Thinking About Poverty, Part 2

This article is the second of two parts. You can read Part 1 here.

Part 2: Poverty, Homelessness, How We Count, and Exploding Some Myths

Old Woman at a Soup Kitchen from WikiHistoria (photographer attribution unknown)

In June 2011, 45.2 million Americans received food stamps according to the USDA's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. The average benefit per person was $133.67 a month. That amounts to only $4.45 a day. I'm trying to envision what one can eat for three meals a day on $4.45. You know, thinking about it as if I was homeless, like my adopted son's biological mother, who is in  her 60's and who looks not too different from the old woman above. She relies solely on food stamps and soup kitchens. Even with both those options, I'm thinking it isn't much food. And even someone with substance abuse problems both needs and deserves to eat, as far as I'm concerned. I've volunteered in soup kitchens before and other than for the holidays, it's pretty meager fare most of the time, especially if the soup kitchen relies on donations. What else will $4.45 a day buy her? According to The Economist's Big Mac chart of March 2011, prices for a McDonald's Big Mac vary from about $2.99 to as high as $4.28 across the USA. Even a bottle of water is more than $1, and in some of the convenience stores near her, likely closer to $2. She's not even five feet tall, and I'm thinking buying one large bottle and lugging it around (she's homeless remember- not a lot of storage options there) would be all but impossible for someone of her stature and overall health.  (The average food stamp outlay per household, by the way, is $282.31, which comes out to $9.41 a day for a family.) 

I won't tell you what I spend in a week at my local Whole Foods on my organic fruits and veggies, grass-fed beef and gluten-free and dairy-free alternative breads, milks and such. It would be too embarrassing at this point. But I'm not going to even try to pretend that someone can eat, let alone eat well, on $4.45 a day. You want to know what's that cheap? High fat, high sugar, highly unhealthy things that don't give you real nutrition but sort of fill you for the short term. And not fill you all that much, either. But those same foods are what can lead to obesity, metabolic syndrome and problems with diabetes. When you're poor, you have to eat something and if what's cheap is unhealthy, well, it's better than going to bed hungry at night is likely the way many adults look at it, for themselves and for their children.

But I know what you must be saying at this point- Marzie, Marzie, Marzie, those food stamps are supposed to *supplement* your income, not pay for all your food, silly! Well, the problem is, quite a few people don't have leftover income. My older son, a chef who makes just shy of $1800/month at a swanky hotel restaurant, which offers pretty decent benefits, typically eats at work for at least one meal a day because he eats for free there. He makes well above poverty level income. Nevertheless, after he was sinking into debt, we helped him make a better budget just the other day. He has very little left over for food after rent, utilities, car payment, car insurance,  laundry costs, gasoline costs, medication costs, and of course, he doesn't even qualify for food stamps. Since striking out on his own with his shiny culinary degree he has lamented the cost of everything from bath mats to toilet paper to a simple bag of potato chips, let alone work needs like uniforms and his knives. Currently, he has no money for going out, for doing anything other than watching the occasional On Demand movie, although now he and his girlfriend are thinking even that's an extravagance they can't afford. That's right, he's learning the hard way, you can say.  But see, he had us a rescue net- something that many, many people don't have, even if they have loving families that would want to help, if they could, but they simply can't help because they, too, are strapped. So our son is not pulling himself up, out of the not-a-speck of poverty of his upbringing, with his fancy-dancy Culinary Institute of America degree. Not at all. He's a low income "family" with his girlfriend and is working the maximum number of hours he can. Only, somehow, the thought that he will soon, as he will be aging out of parental healthcare coverage, be deciding whether to buy his mood stabilizer medication versus a week and a half of groceries is not very comforting to me. Only wait a minute, if he wants to eat at home but can't function, he won't have a job, now will he? But unless a miracle raise is on the horizon somewhere, make no mistake, that is exactly the choice he may be forced to make. You think it's an exaggeration, because after all, he'll have health insurance from his job. But he's taking a new-fangled medication, just like our youngest son is. Our co-pay, with top-notch insurance through my husband's work, for our youngest's single monthly medication is about $125/month. Yes, you read that right. That's our co-pay. The uninsured cost of the medication is somewhere around $800/month here in South Florida. And the medication for my older son is about the same. How would he be able to afford it, we wonder, if his health insurance isn't as good as his present insurance is? Take a different medication you say? Really? Of course, both psychiatrists have been totally arbitrary in their determination of our sons' needed medications, which in both cases have fewer side effects than previous generations of these medications. Taking a drug that pushes our older son closer to metabolic syndrome and diabetes just doesn't seem to be a good plan, somehow.

