes from aquifers that eventually will run dry. Another option is to adopt saltwater-tolerant crops, which would enable the expansion agricultural production to coastal regions where the saline soils prohibit the cultivation of conventional crops. You could take this approach one step further and simply move your crops into the oceans by cultivating macroalgae such as kelp. But what other options are there?

The problem with photosynthesis

Since we more or less take for granted that essentially all carbon in our food comes from photosynthesis, the question is rarely asked whether photosynthesis is the optimal way to fix atmospheric CO₂ for food production. Photosynthesis has one major drawback, which is its absolute dependence on light energy. Because of this limitation, conventional crop production can only occur in two dimensions.

Proponents of vertical farming will point out that artificial lighting can bypass this problem and allow for stacking of crops in three dimensions. This is true in theory but in practice you quickly run into the issues of cost and energy conversion efficiency. While sunlight falling on a field of crops is essentially “free”, artificial lighting within vertical farming systems will require electricity from an external source. If that electricity comes from solar panels, we must first consider that these panels typically have an efficiency between 10-20%. Add to that the energy conversion efficiency (also known as radiant or “wall-plug” efficiency) when electrical energy goes into an artificial light source and gets converted into light energy.

On top of that you must consider what proportion of the light coming out of the light source that can actually be harvested by the plant for photosynthesis – a spectrum of light is called photosynthetically active radiation (PAR). Granted, recent developments in light-emitting diode (LED) technology look promising with respect to improvements in both energy conversion efficiency and PAR. However, that still leaves the low efficiency of photosynthesis itself, which tends to end up somewhere in the single digits. To cut a long story short, it would be preferable to have a food production system that is not limited to light energy and thereby would not be confined to two dimensions.

There is another perhaps less obvious drawback with a photosynthesis-dependent food production system, which is that the edible biomass (carbohydrates, protein and fats) is often located within the same physical entity – the crop plant itself, as the light-harvesting apparatus. This means that after annual crops such as wheat, corn or soy have been harvested, the fields in which they were grown are suddenly fixing atmospheric CO₂ at much lower rates simply because there are few or no plants left in the field to do so. Remember that the key threshold in global food production is the rate at which CO₂ is converted to edible biomass.

An empty field is therefore essentially a waste of photosynthetic potential while we wait for the next batch of crops to appear. (This drawback does not apply to perennial food plants such as fruit trees, which retain their full photosynthetic potential after harvest. Of course, some fruit trees will shed their leaves during winter.) So what we would like in the end is a system that also decouples CO₂ fixation from the production of edible biomass. This would allow for continuous CO₂ fixation independently of the rate at which edible biomass is harvested.

Breaking the NPP barrier

So to re-cap, in order to circumvent the net primary production barrier, we must come up with a way to convert CO₂ to edible biomass (carbohydrates, protein and fats) that (1) does not exclusively depend on light energy, and (2) ideally decouples carbon fixation from the generation of biomass edible biomass. As it turns out, this problem was solved more than 50 years ago during the height of the space race.

In a 1964 paper, researchers John Foster and John Litchfield described a continuous CO₂-recycling life-support system intended for extended space travel, which would capture the CO₂ exhaled by astronauts and convert it into food. This was made possible by an edible bacterium called Cupriavidus necator – also known under a host of older names including Ralstonia eutropha. This bacterium is capable of chemosynthesis, which is a process analogous to photosynthesis but relies on chemical energy carriers instead of light to power CO₂ fixation. In the case of the C. necator bacterium, it uses the inherent energy in hydrogen gas (H₂) to power the CO₂ fixation process.

Hydrogen gas can be generated by electrolysis of water, which is the key to satisfying the first criterion of a non-photosynthetic food production system, as the electrical energy can be provided by any energy source – hydro, wind, geothermal and even nuclear. There might even be a point of using solar power for chemosynthetic production, since it would be possible to place solar panels in a place where conventional agriculture is not possible (like a desert) and then transmit the electrical energy through the power grid to wherever the hydrogen production and subsequent cultivation of edible bacteria takes place. This property also partially satisfies the second criterion of a non-photosynthetic food production system by decoupling one aspect of CO₂ fixation (generation of energy) from production of edible biomass. The enzymatic machinery inside the C. necator cell is still required to convert CO₂ into biomass. However, this is not a major problem since a C. necator cell growing on a H₂/CO₂ mixture will divide fairly quickly under optimal conditions – as often as once every three hours. This means that it is possible to harvest half of the C. necator bacteria every three hours indefinitely as long as the bacteria are continuously supplied with a H₂/CO₂ mixture.

There are in fact some companies today that are trying to commercialize food and feed products derived from H₂-dependent chemosynthetic bacteria like C. necator. The Bay Area startup NovoNutrients use industrial CO₂ emissions to cultivate an undisclosed microorganism – most likely a H₂-dependent chemosynthetic bacterium, which is then processed into a high-protein flour called Novomeal, which is then marketed as aquaculture feed. The Finnish startup Solar Foods are working on a similar process but intends to market the resulting protein product – called Solein, for human consumption rather than be used as animal feed. Solar Foods recently announced that they plan to have Solein for sale in supermarkets by 2021.

The idea of eating protein flour made from bacteria might seem like a novel idea but the concept of edible microorganisms such as bacteria, yeasts and filamentous fungi is in fact quite old. The Aztecs were known to harvest photosynthetic bacteria from Lake Texcoco before the lake was drained following the Spanish conquest (the remaining lake basin is now part of Mexico City). The same kind of photosynthetic bacteria are still harvested today from alkaline lakes in Chad by the indigenous Kanembu people (as described in the video below). In 1902 the Marmite Food Company in the UK launched its now (in)famous sandwich spread made from spent brewer’s yeast. More recently, biomass from the filamentous fungus Fusarium venenatum is used as the main ingredient in Quorn-brand meat imitation products.

Microbial biomass makes a good source of food due to its high protein and vitamin content. Unfortunately, only a small minority of edible microorganisms is capable of chemosynthetic growth like that of C. necator. Most edible microorganisms instead require organic substrates for growth – sugar being the most commonly used substrate for microbial biomass production at present. However, most microorganisms also have the ability to grow using very simple organic compounds like hydrocarbons, alcohols and organic acids.

As it happens, there are a number of hydrocarbons, alcohols and organic acids that can be synthesized directly from CO₂ using different chemical and biological processes. This means that rather than edible microorganisms fixing CO₂ themselves, the CO₂ is fixed in a separate process to produce an organic compound that the edible microorganism can then use for growth. Such a two-step process would satisfy the two criteria for non-photosynthetic food production mentioned previously, namely (1) not being solely reliant on light energy and (2) decoupling carbon fixation from generation of edible biomass.

There are several possible options for how edible microbial biomass could be produced from organic compounds that in turn have been synthesized directly from CO₂. I will describe one such example in more detail. Methanol (CH₃OH) is the simplest alcohol and can be produced from CO₂ by a simple hydrogenation reaction:

CO₂ + 3 H₂ → CH₃OH + H₂O

The company Carbon Recycling International runs a factory on Iceland, which produces 4,000 tons of methanol per year by hydrogenating CO₂ from emissions that come from a neighboring geothermal power plant. This methanol is intended for use as a drop-in fuel but could also be used to cultivate a wide variety of edible microorganisms. Although methanol is toxic to animals, many microorganisms can grow just fine using methanol as their only source of metabolic carbon. In fact, during the 1970s and 80s, the British company Imperial Chemical Industries developed a high-protein animal feed called Pruteen, which was derived from the edible methanol-assimilating bacterium Methylophilus methylotrophus.

Ultimately Pruteen production was discontinued due to rising methanol prices and competition from cheaper soy-based feeds. Nevertheless, the Pruteen process demonstrated that it was possible to produce edible microbial biomass in significant amounts (50,000-60,000 tons per year) from a single 1,500-m³ bioreactor. I have recently estimated that if the entire US soy production capacity (about 120 million tons per year) was to be replaced with methanol factories and Pruteen-style bioreactors, it would occupy roughly one thousandth of the same land area. However, this estimate does not include energy sources to power the CO₂ conversion process. So the land-sparing potential of such a process would depend heavily on the power density of the chosen energy source.

soybean acres — In 2018, 89.6 million (89,600,000) acres of soybeans were planted in the United States in 2018. If bioreactors were used instead, only 89.6 thousand (89,600) acres would be needed to produce the same amount of protein.