I'm sure many of us are aware of how hard it is to consistently get and/or stay on medication if you're homeless or poor. Those are difficult circumstances, even if you have federal health care like Medicaid or Medicare. (For more on this issue, check out Personal Failure's newest post over at Forever in Hell) But what about food? Surely there are many options if you're homeless or poor and hungry? Think again.

A Food Not Bombs graphic

This past week, the Miami New Times had an article about the group Food Not Bombs. The group seeks to feed the homeless and claims that money spent on the American military machine strips the impoverished and homeless of any chance to escape their bleak situation. The article opens with group founder Keith McHenry being arrested as he is making the group's banner "End the Criminalization of Poverty" at a free food event in Lake Eola Park in the Orlando area. Orlando has passed a city ordinance that outlawed the serving of food to more than 25 people at a time because the homeless people would eat and then disperse throughout the ritzy Lake Eola neighborhood, disturbing the residents. In addition, Food Not Bombs can only serve each park in the city area twice. Orlando Mayor John "Buddy" Hugh says this is to "dilute the presence of the homeless in the City's open spaces." (Yeah, I know... deep breath on that one, right?) Fort Lauderdale, one county north of Miami, is exploring similar legislation. Fort Lauderdale has evidently been aggressive in the past two decades when it comes to preventing gatherings of homeless people and feeding those people. While I can't speak to the entire ethos of Food Not Bombs, what I can say is that looking at all these poverty statistics makes me think about how many people might be homeless and hungry, or just... hungry. I couldn't find a current estimate, in the 2010 Census, of the number of homeless people in the US. (The figure is now convolved with the number of people living in poverty.) But, wait a minute now, in order to have been counted, you had to be LIVING IN/NEAR OR VISITING SOME SORT OF DWELLING/STRUCTURE/SHELTER. Specifically, according to the US Census's site:

People who cannot determine a usual residence - Counted where they are staying on Thursday, April 1, 2010 (Census Day). 

People at soup kitchens and regularly scheduled mobile food vans - Counted at the residence where they live and sleep most of the time. If they do not have a place they live and sleep most of the time, they are counted at the soup kitchen or mobile food van location where they are on Thursday, April 1, 2010 (Census Day). (under score mine) 

People at targeted non-sheltered outdoor locations - Counted at the outdoor location where people experiencing homelessness stay without paying.

But see, the problem with all that is that many communities appear to be making it harder for homeless people to gather, to be served, to be... somewhere. And I wonder if some homeless people just didn't know that they had to show up to be counted on April 1, 2010? Did census workers really go out and count that guy I see sleeping near the 878 overpass? Did they count the guy who sleeps under the bus bench sometimes on Sunset Drive? What if some of these people didn't want to be counted? Like they were afraid of people coming up to them with pen and papers and asking them a whole bunch of questions? I've actually seen claims on some conservative blog sites (but one example) that the homeless had to have been over-counted, whatever that final number really is. There just can't be that many of them! Of course, that mindset leads me to wonder about being impoverished and some of the "foreign citizens living in the US:"

Citizens of foreign countries living in the U.S. - Counted at the U.S. residence where they live and sleep most of the time. 

Citizens of foreign countries living in the U.S. who are members of the diplomatic community - Counted at the embassy, consulate, United Nations’ facility, or other residences where diplomats live.

I have to say that, while I certainly do believe that not all of the illegal aliens living in the US are impoverished, (not by a long shot, really) I do believe that a fair number might be and that they might not be too keen about being counted. (Maybe it's just me, but there's been this kind of unfriendly atmosphere around here lately for people living in the US illegally. But I might be wrong. Maybe those twelve people crammed into a two bedroom apartment wanted to be counted, or those people quietly living off the books with their friends in a Section VIII home might be willing to come out and wave to the census worker?)

Soup Kitchen Today, August 12, 2011, North Carolina

used with kind permission of JW Hanley

But I digress with the whole census business and counting how many people are really living at or below the poverty level in this country. I was talking about food and poverty right? There are a lot of people, if we just look at the level of poverty and the number of food stamps recipients, who struggle with food. How are we helping people eat? What is this about communities not wanting to feed the homeless or placing limits on the number of homeless that can be fed? What are these people guilty of? (Either the ones who are hungry or the ones who feed?) They appear to be guilty of being there. I keep turning McHenry's banner over in my mind. Are we essentially criminalizing the impoverished? While I'm not exactly sure that we're calling them criminals, I am sure that there is more rhetoric these days that makes it seem as if people who are poor are somehow poor by choice, or by laziness or somehow as if they are at fault for their situation. This not-so-subtle undercurrent seems to suggest that if people would just pick themselves up and work harder they wouldn't be poor anymore. Kind of like that argument that if people worked better jobs, they'd have (better or any) healthcare, right?

So here's my first problem with that: for one in five people under the age of 18, I'm not really sure what they should be doing that they aren't doing, are you? If they were born to poor families, it's obviously a 'mistake' they can't remedy right now. In fact, if I go back to those ChildStat.gov tables, I'm likely to conclude born in poverty, stay in poverty. (Going back to Part 1 of this article, no doubt these kids should be working extra hard in school in order to be able to eventually get smartphones, so they can get jobs later. As for these kids' e-Reader situations, I'm recalling that alarming statistic from the National Institute for Literacy that showed that 47% of Detroit's population is functionally illiterate and thinking that if you're planning to teach people to read, having plenty for them to read is a very excellent plan and one that may not involve Kindles, Nooks or Kobo readers, let alone pricey things like iPads.)

And once again, there is my other big problem, which I've talked about before on this blog. Being poor is damned expensive. For example, when you are poor, you may not have a car to drive to a regular grocery store or a Costco or BJs in order to buy less expensive things. Even if you can get there on public transportation, you may not have the money to pony up for those big packages and then again, after trying to make it home on said same public transportation with those discount treasures, in your small dwelling you may not even have the space to accommodate those packages. No, as I know full well from friends and some of my GAL kids, you pay premium prices for a few items at a time, at your neighborhood convenience store or your small corner store that lets you slip the money into the pass-through drawer that slides under the bulletproof glass. In fact, you pay more for many, many things and when you're late on paying what you owe for those things, whether it's your credit card's minimum payment or that car insurance policy that you let lapse, you will pay still more in the end, because you didn't have the money to pay on time. And then, of course, there's the healthcare that you can't afford but like every human at some time or another, you will need. There's even just simple birth control, trying to prevent having another mouth to feed/shelter/clothe/keep healthy/educate/love. (Birth control? Now there's something expensive and getting harder to obtain, especially if Planned Parenthood has fewer locations. Because that's right, you better not be poor but if you are poor, heaven help us if you get pregnant and don't want to be. How did you even get pregnant if you're poor and can't afford kids? Surely there are scads of things you can/should be doing other than have sex, right? Sex is for people who can afford it, didn't you know that?) And about when you'll have time to be getting all that stuff? You know that food, healthcare, medication, stuff? If you're fortunate enough to have a job, any job, let's think about all that free time you'll have to get them when you work and you're working poor. Because you'll have lots of paid time off or vacation days to get it all done, right? Oh, all that can get done on the weekend? Well, okay, maybe not the medical. But I mean, really, on a week day, how much time would it really take to use public transportation to get to that clinic that sees patients for free, or for medicaid rates or for your insurance that lets you see any of five doctors in your entire county. You don't want to know how long it could take. Really, you don't. But we are not, I assure you, talking about your lunch break time. And heaven help you if your child gets sick. As my former GAL youth Snow White can tell you, having a sick child can derail not just your schooling, your job, but your entire way of life when you are poor.

But speaking of schooling and education, it's supposed to be the path out of being poor. Yes, if you want to make it out of poverty, which is, of course, your absolute moral obligation, you've got to pull yourself up, get yourself educated, get a college degree, so that you can.... make minimum wage and get no benefits while working as a receptionist in a realty office, like my daughter, who graduated in 2010 with a magna cum laude Bachelor's degree in Biology from FSU, did for a while. She's now in grad school, studying pharmacy. Here's how she's pulling herself up: her parents are paying for her graduate degree so she won't be in debt for much of the rest of her adult life with federal student loans. That would be the debt that no doubt would be cleared just in time for her to accrue further educational debt with her own adult children. The debt that is described as crippling students' hopes, dreams, credit ratings and which now has record rates of default. My daughter worked hard when she worked and could not afford to live on her own and could not find a job in her field of study. In at least one instance she was told she was just too overqualified. She gave up trying to find a better and more appropriate job. (Hey, your present employer is always soooo understanding about your looking for a better job than they one they're currently providing you and they're always willing to let you take longer lunches to go interview for those other jobs, right?) No, instead she bided her time for grad school admission. And she is far from the exception. Brittany Misra is another example sited in a recent article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. A 2008 graduate from Emory with a degree in bio-cultural anthropology, Ms. Misra was making her cultural observations from behind the barrista counter in an Atlanta Starbucks. (Hey, she's lucky- everybody knows that Starbucks has a great benefits plan!) But seriously, as a recent article in the Washington Post points out, college graduates are the fastest growing sector of the population when it comes to bankruptcy filings. Education, clearly, is no shield from falling into poverty. Although, having an education certainly appears to give you a leg up when it comes to finding ways to cover yourself from falling further into poverty or even jail. So there's that. Hopefully if you got that college degree, you can fill out all the proper forms for your bankruptcy filing, unlike 47% of the population in Detroit. But if you want to talk about some of what education won't shield you from, look no further than the ChildStats.gov charts about food insecurity.