Final big thoughts

What should be clear from the examples of edible chemosynthetic bacteria as well as edible methanol-assimilating bacteria that I presented above is that producing edible microbial biomass from CO₂ in a manner that does not require photosynthesis carries with it some pretty significant implications. Microorganisms are typically cultivated in large (10-1000 m³) bioreactors where internal growth conditions (temperature, rate of mixing, supply of air and nutrients etc) are controlled independently of external conditions. This means that edible biomass – food, can be produced anywhere the planet independently of local climate conditions or access to arable land. Suddenly deserts, tundra, underground caves or even the open ocean can become hubs for high-capacity food production.

If global food production capacity is no longer constrained by NPP, the new limits for just how much food humanity can produce per unit time now comes down to energy and money. What will this mean for Earth’s carrying capacity? Will the human population continue to grow if food production is no longer constrained by photosynthesis (and prove Paul Ehrlich wrong again)? If my back-of-the-envelope calculation is correct, will the higher production density of edible microbial biomass enable us to restore a significant proportion of agricultural land to its natural state thereby protecting biodiversity – and perhaps even managing to sequester a big chunk of atmospheric CO₂ in the process? It all remains to be seen.

In closing, it might be instructive to compare our current situation with the scarcity of nitrogen fertilizers (manure, nitrate-containing minerals) that faced global agriculture at the end of the 19^th century. At the time it seemed as if the global food production system had reached a seemingly insurmountable boundary. Then came the invention of industrial nitrogen fixation by German scientists Fritz Haber and Carl Bosch in the beginning of the 20^th century and suddenly humanity was no longer dependent on biological nitrogen fixation. As a result the human population could continue to grow from less than two billion in the year 1900 to 7.7 billion today (and counting). In fact it has been estimated that half of the nitrogen in our bodies now comes from the Haber-Bosch process rather than biological nitrogen fixation.

If humanity can become independent of biological carbon fixation as we did with nitrogen, recent history would suggest that this in itself will not promote stabilization of the global population. Instead the global population is expected to plateau and eventually shrink thanks to falling fertility rates as a consequence of increasing living standards, which allow parents across the globe to choose to have fewer children. So ultimately the challenge of this century (and perhaps the next one as well) will be to feed humanity in a sustainable fashion as it attempts to clear this demographic hurdle. And if you ask me, edible microbes produced independently of photosynthesis would seem like the way to go.

Written by Guest Expert

Tomas (“Tom”) Linder is a microbiologist and molecular geneticist who studies metabolism in microorganisms and has a particular fondness for yeasts. He is based at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences in Uppsala, Sweden. Follow Tom on Facebook at Yeast Genomix.

Ask your supermarket to stock GMO salmon

By Richard Green

The FDA recently removed the last obstacle to producing AquaBounty’s faster growing Atlantic salmon in the United States. Dr. Anastasia Bodnar of Biology Fortified covers benefits and allays concerns in “Fast-growing genetically engineered salmon approved”.

Does this mean that we can look forward to seeing this salmon in our local supermarkets? Sadly no, at least not all of them.

salmon supermarket — “Size comparison of an AquAdvantage® Salmon (background) vs. a non-transgenic Atlantic salmon sibling (foreground) of the same age (~12 months). Both fish reach the same size at maturity, however, the smaller non-transgenic salmon will take twice as long to grow to the same mature size. The AquAdvantage Salmon uses 25% less feed than a non-transgenic Atlantic salmon to reach market weight.” Image via AquaBounty, used with permission.

Misinformation spreads to the supermarket

Anti-GMO misinformation was turned up to 11 a few years ago, with initiatives and referendums in many US states to restrict farming or sale of GMOs. People even participated in anti-GMO marches. If you don’t recall, no worries. Unprompted GMO issues are not on most folks’ radar.

I mention these actions because it was well after that point when some supermarket chains made the bold decision to jump on the bandwagon of a waning movement with somewhat tepid statements. Trader Joe’s, Costco, Whole Foods, Kroger, Target, and several other U.S. food retailers indicated that they had no plans to carry GE Salmon. Walmart was even later to the party, according to an e-mail from an activist group.

Now, with the salmon actually able to go into production, it might be a good time to write, e-mail, or message these companies and ask them to include it in their plans. It also couldn’t hurt to notify your local grocer that you’d like them to carry this fish as well. To spark ideas, I’ll share the template I’m using in drafting my own letters. Feel free to use all, parts, or none of it, if you decide to write to some of these grocers.

Suggested letter to supermarkets

Dear ____, Current CEO, VP of Marketing, or both. (May as well aim high 😉)

The FDA has just paved the way for Aquabounty to produce and sell their fast growing Atlantic Salmon in the US. I’m writing to let you know that I would like you to carry this salmon at your stores as soon as supplies become available. The salmon is grown in recirculating inland tanks which is the most ecologically friendly and sustainable way to farm fish. The tanks have the added bonus of keeping the fish totally contained within the facility. This not only relieves pressure on wild Atlantic Salmon but is a boon to the environment. I’ve heard reports that the fish is quite tasty, and I’d love to try it myself. As a good corporate citizen, it makes sense for you to carry this fish for your customers that are concerned about the environment.

It can also help your bottom-line. You may have lingering concerns about the fish being genetically engineered because of the vast amount of misinformation that was constantly being spread years ago. When unprompted, most people are not concerned about GMOs, and it has been years since anybody marched about biotech, unless you count positive representations in the March for Science. Anti-GMO sentiment has waned, becoming a fringe issue, though they may seem to be loud from time to time. The pendulum is swinging in the other direction.

Stonyfield was soundly trounced for spreading false information on GMOs, as have other companies. This is your chance to be on top of a trend that has facts, not fear, on its side. Carrying environmentally-friendly products like AquaBounty’s salmon and items that reduce food waste like non-browning Arctic Apples and Innate Potatoes will show your commitment to sustainability. These foods are just the beginning of genetically engineered or gene edited products that are good for the environment and the consumer.

Thank you for listening,

Contact your supermarket

Here are some hyperlinks to the contact pages for Trader Joe’s, Costco, Walmart, Target, Kroger, and Whole Foods*. You can find more contact information for grocery stores from Elliott Advocacy.

*Whole Foods is most likely a lost cause, but if you have the letter ready to go, it can’t hurt to tilt at a few windmills

Editor’s note: Read more on this story, including how supermarkets responded to letters about GMO salmon on Medium, In Support of GE Salmon: Production can begin, but will consumers get to try it?

Written by Guest Expert

Richard Green is a microbiologist who spent his career in biopharmaceuticals. He wore many hats moving between various departments such as Process Development, Clinical and Commercial manufacturing. These days he pursues his love for science via his Eclectic Science Facebook page and the occasional blog on Medium.

GMOs Improve Commerce and Social Justice

Written by Kendal Hirschi

Adam Smith and Genetically Modified Foods

Adam Smith may be known as the father of capitalism but he was also a man profoundly interested in social justice. In “The Wealth of Nations” Smith’s most famous work showcased how commerce operates between individuals seeking to maximize their own returns.

In his less noted work “The Theory of Moral Sentiments”, he analyzed social interactions and how individuals aspire to help and support one another. Smith’s interest in social relationships trumped his interest in trade as he was constantly fine-tuning “The Theory of Moral Sentiments”, his first book, right up until his death – long after he had put “The Wealth of Nations” to bed. Here I argue that if Adam Smith was living today, he would endorse genetically modified foods to both improve commerce and provide social justice.

As described by historian Thomas J. Ward:

One could argue that Smith’s ultimate quest was social justice. He
advocated an open market with economic and social protocols between countries that would result in an overall improvement in the living conditions of the common citizen. … Smith’s “invisible spectator’s” concern for the other, including the downtrodden of his society, are prerequisites to facilitate economic opportunities, greater social justice, and peace.
Adam Smith’s Views on Religion and Social Justice

GMOs and Wealth

Within the ivory towers, today’s plant biologists are improving crop productivity for academic wealth: papers and research grants, the paucity of which is a subject for another time! Given current regulatory hurdles, the dream of bringing these crop improvements to the world’s poor is a fantasy. There is no mysterious “invisible hand” operating in the global market place to thwart the use of GMOs. It is a systematic campaign of misinformation by ill-informed, malicious groups. (GMO stands for Genetically Modified Organism. For more information, see Intro to GMOs by the SciMoms.)

When Smith referred to the “invisible hand” it was a metaphor for the motives that intentionally caused actions, which once taken, had unintended consequences. The ‘unmistakable hand” of the anti-GMO campaign has been to suppress the wealth of impoverished nations.

Agricultural development is a powerful tool to end poverty. Growth in the agriculture sector is two to four times more effective in raising incomes among the poor. If GMO crops are not utilized to save water, diminish fertilizer costs, and improve yield we have effectively limited the tools available to the world’s poor. Anti-GMO groups are handcuffing the world’s poorest people to their current plight.

GMOs and Moral Sentiment

Smith argues in “The Theory of Moral Sentiments” that our moral ideas and actions are the fabric of our social selves. He argues that our social behavior is a better guide to moral action than reason. Though scientists (and agbiotech) are self-interested, we have to work out how to live alongside others without doing each other harm.

The scientific consensus (and it is a consensus!) finds that GMO plants are safe and don’t seem to harm the environment. Hundreds of studies have been done (and millions of dollars spent) to show unequivocally that GMO plants are safe. Scientists are not creating GMO foods to harm consumers or the environment. Can the same be said for vocal groups that are anti-GMO?

The Bottom Line

Economic considerations of profitability, efficiency, and productivity are paramount for agriculture. If we forgo monetary gain to maintain specific environmental standards this would point to a moral agriculture viewpoint. Adam Smith would want us to take this moral perspective.

However, GMO foods do not require this choice to be made, as they are productive, efficient, and environmentally sound. By Smith’s standards, the anti-GMO rhetoric is difficult to defend because it does not support profit, efficiency, or most importantly, social justice.

Written by Guest Expert

Kendal Hirschi works at the Children’s Nutrition Research Center at Baylor College of Medicine and is Associate Director of Research at the Vegetable and Fruit Improvement Center at Texas A&M. His research program centers on many biomedical issues and has published papers using bacteria, yeast, crops, zebrafish, mice, and human subjects. His research goal is to increase the nutritional content of crops, in collaboration with clinical faculty at Baylor College of Medicine. His long-term goal is to bridge the chasm between plant biology and nutritional sciences.

Editors note: Thomas J. Ward quote added 3 February 2019 to provide a definition for social justice in the context of Adam Smith, which is different from the definition that might commonly be assumed in 2019.

A field trip inside Green anti-GMO campaigning

Written by Inti Orozco

A few months ago, I went to a conference that was part of a 3-day event called European Ideas Lab, organized in Brussels by the Greens/EFA, the green party in the European parliament.

What motivated me to go there was to see first-hand what I knew would be anti-GMO rhetoric, to maybe try to counter misinformation when I spotted it, but, most importantly, to try to establish a dialogue. My expression of open-mindedness, however, was not well-received by the group, but I found others in the group who also felt similarly and spoke up. Despite the negativity and the usual arguments that keep coming up, it was an illuminating experience that might point a way forward from this ideological quagmire. I believe there is common ground to be found with environmentalists about modern plant breeding. I believe it’s not only possible, it’s obvious.

Common values

As a Belgian citizen, I have traditionally always voted Ecolo, the local green party. I was even a Greenpeace donor for a while (I stopped because of their stance on Golden Rice). I share values with these people: I want human activities to have the least ecological impact possible, to curb climate change, to preserve and/or restore natural environments and to protect the species that inhabit them. I want agriculture to be sustainable, but efficient enough to ensure food security for everyone, now and in the future.
That said, I have come to understand that genetic engineering is simply a tool, and like all tools it can – it must – be used responsibly. This is where environmentalists can have a say. But they have to be open-minded about it.

A blanket rejection of a set of tools arbitrarily lumped up under a vague three-letter acronym makes them reject all applications, including those that can benefit the environment, which in the end proves counterproductive. It blinds environmentalists to positive outcomes that deserve their full attention. For example, the halo effect that make Bt crops reduce pest pressure in entire regions, to the benefit of neighboring non-GM and even organic growers.

Hitting a brick wall

Maybe this workshop was not the best place for debating, but which is? In the Green political agenda, the premise that GMOs are to be opposed no matter what is written in stone, and the event was about how to effectively push for that idea, rather than discuss it. Because, I would soon see, there is no discussing it.

The presenter was from the British NGO Beyond GM. She introduced the audience to the various actions by the organization and their joint work with other anti-GMO groups. All those efforts and resources are devoted to a single message: ‘No to GMOs!’ That is their whole raison d’être. And their definition of what counts as ‘GMO’ is quite wide. Did you know, we were told, that the industry is trying to have ‘new GMOs’ (the presenter said this means mutation breeding, which is actually far from new; actually, she referred to gene editing) not considered GMOs under European law? This, I suppose, was intended to get the troops riled up.

A network devoted to blocking food innovation. Credit: Inti Orozco *Editor’s note: The “Letter from America” was also coordinated to coincide with the Factor GMO announcement. Go here for an update on that story.*

We did a round of presentations among the audience. There were members of the Greens/EFA and activists from different groups, including one from the Faucheurs volontaires, the French eco-warriors who destroy test fields at night – he got a suspended sentence, by the way. (Side note: since their systematic vandalism, relative impunity, and public sympathy have helped end research in genetically engineered plants in France, the Faucheurs volontaires now attack any tests of hybrid and mutant breeds, which they call ‘hidden GMOs’. This has driven the seed coop Limagrain to move out of the country. Most astonishingly, the Faucheurs, despite engaging in criminal activity, are financially backed by the organic industry leader Biocoop, which sells a Faucheurs volontaires brand of beer and potato chips).

I presented myself as having been anti-GMO by default, from ignorance, before educating myself about the science, learning about the overwhelming consensus on the safety of genetically engineered crops, discovering many applications of the technology that make farming more sustainable and help with food security; in short, realizing I had been wrong the whole time. Surprisingly, I was not alone. At least one other person shared this stance.

Reaching out

The workshop didn’t go as planned. It rested on the assumption that everyone was on the same page, but I wasn’t there to come up with ways to convey a message that I feel is fundamentally wrong, so I and the other person expressed our disagreement, and the whole thing turned into a debate. Because of this, we were accused of hijacking the event and shouted at by the audience. We were told that rejecting GMOs is ‘in the DNA’ of the Green party, so why were we even there in the first place. I objected that this was dogmatic. Such a violent reaction, while not surprising, was nonetheless unsettling.

I tried to argue that beneficial applications exist and deserve serious consideration – drought tolerant maize, cassava resistant to brown streak virus, crops fortified with vitamin A and iron, etc. They are in many cases created in developing countries for their own farmers, but European opposition influences their lawmakers and hinders solutions that are direly needed by the most vulnerable populations. This fell on deaf ears and was countered with the popular, though inaccurate, trope about multinational corporations controlling science and enslaving farmers.

But if they’re against big corporations, I asked, then why don’t the Greens support public research? “We do!”, they replied. But this is not true. The unanimous stance of green parties across Europe is one of outright rejection of any research in crop genetic engineering, and they make it quite clear in their communication that their end goal is “a GMO-free Europe”. This, of course, is not unique to the Greens; it reflects popular opinion. But the result is that public (and even private) research in genetic engineering is virtually dead in Europe, with scientists abandoning the field altogether. While saddening, this is understandable: why devote years of your life and millions in taxpayer funds only to see it uprooted overnight by activists, or sometimes even by your own government, while the taxpayer applauds them and reviles you? But the consequence is that we are deprived of the precious research that environmentalists say is so lacking for GMOs.

Whack-a-mole

No matter what I said, it was deflected by bringing up yet another argument. Sometimes political or ideological: “If we concede on GMOs, what next? Nuclear power?” One person started citing Moms Across America and Séralini’s rat study to me, but the organizer suggested not to go down that route. Maybe she was aware that it’s terrible science? We may never know; one of the propositions of the workshop was to avoid confusing the public with science. I objected that it’s a pity not to educate the public, because there is genuine interest for science communication, as attested by the countless science-themed outlets in social media. Ignorance, on the other hand, only fuels fear. And fear, it turns out, is a main driver of anti-GMO sentiment.

This is reflected in the popular opinions collected by the NGO. Credit: Inti Orozco

As the workshop clearly didn’t go where it was meant to, the organizer grew desperate. “While we argue among ourselves here, Monsanto becomes more efficient in its campaigning”, she said, in a Council of Elrond-esque way. I felt bad for her. I didn’t mean to ruin the workshop. I was even willing to play along, but my message, as an informed citizen, would have been one of open-mindedness; of educating oneself and others; to use technology responsibly and sustainably, and not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

After the workshop ended, I was caught in a lengthy and frustrating discussion with a young member of the German Green party. Although the exchange went nowhere, he did show me a video. Interestingly, I considered it was an argument for crop biotech in the developing world, but from his perspective, it was one against. He considered the economic rights of the people were threatened by GMOs, while to me, for the reasons I mentioned before, the rights of the people include that of using biotechnology for their own benefit and empowerment. Who are we to deny it to them?

Time for introspection

What I took from this experience is that while environmentalists have legitimate reasons to be suspicious of industry and its applications of technology, this has gone far beyond sound skepticism and sunk into full-blown fanaticism that sacrifices science and technology on the altar of ideology. Maybe we should take the time to step back and meditate on this, and consider listening to environmentalists with differing views such as Mark Lynas, instead of dismissing them as yet more industry shills. This will not mean the death of the Green political movement. Simply that it’s capable of evolving without betraying its core values.