It comes as no surprise that having a parent or guardian without a high school diploma confers a certain risk of food insecurity. But the fact that having more educated parents is not as much of a buffer as you might think is rather stunning. From the table at ChildStats:

Looking at the increase in food insecurity since 1995, even for those who have attained a bachelor's degree or higher (which has almost doubled!), drives home the point that even education is not enough to shield families entirely from poverty. And that's what more people need to think about. I actually know quite a few people who are literate, quite well-educated and who struggle mightily with caring for their families, teetering on the brink of a financial abyss. Quite. a. few.

So what is it then, about poverty? What is it that we are blaming homeless or poor people for?

Yesterday I saw this article on ABC's news website that blazoned the title: Tax the Rich, Obama Says; Class Warfare, GOP Says. Well, it's no secret that I tend to be on the liberal social democrat side of things but I seriously wonder how the GOP thinks things have gone down, historically speaking, with a very large, increasingly impoverished, overtaxed class of citizens and a small, elite, undertaxed class of citizens, who considered themselves the "job-providers". Hmmm. Seems to me there were some revolutions a while back in similar circumstances. Of course, there are still plenty of semi-successful oligarchies around the world. (I'm trying to think of one not on an Amnesty International blacklist for something but am currently drawing a blank.) I look at brief articles like the one posted the other day on CNN about Rick Perry's own state's poverty debacle- one in five Texans live in poverty, their poverty level is growing faster than other states, they collect fewer food stamps and have less healthcare and Texas has one of the lowest per capita spending rates on its citizens. Perry's claims of job creation all deal with low paying jobs, which doubtless mean jobs with few, if any, benefits. Texas ties Mississippi for the highest percentage of minimum wage workers in the country. And all that just makes me look at the current unemployment figures of only 9.1 % and shake my head as I think about the people that gave up making claims or the people who are currently under-employed, in jobs that are just under full time or jobs that are at or below minimum wage and which will do nothing to help pull them out of poverty. Where are we going in this country? Class warfare? Isn't that where we already are? 

I've just started reading Thomas Keneally's Three Famines. The premise of the book is that politics, not natural disaster, are key to some of the great famines in modern world history. He counts racial discrimination, distribution failures and lack of accountability of leadership as factors greater than crop failures in determining the course of famine. Keneally opens his book with a quote by Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen:"No famine has ever taken place in the history of the world in a functioning democracy." Sadly, all I could think about after reading that quote was that Ireland's famine in the 1800's was basically driven by an oligarchy. Keneally talks about the amorality of famine.

Maybe a better dialog in this country would be served by talking about the amorality of poverty and what we're going to do about making sure that it doesn't worsen.

Stop blaming the poor for being poor. They aren't the problem here.

Against the Wall, 1934 by Dorothea Lange

---

Unfortunately, due to an absolute masterpiece of an article in the National Review by Rand Paul, countering Bernie Sander's take on poverty, I'm going to have to extend this article to three parts. Because there is just so much to despise and argue with in Rand Paul's statements, I couldn't even take it at first. Evidently he went to the Michele Bachmann School of Truthy Facts. You know, he's just following the practice of those truthy facts that Bachmann reels off like those about founding fathers fighting slavery and HPV vaccines causing mental retardation? Yeah. Only substitute Rand and poverty.

Mr. Paul, please see my gauntlet below. Have you been to any of your government's statistics websites lately? Well sir, I have...

© Bright Nepenthe, 2011

A Special Kind of Hell

If there is a hell, there must be a special one for the members of the Shabab Islamist insurgency, who are keeping people, keeping children, like the one above, from fleeing Southern Somalia or receiving aid outside the Shabab territory. That's terrorism, in that picture. Just the slow motion kind. From the Times:

"People from those areas who were interviewed in Mogadishu say Shabab fighters are blocking rivers to steal water from impoverished villagers and divert it to commercial farmers who pay them taxes. The Shabab are intercepting displaced people who are trying to reach Mogadishu and forcing them to stay in a Shabab-run camp about 25 miles outside the city. The camp now holds several thousand people and receives only a trickle of food...

A few years ago, the Shabab began banning immunizations, deeming them a Western plot to kill Somali children. Now countless unvaccinated children are dying from measles and cholera as tens of thousands of malnourished, immunity-suppressed people flee the drought areas and pack into filthy, crowded camps."