Written by Guest Expert

Inti Orozco is an artist and science enthusiast, regularly geeking out on space, agriculture and biotechnology.

GM Camelina can provide omega-3s for fish

Written by Rebecca Nesbit

The AquAdvantage Salmon is engineered to grow faster and could be fed Omega-3 enhanced crops like camelina.

Biotechnology in the fish farming industry hit the headlines in 2017 when a fast-growing salmon became the first GM animal to reach the market. In Europe, however, new developments in biotech’s potential for aquaculture went largely un-reported. Rather than focusing on the fish, British scientists are making progress towards creating fish food from a transgenic plant. For almost two decades, scientists from Rothamsted Research and their collaborators have been working towards providing oils for farmed fish from one of Europe’s oldest oilseed cropsLcamelina. The latest results bring them a step closer to realizing their vision.
Why focus on fish feed? To understand that we must think about where our fish and their nutrients come from.

The current problems with meeting our demand for fish

Over half of the fish we consume comes from farms, and aquaculture uses around 80% of the fish oil harvested annually from the sea. More fish goes into the system than comes out, which means that much of the fish caught from the wild goes to feeding farmed fish. Growing demand for omega-3 LC-PUFAs, particularly from aquaculture, has placed substantial pressure on the wild fisheries which supply much of this fish oil.

Camelina seeds. Credit: Rothamsted Research

The root of the problem is that that fish oils aren’t produced by fish. Instead fish acquire them from microalgae, which aren’t available to caged fish in farms. We don’t currently have financially-viable technology to produce algae on a large scale, so farmed fish are fed oil and meal made from fish caught from the oceans. In this way, the fatty acids consumed by the smallest fish accumulate all the way up through the food web.

Vegetable oil can be used as an alternative to fish oil in feed, but this changes the nutritional value of the fish people eat. Given that fish can’t make their own fish oils, they can only accumulate these oils if they consume them as part of their diet. Now that farmed fish have more vegetable oil in their diets, they are no longer providing consumers with the same level of omega-3 and the associated health benefits.
Producing the appropriate oils from plants has the potential to ensure that farmed fish bring their full benefits for human health, whilst simultaneously reducing pressure on wild fish stocks.

Promising results from 2017

Fatty acid profiles of wild-type and GM camelina seeds in both the lab and the field. From Usher et al. 2017

A new paper in Scientific Reports shows that their plants have the potential to yield oils in the field, and results published in the journal PLOS ONE showed that these oils are suitable food for salmon. The project, led by Professor Johnathan Napier, uses Camelina sativa (false flax), a distant relative of oilseed rape. Camelina is naturally high in short-chain omega-3, but it’s long-chain omega-3 that is important for fish food. To change the profile of oils in the seed, the team has introduced synthetic DNA sequences into the camelina genome. The introduced genes are similar to those found in marine microbes, and code for enzymes in the biochemical pathway which produces long-chain omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (LC-PUFAs).

The oil can be extracted from the seed and fed to fish, and that is exactly what happened in the feeding trial reported in PLOS ONE. The newly-published data show results from a 2015 field trial of GM camelina, and confirm positive findings from 2014.
Firstly, results from both years show that the transgenic plants perform well in the field. The studies went beyond agronomic performance, as they also examined the composition, or profile, of the oil produced by the plant.
The profile of seed oil has also been improved relative to earlier varieties of transgenic camelina. Not only were the scientists looking to increase the concentration of desirable fatty acids, they were also keen to reduce the production of some of camelina’s natural oils. Omega-6 fatty acids are only present in low levels in marine organisms, so the latest varieties have been engineered to produce smaller quantities.
Salmon feeding trials have also seen positive results, and oil from GM camelina was an effective substitute for fish oil in feeds, supporting growth without compromising fish health. The fish accumulated fatty acids exactly as they would when fed oil from fish, creating a fish with the desired health benefits for consumers.
Trials on sea bream have also indicated that GM-derived oils could replace fish oils in their diets.

The future of camelina

The results published in 2017 indicate that oils from transgenic plants offer the opportunity to increase the levels of omega-3 LC-PUFAs in farmed fish to levels found a decade ago. Further development work is now taking place to make this a reality on a large scale.
The next steps for the project is to select the best camelina lines – i.e. those producing the highest levels of omega-3 fish oils. These plants will be used in larger field trials to demonstrate that they perform as well in the field as they do in the glasshouse.

Cross-sections of camelina seeds showing increased levels of Omega-3 fatty acids. From Usher et al. 2017

The work will then need to move from the research phase to development and commercialization. As well as planning how to make the crop available on a commercial scale, an essential step will be seeking regulatory approval. Although the research has been done in the UK, the status of the EU regulatory system means that the team will be applying for approvals outside of Europe.
Issues to be addressed before the plants are suitable for regulatory approval include freedom-to-operate (ensuring that no patents would be infringed if the crop is commercialized), and appropriate farm management. Camelina is predominantly self-pollinated but is visited by insects, so during the trials scientists addressed concerns from local beekeepers by covering the flowering crop with a fine mesh net to prevent bees from transporting GM pollen back to their hives. Such measures wouldn’t be feasible if the crop was grown on a commercial scale, but the team is considering the farm management practices which would be needed to prevent gene flow. Thankfully, camelina doesn’t cross pollinate with oilseed rape or other Brassica species, making large-scale planting more feasible without risking cross-pollination of other crops. In the end, to goal is to make aquaculture more environmentally sustainable while maintaining the healthy properties of the fish that we eat.
For updates on the project and more background reading, please visit the Rothamsted website. I also cover the topic in my book Is that Fish in Your Tomato?

Written by Guest Expert

Rebecca Nesbit is author of the popular science book ‘Is that Fish in your Tomato?’ which explores the fact and fiction of GM foods. She studied butterfly migration for her PhD, then worked for a start-up company training honeybees to detect explosives. She now works in science communication and her projects have ranged from a citizen science flying ant survey to visiting universities around the world with Nobel Laureates. In her spare time she writes fiction – she has published a novel, and many short stories.

What biotechnology issues resonate with students?

Written by Brittany Anderton

*Source: Portal Educativo. Image slightly modified.*

Biotechnology is poised to become one of the most valuable scientific revolutions of the 21^st century. Because the field is developing so quickly, the gap between expert and non-expert knowledge is increasing at a time when societal decisions about it are becoming more and more important. So how do we promote biotechnology literacy in the classroom? What should non-experts know about genetic technologies in order to make informed decisions? I conducted a study to answer these questions, and here is what I found.
Even though scientific knowledge is an important part of science literacy, how people feel about a technology – their general positive or negative attitudes – also plays a role in their decision-making. In fact, there’s evidence that attitudes play a greater role than knowledge in determining students’ behavior toward biotechnology. I set out to understand what issues undergraduate students draw upon when they reason about genetic technologies. I also wanted to know whether classroom dialogue about biotechnology influences their attitudes and understanding. This information can provide a window into the conceptual frameworks that students use to make decisions about genetic technologies, and can help educators and communicators develop specific strategies for connecting with their audiences.

Students discuss biotechnology

Twenty years ago, my postdoctoral mentor Pamela Ronald launched an innovative course designed for non-science majors at UC Davis. Genetics and Society engages students in the science, politics, social issues, ethics, and economics surrounding biotechnology. It remains popular today. Recognizing the importance of dialogue around this complex topic, Pam introduced “discussion sections” into the course. During the discussion sections, students engage in rational discourse about a biotechnology issue – for example, whether or not all food containing genetically engineered (GE) ingredients should be labeled as “GMO”. The discussion sections provide an opportunity for students to share their thoughts and consider the many facets involved in decision-making about biotechnology. Scientific arguments used in the class are required to be evidence-based, and students are graded on the credibility of their sources. While students in Genetics and Society generally enjoy these peer-to-peer discussions, no one had looked closely at how they influence their understanding and attitudes about genetic technologies.
At the beginning of the course, I asked the students to state their attitudes on seven different biotechnology applications. Three topics related to food: whether or not we should label GMOs, whether GE of plants should be prohibited, and whether GE of animals should be prohibited. I also asked the students to justify their attitude for each topic. At the end of each weekly discussion section, during which a group of students presented on an individual application/topic, I collected this information a second time from the students in the audience. These pre-post attitudes with corresponding reasoning provided the data for my study.

**Figure 1**. Student attitudes significantly changed for three topics following classroom dialogue. Source: Anderton & Ronald, *Journal of Biological Education*, 2017.

I started by looking for significant changes in students’ attitudes following the discussion sections. I found significant changes for three topics: GMO labeling, GE of animals, and the FDA ban on 23andme’s health reports* (Figure 1). Because the students did not appear to have familiarity with the 23andme ban at the beginning of the course, I didn’t select that topic for further analysis. In the end, I selected GMO labeling and GE of animals, as well as two topics for which I didn’t observe significant attitude changes (DNA fingerprinting and human embryo editing research) for further analysis. Pam and I reasoned that it was important to take a close look at student reasoning in the presence and absence of attitude changes, because learning can happen even if a person doesn’t change their mind.

Analyzing the themes

Using the justifications given by the students for their attitudes on the four topics selected above – GMO labeling, GE of animals, DNA fingerprinting and human embryo editing – I performed an approach called thematic analysis, in which I looked for overarching patterns or themes that were prevalent in students’ reasoning about biotechnology. Through an iterative process, I identified seven major themes that students drew upon in their justifications (Figure 2). I also tallied the number of times I detected a change in the use of a theme following a given discussion section (i.e., whenever a student adopted new reasoning or abandoned prior reasoning following a discussion section).

**Figure 2**. Seven overarching themes related to student reasoning about biotechnology. Source: Anderton & Ronald, *Journal of Biological Education*, 2017.

Our preliminary evidence suggests that the discussion sections – and perhaps classroom discourse in particular – provide students with a more nuanced understanding of biotechnology. For example, students generally increased their use of “Middle Way” reasoning following the discussion sections. This suggests that they developed a greater appreciation of regulations that consider biotechnology applications on a case-by-case basis. We also observed increased use of the Economic theme following the two discussion sections for which students had significant attitude changes. It is possible that the economic considerations of genetic technologies can sway people’s attitudes, but this remains to be proven.
Scientific decision-making involves more than just facts. By better understanding the complex processes that take place when students learn and make decisions about genetic technologies – like we did in this study – educators can connect with their audiences and promote biotechnology literacy. A more informed and nuanced discussion will help our society determine the best ways to use biotechnology and to direct our focus as it continues to evolve.

To access the full version of the manuscript, Hybrid thematic analysis reveals themes for assessing student understanding of biotechnology, please go to: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2017.1338599.
Please address any questions or comments to Brittany Anderton at bnanderton@udavis.edu.

*The FDA banned 23andme genetic health reports in November 2013, citing concerns about the accuracy and usefulness of such information to consumers. In October 2015 the ban was lifted, and 23andme resumed offering carrier-status testing, though no longer offers testing for health conditions such as cancer and heart disease.

Written by Guest Expert

Brittany Anderton seeks to improve the intersection of science and society by educating the next generation of responsible scientists and citizens. She has a PhD in cancer biology, studied the teaching and communication of biotechnology as a postdoctoral fellow at UC Davis, and is now the Associate Director of Research Talks at iBiology and Lecturer at CSU Sacramento.

How Norway Became an Anti-GMO Powerhouse

Editor’s note: Story previously published at Food and Farm Discussion Lab.
Eight years, $3.6 million a year, 40 employees, zero knowledge back. This is the story of GenØk and the politicization of science in Norway.
Guest Authors: Øystein Heggdal and Liv Langberg
Norway has one of the world’s most restrictive set of regulations for genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Farmers are forbidden from cultivating biotech crops, biotech feed is prohibited for farm animals. Attitudes towards biotech are such that even though the salmon industry is allowed to use GMO soy as feed for production, they don’t do it because fear of public perception.
In that light, the lack of response in the wake of an popular Norwegian science program called “Folkeopplysningen (People’s Enlightenment) was quite surprising. Previously, they have made headlines debunking misconceptions around homeopathy, clairvoyance and super foods. In September they aired a show debunking the most common myths about GMOs, and there no public outcry afterwards. With one exception.
A small research team located 360 km north of the Arctic Circle, in the small city of Tromsø opined in a small note their dissent. They complained about the lack of nuance and balance in the program. The researchers work for GenØk – National Centre for Biosafety, and they think they should have been allowed to tell viewers that there is no scientific consensus regarding the health and environmental risks associated with GMOs.
I would like to believe that most people who escape ending up on the critical gaze of penetrating show like “Folkeopplysningen” would breathe a sigh of relief, but not GenØk. GenØk wanted to get in the ring. The producer of Folkeopplysningen, Lasse Nederhoed in Teddy TV, said to me; “If we were going to tackle GenØk, we would have to devote a whole program to them. Because there is something very strange going on there. ”
Strange indeed, because the scientific consensus regarding the biotech breeding techniques and biotech crops is broad and durable. The vast majority of scientists working in the relevant fields hold that biotech breeding produces no different set of risks than breeding by conventional means. Nor are there credible hypothesis as to why biotech breeding would produce a greater set of risks than conventional breeding techniques.

Who is GenØk, and what are they doing?

The Norwegian Institute of Gene Ecology (GenØk) was founded in 1998 as an independent foundation and is located adjacent to the University of Tromsø. In 2006, they expanded their mandate when Kristin Halvorsen and the Red-Green coalition government promoted them into a national center for biosafety. Their purported vision is the safe use of biotechnology.
GenØk has largely limited themselves to biotechnology in agriculture, and from the beginning they have engaged fiercely in both in Norway and internationally in opposition to the use of genetically modified plants, warning that they could have unintended consequences for our health. As early as 1998 Terje Traavik, who eventually became Director of Research at GenØk, said the following to a local newspaper:

” We have no means to long-term test the consequences that could result from genetically modified foods. Some examples from abroad are very frightening. “

In the early years, GenØk mainly worked on two things; they organized big conferences on biosafety, and they traveled around the world promoting perceived risks associated with genetic engineering. In 2003 they organized a course with the bouncy title:
“Regulating a privatized genetic industry which has the potential to destroy the future.”
When they weren’t hosting conferences at home, they traveled the world in search of opportunities to spread their message. In 2002 Traavik & Co. traveled to Zambia, which was in the midst of a famine of biblical proportions. But hunger was not Traavik’s concern. He was concerned that aid coming from the United States contained genetically modified maize. He alerted Zambian researchers about “a long list of theoretical risks” linked to the American corn. This led to Zambian government to refuse the aid from the US. Meanwhile, Norwegian aid money was spent on Traavik and his team checking corn on the border to see if it contained GMOs.
Then GenØk traveled to the Philippines on a study expedition. Monsanto had been planting corn there that had been bred to be resistant to pest insects. The corn had a gene inserted encoding a Cry1Ab protein, otherwise referred to as Bt maize. The Cry1Ab protein comes from the soil bacterium bacillus thuringiensis or Bt. Bt has been used safely as an organic insecticide for decades and Cry1Ab protein can be considered the “active ingredient”. Cry proteins work as an insecticide by binding with a receptor in the gut of corn borers and similar pest and disrupting their digestive system. The protein is activated by the alkaline environment of the digestive system of these pests. In humans have an acidic digestive system and they are digested as any other protein would be. Nor do we have the specific receptors for the protein to bind to. This is why Bt is such a safe insecticide – it has a very specific and narrow “mode of action”.
Traavik was in the Philippines to collect samples of Bt corn so GenØk could do research on it. In this context, he discovered that a small village near where they grew Bt corn had suffered an outbreak of a mysterious disease. People had come down with fever, breathing problems, diarrhea, nausea and skin irritations.
Thirty nine blood samples were taken from villagers, and sent to GenØk’s lab in Tromsø to be analyzed for antibodies against the Bt toxin. They found antibodies in their blood that may or may not have been traceable back to pollen the villagers inhaled from Bt corn plants. They could also have got there in a whole host of other ways. But that did not stop Traavik from venturing forth with the unpublished results to a biotechnology conference in Malaysia and creating hysteria in the Philippines. Criticism of Traavik and GenØk may never have been sharper than this, delivered by a group of American scientists:

“There are guidelines for the responsible conduct of science. Your turn has come to follow them yourself. Note that failure to release your data and methodology immediately will prevent any and all legitimate scientists and health authorities from taking your claims seriously. “

That was was in 2004. In 2006, the GenØk gang obtained status from the coalition government as the National Center for Biosecurity. One wonders what conclusions the government expected from them.
This is when GenØk really got rolling. Until then, they had not published any basic research which could indicate that genetically modified plants constituted an elevated risk to the environment or human and animal health. 2006 marks the point at which Thomas Bøhn, Marek Cuhra and quite a few water fleas entered the picture.