Shabab leaders counter the claims of locals who've escaped and NGO/aid organizations: the people in the internment camps are attracted to them! Because of “this sense of serenity and security.” Yeah, right. Sure they are. They're attracted to your guns and violence, too, I bet.

Somehow, seeing this article at lunch distracted me from the possibility of the US credit rating dipping to AA or from the truly miraculous recovery of Gabrielle Giffords. It totally distracted me from eating, too.

“This is worse than 1992,” said Dr. Lul Mohamed, Banadir’s head of pediatrics, referring to Somalia’s last famine. “Back then, at least we had some help.” ~ from the New York Times

Giving lie to the phrase 'the more things change, the more they stay the same...', as my stepmom and I were noting just yesterday, the world is getting to be an even uglier place.

How can half a million children be on the brink of starvation in one small country? 

I was looking at the total population as of 2010 on Wikipedia. The irony of the Somali national anthem is simply breathtaking. Could serve the whole world, with equal irony, of course.

from Wikipedia

I don't know when I'm ever going to get that image of that poor child above out of my head.


Maybe I shouldn't?




© Bright Nepenthe, 2011

Genetically Modified Organisms: Is it Nice to Fool Mother Nature? Part 2

Researcher holding up a GMO vegetable in the laboratory

© Monika Wisniewska via iStockphoto.com

Genetically Modified Organisms: Is it Nice to Fool Mother Nature?

by Thelma Lee Gross, DVM


This is Part 2 of a two-part series. You can read Part 1 here.

Some Problems with GMOs

It is not surprising that genetic modification is not without its costs.  Most of these relate to potentially negative environmental impact.  Nothing is free, and certainly not GMOs.  This section will deal with some of the issues that have arisen and may arise as a result of genetically modified food crops.

Antibiotic Resistance Genes  Amflora potatoes, one of the older GMOs, is used in industry (See Part 1).  It contains an antibiotic resistance gene that is used as a marker for genetic modification.  Antibiotics are applied to select the successfully modified product which co-expresses resistance to the antibiotic used.  If the product is modified correctly, it survives because it also resists the antibiotic.  However, this resistance gene could theoretically be transferred to bacteria by direct exposure of the modified potato to the environment in which bacteria abound. 

As concerns over antibiotic resistance are increasing rapidly in the modern medical world, this technique of selection should be discontinued and, in fact, is considered antiquated by current standards of GMO production.  Newer GMOs are confirmed via the use of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing or bioassays.  Nevertheless, this potato was approved for planting in Europe in 2009.

Agricultural Test Area © Andres Reh vis iStockphoto.com

Herbicide Ready Issues   In theory, if a crop is resistant to an herbicide, then that herbicide (usually glyphosate, Roundup) can be used with impunity, and weed control is achieved without tilling (See Part 1).  However, recent evidence by Michael Owen, a weed scientist at Iowa State University, indicates that “weed communities” are shifting as a result of the practice of planting glyphosate-resistant crops and then focusing on the use of one herbicide.  The genetic trait itself seems to be having no direct effect on the weed communities via crossbreeding; rather, it is the overall method of weed control that is creating local pressure to shift the weed communities to those that include glyphosate- resistant species, creating new problems for the farmer. The conclusion by Owen and Green is that diversified weed management systems, as well as new herbicides, will need to be developed. This seems to negate the benefits of herbicide resistant GMOs, and it may ultimately increase the need for a variety of potentially more toxic products.

Although scientists are indicating that these weed shifts can lower crop yields, in House oversight meetings in October 2010, Ann Wright, a deputy undersecretary of the Agriculture Department, said the department “lacked authority” to restrict herbicide-tolerant crops, much to the dismay of Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), who is working on the superweed issue.  He stated the Department could stop herbicide-ready crops under its noxious weed law, of which Wright was apparently ignorant.  According to Wright, the USDA can only regulate herbicide-tolerant crops as pests themselves but cannot stop farmers from using the crops, even if they lead to the development of resistant weeds. The Environmental Protection Agency said it had raised the weed-resistance issue with the USDA and was in “conversation” with them.  At that hearing, Owen, who has also worked on a National Research Council, said he believed it is too late anyway because farmers have come to rely on the use of one herbicide (glyphosate) alone.  Currently 93% of the soybeans and 70% of the corn planted in the USA in 2010 were herbicide tolerant varieties. 