In troubled waters with water fleas

Water fleas are used as a model organism to test whether a drug can be toxic or harmful to aquatic organisms. They have short lifespans, so that multiple generations can be quickly observed, they are genetically very similar to one another, and they are easy to handle and maintain. The first of GenØk’s water flea studies was published in 2008. I expect champagne corks hit the roof up in Tromsø right around that time.
After ten years of having warned us that we didn’t have good enough studies on the long-term effects of feeding animals genetically modified crops, GenØk had now produced research that showed that water fleas receiving Bt maize died earlier than water fleas fed conventional corn. Or had they?
Bøhn and company had produced a science experiment that was more a textbook case of “How Not To Do Science” than a demonstration of health risks presented by the Bt corn. Bøhn and his team had failed to control for multiple variables rendering their feeding trial useless. They had fed the water fleas corn that had been grown at Elizabeth Cruzara a village near Iloilo City in the Philippines in 2003. The problem is that they had not analyzed the two maize types for nutritional content, or noted other external conditions such as soil, weed spraying or crop quantity; all of which would affect the results. We can see that there are even visible differences between the two maize types. So there is a plethora of variables that could have affected the result, but GenØk concludes that the genetic modification must be the reason why those water fleas did not live as long.

In 2010, they performed a similar study on the same corn, again without controlling for any of the obvious variables that could affect the outcome; again they came to the same conclusion: Bt corn is dangerous to water fleas. Criticism of their work from the scientific community was massive. (Editor’s note: See this study’s GENERA page.)
In 2014, GenØk took on a new task. They analyzed the nutritional content of soybeans and glyphosate residues taken from thirty one farms in Iowa USA. Eleven of them organic, ten conventional and ten genetically engineered soy varieties.
The trial was designed to show residues on soybeans of glyphosate. Glyphosate is the herbicide sold under the trade name RoundUp which the biotech soybeans had been bred to be paired with. The soybeans are able to survive an application of RoundUp while the weeds are around them are destroyed, allowing for easier weed management. Unsurprisingly, Bøhn’s team found glyphosate residues on soybeans that had been grown in fields sprayed with glyphosate, while glyphosate residues were significantly lower in the non-GMO and organic fields. What was notable was that they failed to test for the residue of other herbicides. The non-GMO fields were almost certainly treated with herbicides other than glyphosate – most of which are considered somewhat greater in environmental impact and health risks (but have the advantage of being all but ignored by anti-GMO activists because, while their environmental impact may be greater they aren’t tied to a biotech crop, so their use has not been politicized), but we have no way of knowing because they only tested for glyphosate. Nor did they test for other pesticides – insecticides, fungicides, etc. Of course the organic fields had lower glyphosate residues, but were they lower in total pesticide residue? Maybe / Maybe not. We don’t know because they only tested for glyphosate. So was this about measuring environmental impacts, or coming to a predetermined finding that could be used to generate headlines? GenØk wanted to find RoundUp, and they certainly did that.
Bøhn’s team also looked at the nutritional composition of the soybeans and found that the organic soybeans came out the best. The problem is once again that factors such as the variety of soybean, soil, fertilization scheme, any organic spraying, crop yield and harvest date are not included in the report.
Researchers at The Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research (NIBIO) criticized them for concluding that the organic soybeans had the best composition of nutrients, when it simply does not match the figures in the survey:

“ It is thus very surprising to us that a product with the highest concentrations of sugar, Zn and Ba, and lowest concentrations of Se and fibre is described as having the healthiest nutritional profile. Experts on human nutrition rarely consider enhanced sugar levels in food to be beneficial, and both Zn and Ba may be highly toxic to humans.”

After this experiment, which really shows nothing other than that different soybean varieties grown under different conditions will have different compositions of nutrients, the GenØk team pressed on with three feeding trials on water fleas.
In all water flea experiments in 2014, 2015 and 2016, the fleas were fed with the soy from 2014. Once again, the experiments show that water fleas react differently to different soy varieties and varying nutritional composition, but that obviously didn’t prevent GenØk researchers from concluding that RoundUp was the reason why water fleas died more quickly rather than any of the variables they had failed to control for.
In 2016, their last attempt to date, the water fleas are fed with purified Cry1Ab and Cry2Aa proteins in addition to the RoundUp. The trial was meant to show that the water fleas fed the most toxins die first. This time one would think that several environmental factors had been cleared away, but as EFSA writes in its response, GenØk have used doses of these toxins that one would never find in water near fields where genetically modified crops are cultivated. So, they can kill water fleas with doses that are not field realistic. Congratulations. In addition, the test ran for 78 days as opposed to the 21 days the OECD recommend for water flea tests. Thus, they introduce sufficient statistical noise to draw whichever conclusions they want.

Flawed research dead in the water

In the EU, it is the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) that considers whether genetically engineered plants are approved as being as safe as conventional plants. Because of the chronically poor design of GenØk’s trials, it is impossible to draw any conclusions from their research. Thus, the EFSA has not included any of their studies as basis of the approval process.
Read that sentence again. None of the trials are viewed as good enough. Seven studies, eight years, $3.6 million per year, 40 employees – and we’ve gotten zero knowledge back.
Worse, it is actually not zero knowledge, it’s “anti knowledge”. GenØk has, ever since they were founded 18 years ago, written page after page about how we don’t have enough knowledge of the long term effects of releasing genetically modified organisms into the environment. The problem is that GenØk does not help to close these gaps. They just contribute to further confusion. And there are many who listen to them.
In Norway we have what is called Bioteknologirådet (Biotechnology council) which was first established in 1992 and has since then been a consultative body for the government and parliament on both ethical and environmental concerns related to genetically engineered crops for import. Bioteknologirådet has yet to recommend importing even a single genetically engineered food crop (Oddly, they made an exception for one variety of carnation flower, of all things). That is unsurprising when one looks at how tight the bonds are between the Council and GenØk.

GenØk in the murky waters of activism

Former Director of Bioteknologirådet, Sissel Rogne, sat simultaneously on the Board of GenØk. The current leader of Bioteknologirådet is Kristin Halvorsen. Back in 2003, she suggested making GenØk the National Center for Biosafety, and she carried it through when she entered the coalition government in 2006. Terje Traavik has been both the research director at GenØk and a member of Bioteknologirådet. The densest coupling, however, is Aina Bartmann. She was a member of Bioteknologirådet from 2000 to 2008 while chair of GenØk in the years 2005 to 2011. She is currently the coordinator of the organization Network for GMO-Free Food and Feed (No GMO Norway). One can imagine the outcry if it had been if a former chairman of Norway’s Center for International Climate and Environmental institute had been transferred to a job in the Climate Skeptics. When it comes to opposition to biotech, these guys do not even have to hide their activism.
For not only do they perform badly designed water flea studies – they also bring conflicts of interest to the table; in two papers, one in 2014 and one in 2016, John Fagan is listed as co-author. Fagan is a known anti-GMO activist. In addition to his activism, in 1996 founded the company Genetic ID which provides technology to analyze foods to detect whether the DNA has been altered by genetic engineering. Under “Conflicts of interests”, where normal (ethical) scientists would have mentioned that one of the authors has a financial interest in a company that makes money from the controversy surrounding biotechnology, they declared no conflicts.

GenØk has also supported other activist scientists and dubious science from other organizations as well. They were supportive of Gilles-Éric Séralini at the University of Caen in France. In 2013 he published his infamous rat study. Séralini used a special kind of rats often used in researching carcogenicity because they easily develop cancer so impacts of carcinogens are more easily detected. He conducted a feeding study on genetically engineered corn – “NK603”, bred to withstand being treated with the herbicide RoundUp. The rats fed NK603 developed tumors, pictures of which were featured in that episode of “Enlightenment”. However, the rats in the control group also developed tumors – they just weren’t featured in photos in the paper Séralini published – a major ethical lapse. The paper was also widely criticized for the small number of rats in the control group, as well as a litany of other design flaws. As one of the only research centers in the world, GenØk came out and declared publicly that this miserably designed study somehow showed that there are unknown dangers with the use of GMOs. The study has been withdrawn from the scientific journal where it was first published. Meanwhile, Gilles-Éric Séralini sells homeopathic medicine to detox the body from “GMO poisons”.
Up there in Tromsø, they like to watch movies, and when the documentary OMG GMO came out in 2013, GenØk researcher Anne Ingeborg Myhr said in an article on Forskning.no (Research.no):

“A new film attracts attention and debate.” GMO OMG “sets a startlingly critical eye on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Hopefully the film will lead to raised awareness in all who today have no understanding of how modern genetic engineering challenge nature. “

“GMO OMG” provides insights and razor-sharp analysis of genetic modification along the lines of “Loose Change”, the conspiracy laden documentary the 9/11 terrorist attacks. It is a pure and simple activist film that has nothing scientific to offer. Reading critics tear it to shreds in pages of The New Yorker and Scientific American is better entertainment than watching the film.
It’s not just GenØk who thinks Hollywood might help us understand the complex connections in gene technology. When Sissel Rogne was the leader of Bioteknologinemda and on the board of GenØk, she traveled around the country and to high schools lecturing for teachers and students. Included in these seminars were two hours set aside to watch the 1997 film Gattaca. The film is a dystopian fable featuring Ethan Hawke and Uma Thurman living in a society where everything is determined by genetics, and only those with the best genes have the opportunity to live a worthy life. Now, if they absolutely wanted to show propaganda films to scare young people, why couldn’t they have shown Jurassic Park instead? It is a better film. And it has dinosaurs.
Not only youth were to be indoctrinated in how murky gene technology supposedly is, kids should also experience it. In 2008, kids who visited GenØk’s stand in the Research park in Tromso would meet the mad professor Kazoo, and his five legged chicken. Instead of using genetic engineering to do something useful, Kazoo bred a monstrous five legged chicken to create an artificial cautionary tale to scare school children visiting GenØk. Marek Cuhra would tell UiT:

“Unfortunately, we have seen that when laboratory adjust some genes, it may result in unforeseen consequences.”

So this is what we get for around $3.6 million a year.

Norway’s parallel GMO science

So, what they’re doing up there in Tromsø? Because it is not science. The French science communicator Marcel Kuntz calls it “parallel science”. Political parties and NGOs are very fond of science that confirms what they promote. Greenpeace wag their finger and tell us that there is scientific consensus that climate change is man-made. When it comes to the consensus that genetic engineering is as safe as traditional breeding, it is as strong, if not stronger, than the consensus on climate change. But then Greenpeace and political groups cherry pick marginalized research and individual researchers who believe things radically different from consensus. In 2006, when the political platform of Norway’s coalition government stated that GMOs were dangerous, they started shopping for researchers who could corroborate what they had already decided.
They were unable to find those researchers among the heaviest and oldest plant research center in Norway, based at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU). At NMBU, they don’t sway with alternating ideologies or fashions among politicians in Oslo. So the coalition government instead found a marginalized foundation up at the ice edge. This is how Norway has become an anti scientific superpower in the field of biotech and GMOs.
It is now time that our current government ends this charade in Tromsø. It has lasted long enough. Dr. Kazoo et. al should hang up their lab coats, and we should move everything related to biosecurity and GMO research down to the grown-ups at NMBU at Ås.
________

Øystein Heggdal is a Norwegian agronomist. He holds a bachelor’s degree in environmental science and natural resources. He is currently working as an journalist for a Norwegian farming magazine.
Liv Landberg is a social worker and cognitive therapist. She has studied biology and has a diploma in agronomy. Back in the day, she tried her hand at organic agriculture, so she knows a thing or two about cow dung (BS).
A version of this story previously appeared in Dagbladet. Translation by Øystein Heggdal and Marc Brazeau, previously published at Food and Farm Discussion Lab.

Just another organic yield comparison?

Written by Andrew Kniss

7997220069_2fd3019072_o — Wheat and wndmills. Credit: Idaho National Laboratory (INL) Wind Energy Program http://www.inl.gov/wind

Today, PLOS ONE has published a paper that I co-wrote with Randa Jabbour and Steve Savage titled “Commercial crop yields reveal strengths and weaknesses for organic agriculture in the United States.” In this paper, we describe our analysis of USDA data to compare organic and conventional crop yield data for 25 different crops. But is this just another organic yield vs conventional comparison for partisans to throw at each other in debates? We hope not. We’d prefer to throw that “debate” out the window – and instead focus on where each form of agriculture is doing best and start a conversation about how we can improve them all by learning from each other. Continue reading →

GMO labeling takes effect in Vermont

Editors note: Shannon took to Twitter (@DinoReaderMom) to share her photos demonstrating the impacts of mandatory GMO labeling in Vermont. She shared her pictures with the #WeLabeledGMOs hashtag, where GMO labeling advocates were celebrating. Shannon was kind enough to elaborate in this exclusive guest post. See Consumer Protection Rule 121 to read for yourself what this law does and does not require. For an overview of the impacts, see Six consequences for consumers of labeling GMOs by Mary Mangan (@mem_somerville).
.
Over the last week or so, local news sites in Vermont have been discussing ways Vermont’s new GMO law could affect local businesses and what it might mean for shoppers. I hadn’t done much research into the law: I wrote the senators to tell them I didn’t support it, but admittedly hadn’t read the law myself. So when I went to the store for the first time since the law took effect, I did some poking around in the all the aisles to see what was happening on the shelves. In short, things looked a bit bleak.
I am a lifelong Vermonter, and have lived in both a tiny town and “the big city” (Burlington, hardly a city). I know the challenges that Vermonters already deal with to feed their families. Growing up, we drove 45 minutes each week, one way, to get to a decent grocery store that had slightly better selection. While the state is small (both population and acreage), it can take a lot of time to travel from point A to point B. It is also worth noting that many smaller towns/villages don’t have their own grocery store, or what they do have is a very small, mom and pop owned business. Locals know not to expect things in stock that seem like they should be. We don’t even have a Target.

The stores

We have 3 “chain” stores in the area: Price Chopper, Hannaford, and Shaws. I also visited Dick Mazza’s General Store to get a feel for what smaller businesses were dealing with. I checked these stores on July 2nd and 3rd. While some things are pretty clear, others are clear as mud.
Price Chopper had signs under products stating that the manufacturer doesn’t plan to relabel to comply with Vermont law. This included products from Del Monte and Heinz as well as multiple types of baby formula. When asked about the signs, an employee said there were quite a few brands that weren’t planning on complying and that the store had 6 months to sell their stock of non-compliant foods.

Compliant cookies from the Hannaford bakery, “produced with genetic engineering.”

Hannaford is a much larger store than Price Chopper, and had a very different approach. I spoke with the manager and was told that Hannaford, at a corporate level, had “accepted” the law and had been slowly transitioning things for months now. They slowly dropped the products that won’t be relabeled and labeled their own store brand items. At this location there weren’t any signs, in part because the store was “ahead” of the game and in part because they are a large store with the space for excess products. This store, for example, wouldn’t run out of formula right away but the manager did say that if the companies don’t label that they won’t be able to carry those items anymore.
At Mazza’s General Store I spoke with the owner (who also happens to be one of our state senators). Things there were more difficult for him because, while he could pre-buy items that weren’t likely to comply, he was limited in space. He also said there were new items coming up every day that did/didn’t comply, and that the law had gotten much more complicated than expected.
The reality is that shoppers in more populated areas won’t see much change at the bigger stores right away. The big changes will come once the stock of non-compliant products have been sold. I was told at one store that they had 6 months to sell the non-labeled stock and at another that they had 3 months. The law states that retailers have 6 months to get non-compliant items sold, so I am guessing corporate wanted things sold with some wiggle room in the store that told me 3 months.
Overall, there are thousands of items that are no longer being shipped to Vermont. This includes many items that people might easily do without, but it also includes many types of infant formula as well as many canned fruits and vegetables. A list of non-compliant foods (Excel spreadsheet) was created by our local news station, WCAX, for Alex Apple’s article Vt. supermarkets lose 3,000 products over GMO law.

The impacts

In small towns and small grocery stores in Vermont, it will be difficult for shoppers to find certain items once they start to sell out. Distance can be very prohibitive, both in gas and time, especially when they are just hoping that the missing item, say baby formula or canned fruit, is in stock.
Some companies have said they do plan on relabeling. However, even if they do plan to relabel soon, Vermont can’t accept any items with non-compliant labels after July 1. So until the company gets that compliant stock into rotation, Vermont will be left in the lurch until they catch up. This seems to be the case with a particular brand of gluten free bread that a few of my celiac friends depend on to avoid making their own bread at home, a time consuming process.
Some companies have taken a hard line “not gonna happen” stance, which I don’t blame them for. It’s ridiculous to label for something that a large portion of the population doesn’t understand and will interpret as “scary” even though GMOs have been proven time and again to be safe. I have heard of several companies that don’t plan to relabel at all, even though this seems to vary widely depending upon who you ask. I had heard Coca-Cola didn’t plan to relabel at all, then I heard it only affects their vanilla or cherry flavors. Even if these companies change their minds and decide to relabel, Vermont could be left without items on the shelves for a significant amount of time.
As far as I know, it is still possible to get items shipped in via sites like Amazon without anyone getting in trouble for crossing state lines with non-labeled GMOs, however that isn’t an option for all of Vermonters. Some sites charge hefty shipping fees and some items you can’t even readily find online. Honestly, those that are likely to be hit hardest by this are those on WIC or with low incomes that can’t afford things like $80+ per year for Amazon Prime or extra gas money to travel to New York or Massachusetts or New Hampshire to buy the items they rely on to feed their families.
Overall, I have seen the beginning of what I fear will be a huge headache for Vermonters and for a lot of smaller stores as well. Things aren’t awful in MOST places right now but I don’t figure it will be too long before supplies of baby formula, affordable canned fruit and vegetables, and many other items will be sold out and unavailable. This law was a bad idea from the ground up and now Vermonters are going to have to pay the price.