In October 2010, current Roundup Ready plants (stecklings) from sugar beet rootstock were ordered to be removed from the ground by Judge Jeffrey White in San Francisco, due to a lawsuit involving the Sierra Club, Organic Seed Alliance, and other plaintiffs.  This suit followed USDA-issued permits to plant the stecklings, even though White had revoked the federal deregulation of seeds and crops containing the Roundup Ready trait in August, pending a new environmental study. However, this week the USDA decided to allow the current crop to be harvested, even though the environmental study will not be released until 2012.

It is clear that glyphosate-resistant crop plants may function as weed pests.  Herbicide-ready rapeseed (canola) often is alternated with other crops and can show up as a weed in the alternate crop’s plantings the following year.  This may force the use of more persistent and different herbicides and is certainly not the intended effect of this GMO.  

These problems are significant and quite possibly outweigh the benefits.  If this type of GMO ultimately creates an increase in pesticide use and begins to function as a weed itself, then it should be removed from the market and other alternatives sought. 

GMO Cotton (South Africa) © Brasil2 via iStockphoto.com

Bt Issues   There is some evidence that the prolonged use of Bt crops can create emergence of resistant insect strains or elevation in populations of insects that are naturally resistant; these would likely have emerged with the use of Bt alone.  There is recent field evidence that certain strains of mirid bugs have acquired pest status in areas of China where Bt cotton is grown.

In essence, any responsible program of genetic modification that involves pests like weeds and insects should be considering the emergence of resistance.  Bt crops remain useful because of the significant reduction in production costs and relative safety of this type of pesticide.  Characterizing the mutations that enable resistance could lead to the development of molecular tools to monitor resistance in the field, as well as new genetically modified crops that stay ahead of pest resistance without the use of toxic external products.  This might be achieved by further studies like those described in Part 1, where naturally occurring pest-resistance genes are transferred from one plant to another in a “share the wealth” approach to pest control.

Genetic Drift   The increasing use of GMOs often means that the variety of planted strains is diminished as farmers adopt more lucrative crops.  In places where there are heritage strains of importance to native farmers and consumers, cross pollination from modified crops becomes a real worry.  In Mexico, for example, concern for the genetic pollution of native varieties has spurred protests, despite evidence that using genetically modified corn ultimately may provide independence from imported U.S. corn by substantially increasing domestic yield.  Native varieties in some areas already contain genes from genetically altered corn.  The fear is that indigenous species that display adaptive traits for certain challenged regions may lose those advantages by exposure over time to genetically modified corn.  This has not yet been found.  Hybrid corn already exists in Mexico and has been regularly mixed with native corn varieties.  Genetically modified canola (rapeseed) has been growing in the wild, and has apparently crossbred with native strains, according to a survey in August of 2010 by the Ecological Society of America. 

These results indicate that genetically modified organisms, like all organisms, cannot be contained and will interbreed to a varying extent.  The effect of the proposed trait on the environment should be studied prior to release and traits such as herbicide resistance should be avoided.  For the sake of genetic banking alone, not to mention the cultural importance of crop and other plants, heritage varieties should be carefully protected by strict segregation from GMOs.  This is also important for organic farmers who cannot market their food if “contamination” by GMOs is identified.

Bt genetic material has been identified in tissues of wild mussels.  Mussels likely receive the genes during feeding when they ingest Bt contaminated microorganisms.  The long term effect of such exposure to these lower organisms of the food chain is not yet known; Bt is not known to be toxic to any organisms other than insect larvae.  But it is conceivable that other effects of environmental spread of GMOs may emerge as further studies are made.

Genetic Engineering (Plant) © espion via iStockphoto.com

The Influence of Industry

GMOs are often promoted as the one-stop solution in the management of the world’s food problems and instead should involve an integrated and holistic approach.  Such strong emphasis on this silver bullet of biotechnology is promulgated by industry, which has a strong vested interest in GMOs. 

The Monsanto Company is the world’s largest producer of genetically engineered seed, including Roundup Ready products, and controls over 90% of the world’s genetically engineered seed production.  Monsanto came under investigation by the U.S. Justice Department in 2009 as a result of its business strategies and licensing agreements.  For example, Monsanto does not permit independent companies to breed plants that contain both Monsanto's genes and the genes of any of its competitors, called “stacking,” unless Monsanto gives prior written permission.

In some cases, this company is clearly influencing or controlling which scientific studies of GMOs are done and published. Some researchers working with GMOs have apparently had to pry the data for testing out of Monsanto via Freedom of Information filings and lawsuits.  Although their secrecy may have something to do with proprietary issues, this resembles a cover-up to the public. Monsanto does not claim responsibility for the genetic drift from its GMOs, and in the case of GM canola spreading to the wild, disingenuously tried to make it an issue of patent rights.

The final section of this series will attempt to balance the pros and cons of GMOs from an ethical perspective, with a view to the future of our world.