Shannon is a mom of three and a life-long Vermonter – from the start of the organic movement all the way through the recently added “soda tax” and now the GMO labeling law. She considers herself science-minded but always learning, as people should be! She has Bachelors Degree from Johnson State College and hopes to pursue a Masters once her children are a bit older. In her spare time (funny! what parents have spare time?) she enjoys reading, fitness, and shouting at bad data in documentaries.
.
.
Click on the images to embiggen and view the captions. All images taken by Shannon and shared here with permission.

A partial list of items that will no longer be available for sale in Vermont, collected by WCAX.

Removal of non-compliant baby formula at Price Chopper.

Removal of non-compliant canned fruit at Price Chopper.

Factsheet from Hannaford about GMO labeling.

Compliant cookies from the Hannaford bakery, “produced with genetic engineering.”

Monsanto, Monsanto, blah blah breast milk, Monsanto

Written by Bill Price

shelley-mcguire-5x7-1 — Dr. Shelley McGuire, the lead author of the study that found that glyphosate was not detectable in human breast milk. Credit: Shelley McGuire

Last spring, I was invited to contribute to a project involving several talented researchers regarding the detection of the herbicide glyphosate in human breast milk. While such a request would normally be in the scope and expectations of my job, I was excited to help as I thought the subject was relevant, topical and interesting. The subject itself, however, was controversial and had received a large amount of media play as well as heated conversation online. This is because glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup, an herbicide sprayed on many genetically engineered (GMO) crops, so it has become a focal point for scientists and activists alike. The study found that glyphosate was not detectable in breast milk – which is good news – but these findings have been greeted with cynicism even though it has been confirmed by multiple independent labs.
Early on, the lead author, Dr. Michelle McGuire, and all the co-authors readily agreed that all aspects of the work should be as transparent as possible. This was especially relevant as the work came on the heels of several accusations of hidden conflicts of interest (COI) regarding work in biotech and agricultural research in general. The breast milk study had also required expertise in chemical detection of glyphosate, to which the researchers had reached out to arguably the world authorities on glyphosate, the scientists at Monsanto. All of this combined made it obvious that any publication should thoroughly document any and all potential conflicts of interest. Therefore, when the work was recently published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (PDF file), it was made Open Access, all data was published with the article, and a lengthy full disclosure of COI was given:

The authors’ responsibilities were as follows—MKM, MAM, DAG, and JLV: conceptualized and designed the study; MKM and DAG: designed the glyphosate exposure questionnaire; MKM: oversaw sample and data collection; JMC and KAL: collected the samples and administered the questionnaires; PKJ: over- saw the analysis of the samples at Monsanto; WJP and BS: carried out the statistical analysis; and all authors: read and approved the final manuscript. In 2014, MKM and MAM each received a $10,000 unrestricted research gift from Monsanto; these funds were used to support their research related to human and bovine lactation. These funds were neither needed for nor used to cover the costs associated with the project described in this article, because the milk was already being collected for another project funded by the National Science Foundation (1344288) related to international variation in human milk composition and because additional expenditures associated with the collection of urine samples were negligible. All costs associated with the chemical analysis of milk and urine samples at both Monsanto and Covance were paid for directly by Monsanto. MKM and MAM were once reimbursed for costs associated with economy travel and basic accommodations incurred for a trip they made to St. Louis, Missouri, to discuss study design and assay development with coauthors DAG, PKJ, and JLV at Monsanto. DAG, PKJ, and JLV are employees of Monsanto, which manufactures glyphosate. None of the other authors reported a conflict of interest related to the study.

Dr. Emily Willingham, scientist and science communicator, raised doubts about the study based on COI, pushing discussion of independent confirmation to the end of her article. Credit: Emily Willingham (Twitter)

Everyone involved with this project was aware of its potential to spark controversy. Following presentation of this work at a professional conference in the summer of 2015, Dr. McGuire found herself at the center of a storm of accusations, information requests, and battling adversaries. So it was not unexpected when a colleague sent me notice of an article last week proclaiming: “Monsanto-Linked Study Finds No Monsanto-Linked Herbicide Glyphosate In Breast Milk”. Such headlines are the standard fair for activist sites intending to attract readers and the research team had fully expected to see this kind of response. The real surprise, however, came from who wrote the article, Dr. Emily Willingham. Dr. Willingham has been a respected writer on science subjects, particularly on issues dealing with autism, which made the headline somewhat unexpected. It did not stop there, however. The article itself opened with:

“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.”

Further in the article, she continues:

“If we take the advice above to consider the source, this study looks like a big ol’ slumber party involving the journal, the society associated with it, their spokesperson and Monsanto. A read of the conflict-of-interest statement on the McGuire et al. paper sets a number of red flags a-waving”

Upon apparent objections in the comments, this was later updated to:

“If we take the advice above to “consider the source,” the optics on this study could look suspect, involving the journal, the society associated with it, a ”spokesperson” and Monsanto. A read of the conflict-of-interest statement on the McGuire et al. paper will undoubtedly set red flags a-waving for some people”

While the initial statement was toned down, it was clear she was calling into question the legitimacy of the work, not to mention the integrity of the researchers, a professional organization, and the journal itself. Take that as you will, it is her prerogative. It is hard, however, to reconcile these words with those she wrote admonishing others on COI, just six months earlier:
On Twitter she has been a strident advocate of COI disclosure, often taking to task those who questioned it. It was, after all, the best thing to do and would give the best impression. This was emphasized again in a 2015 article
on Forbes where she states:

“To avoid the distraction of suspicion, scientists who genuinely want science to have a voice should make quite clear which baggage they bring to the discussion. Openness on all sides about potential bias clears the way to real scientific engagement.”

Yet here we were, doing just that only to turn around and be sucker punched by the exact same COI advocate for evidently having the wrong associations. In the end, the COI simply gave her a bigger target to aim at. “Real scientific engagement” apparently wasn’t on the menu this time around. So much for the argument of perception and openness.
But there was more. In 2012 Dr. Willingham had also written the “5 Changes Consumers Want To See In Science News”. Number one on that list:
“1. Stop with sensationalist headlines. It was the top complaint, something one commenter described as “the worst offense” (although apparently, something else below requires the death penalty). Quit with the sensationalism already, they say. I know. That’s not gonna happen because headlines pull clicks and clicks drive revenue. So I’ll stick with my standing advice to readers: Skip the headline.”
“Stop with the sensationalist headlines”. To be honest, I actually laughed when I read that and I don’t think I need to point back to the “click bait” headline of her recent article to demonstrate the hypocrisy. It is clear there is a “Do as I say, not as I do” mentality operating here. By emphasizing Monsanto and COI over the science and its independent confirmation (discussed only at the end of the second page of the article), Dr. Willingham effectively raised doubts about the findings of the study using sensationalist tactics. Knowing that many people will tend not to read past the first page, wouldn’t it have been more proper to put greater emphasis on the fact that this finding has been confirmed by multiple groups at the beginning of the article?
What does all this matter to me? I’m an old dog in this game and I can, even if begrudgingly, adapt to these “new rules” of extreme disclosure for the years I have left in research. I do, however, have concern for younger researchers out there. Every day I see bright, enthusiastic, motivated people who want to do good science and want to do it right. They rightfully want to define their own standards and expectations for communicating their work, yet they need to do so in an environment where traditional public funding is increasingly scarce and cooperation with outside funding sources is openly encouraged and even expected. They are also often the target audience for self-defined SciComm experts. To these scientists, I simply offer this as a cautionary tale. Don’t believe everything you read on the Internet, even if it comes from proclaimed and respected “authorities”. COI may be necessary, but it is no shield. Everything you say (or don’t) can and will be used against you.
For me, I will stick to a tried and true principle. Sure, we can play along with the disclosure-perception game, but no matter what these pundits tell you, the data, the science, and the methods can and do speak for themselves. They always have and they always will. They are immutable to all except more data and more evidence. In this I trust. I would hope you will too.

Written by Guest Expert

Bill Price has a PhD in plant science. He has worked in agricultural research for nearly 40 years and is currently a statistician in the College of Agriculture at the University of Idaho. His work includes diverse topics including but not limited to dairy science, human nutrition, weed science, and benthic microbiology.