Genetic Modification in Balance  

The core of our distrust of genetic modification is that we do not like the idea of humans manipulating a genome of anything, not even a bacterium.  It conjures up a fear of mad scientists creating monsters fused from fish and elephants or birds and snakes.  One internet poster, for example, shows a fruit viciously biting its consumer and was featured on a previous post of this blogsite.  There is a fear of the “slippery slope” and that ultimately we will manipulate our own genome for eugenics, and not just to avert or reverse genetic disease (See Part 1).  We are already engineering farmed salmon to grow more quickly, although the FDA has not yet given its approval.  And recently scientists in Canada engineered a pig to produce phytase, an enzyme that helps in the digestion of cereal grains.  This obviates addition of phosphorous to their diet.  This reduces production costs and allegedly reduces phosphorous contamination of the environment.  Pigs are mammals.  Are we far behind?

The Case for Human Disease   Human gene therapy is a natural outcome of genetic manipulation and in essence creates GMOs of us humans, but in a “good way.”  Diseases that lend themselves well to gene therapy include sickle-cell anemia, Tay-Sachs disease, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, Huntington's chorea, and cystic fibrosis, as these occur from mistakes involving single nitrogen bases of a DNA molecule.  If a correct copy of a given gene can be successfully inserted and then assume its normal function, these genetic disorders may be cured.  Research has begun in combined immunodeficiency disorder and alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency of humans, among other diseases.

If we do not like the idea of genetic engineering, aren’t we willing to relax our disapproval when it means saving lives?  You bet we are.  Although we can all imagine an end point, the horrific one involving designer offspring and new creatures created from genetic parts of others, can we not be selective in the use of genetic modification?  Can we not pull back when problems emerge and forge ahead when real benefits are gained?  I think we can.

A Balanced Approach   The most laudatory stated goal of genetic modification of our food is that of fighting starvation and malnutrition.  But genetic modification should not be touted as the end-all and be-all of agriculture’s successful future.  As we have seen, GMOs can grow in areas of environmental deprivation, such as in high saline soils and in areas of low water availability.  They can increase the availability of nutrients.  However, it is possible to conventionally breed many of these traits into foods, as organizations like HarvestPlus are doing. Iron, zinc and vitamin A are the principle targets of this organization’s efforts at biofortification.  HarvestPlus is producing sweet potatoes with beta carotene and is working on a similar corn crop.  Cassava with beta carotene; iron-rich beans; and iron and zinc enriched millet, rice, and wheat are being produced for Asia.  In Peru potatoes are being developed at the International Potato Center in Lima to contain more iron and zinc, also without genetic modification.

Burmese Rice Planting © David Kerkhoff via iStockphoto.com

Green Super Rice is actually a number of new rice varieties that are being conventionally bred to maintain high crop yield with less fertilizer and in unfavorable environmental conditions.  A Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation-funded rice research project, these rice crops are being targeted to poor rice farmers in fifteen countries of Africa and Asia.  These strains can be tailored to the individual needs of a region, such as drought or flooding.  The ability to produce these varieties is dependent on molecular genetics and a detailed knowledge of the genes under study.  A key technique involves subjecting biotic and abiotic stresses to offspring, thereby eliminating weak lines in a system of accelerated natural selection.

In a further example, a salt-tolerant wheat that yields 25 per cent more on saline soils than its parent variety was created by placing salt tolerant genes from Triticum monoccum, a wheat species that grows on poor, arid soils in the Middle East, into durum wheat.  This was accomplished using non-GM breeding.  Successful offspring were identified using the latest molecular marking technology.

“Site-directed mutagenesis,” is a technique that is currently lead by Cibus, a company in San Diego.  This uses the plant’s own genetic machinery to change its DNA.  Regulatory approval is more straightforward because outside genes are not being introduced.  Cibus has reached agreements with a variety of companies and organizations to use its technique on their crops, including the Flax Council of Canada.  Although this is still genetic modification, it may be tolerable to a public that fears “Frankenfoods” because altered genes are sourced from the plants’ own genetic armamentarium.

Genetic technology remains vital even in the conventional production of new crops. Writing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) in 2009, researchers stated:  “……the best biofortification strategies will likely involve genetic engineering in conjunction with conventional breeding, particularly when the direct enhancement of local elite breeding varieties is required.”

The use of a GM versus a conventional crop must be considered on a case by case basis.  If financial gains are to be made by the farmer, the GM crop will be selected, and not always to the benefit of the future of farming.  This is human nature.  Scientific research must be independent of big business and must indicate when GMOs have gone wrong, no matter their temporary financial advantage.  Then they must be removed from the marketplace.

Genetically modified crops should not be used to the exclusion of conventional crops, particularly if their use is being driven by financial gain on the part of big business.  If conventional methods provide seeds that breed true from generation to generation and have viable traits that ensure a healthy and productive crop at a cheaper price, then they are superior and should be promoted.  In addition to biotechnology, viable, informed agro-ecological practices are critical.  GMOs alone do not guarantee a successful crop. 

The Problem of Feeding the World   Perhaps the most highly touted positive outcome of GMO crops is in the fight against world hunger and malnutrition.  We have already seen in Part 2 of this series how genetic modification is being geared towards nutritional augmentation of crops as well as towards improved yield in areas of highly challenged soils and climate.  While conventional breeding programs are making significant contributions as well, the role of genetic modification should not be overlooked.

In Europe there is a pervasive resistance to genetically modified food.  Because of the European influence throughout Africa and lack of education there on the role and benefits of GMOs, Africa has been very slow to implement planting of genetically modified crops.  Activism against GMOs has played a significant role.  Since regulatory laws are strict in Europe, this has influenced progress in Africa with which it has strong ties.  It would seem that this can only prolong the problems of starvation and malnutrition in the region.  Recently, Roger Beachy, head of the National Institutes of Food and Agriculture of the USDA, spoke out pointedly on this subject.  Europe cannot keep influencing third world countries in this way because the cost is lives. A unified effort that seeks a role for GMOs, particularly in areas of the world that rely on a single crop for food, is critical.  World support for integrating these products with modern agricultural technology must occur, however, as small farmers often do not have access to modern seeds and other technological advantages, even if they should want them.  Since 1980, U.S. assistance for agricultural development in Africa has fallen by 75%.

Greenpeace has been persistent and ferocious in its protest against GMOs.  It apparently funded the study of Spiroux et al. that claims toxicity of Bt and Roundup Ready corn fed to rats; this paper was based largely on statistical analysis of previous studies by Monsanto.  The results of the paper have been grossly exaggerated across the internet as “organ failure” in rats.  The small biochemical changes observed did not correlate with organic disease.  Food Standards Australia New Zealand, among several organizations, has refuted the conclusions.

Greenpeace creates a picture of GMOs interbreeding wildly throughout nature, and thus creating an “unforeseeable and uncontrollable” future. 

In reality genetically modified organisms have been part of the food chain for 15 years and have yet to create any scientifically proven illness.  True, there is no absolute proof that GMOs might not cause some health effects somewhere eventually, but it is easy to scare the public with such hints of the bogeyman to come.  How is this fair to areas of the world that can seriously benefit from GMOs?

Greenpeace is right to state that biological diversity is important as part of our “global heritage.”  Monocultures are more susceptible to disease, as has occurred with commercial bananas and oranges.  (See earlier part)  Diverse varieties of heritage plants serve as a source of important material for naturally and genetically modified crops that will resist diseases as they emerge and facilitate production of novel, improved food crops to nourish the world.  But diverse plantings, often important in small family farms, cannot be adapted to large scale production, and it is large scale production that is needed if our exploding world population is to thrive.  We cannot expect our poor world neighbors to survive on boutique produce, grown organically on small farms.  That is food elitism.

Further, regulatory delays, like those faced by golden rice, are unreasonable.  It is unconscionable to hold a nutritionally-modified organism to the same cookie cutter of fierce regulatory requirements that might reasonably face a GMO that is herbicide or pest resistant.  It is time for a two-tiered system with fast tracking for simple nutrionally altered GMOs that improve protein, vitamin, and trace mineral content of food, while providing a more rigorous approval process for GMOs involving pesticides, herbicides, and resistance to infectious diseases.

The rich can afford to be cautious, even if caution were due.  But the poor cannot continue to face starvation and malnutrition with its attendant diseases when part of the answer lies at hand.  From Jimmy Carter:  “Responsible biotechnology is not the enemy; starvation is.  Without adequate food supplies at affordable prices, we cannot expect world health or peace.”

No one likes to give an inch on any highly polarized issue: look at the NRA, which does not support a ban on automatic weapons and vehemently holds on to the right to purchase a gun without a background check.  As long as we see GMOs in terms of black and white, we cannot make progress to fight malnutrition and starvation, to provide a cheaper source of medicines and vaccines, to address genetic diseases, and to fight problems of pollution and energy shortage.  Let us approach this vitally important field of technology with insight, thoughtfulness, and an open mind.

---

So it's Marzie here, with still more homework...

If you lived in Africa or Latin America and could eat potatoes or some other tuber that would prevent your susceptibility to malaria or dengue, so that you could be healthy enough to work and feed (and also protect) your children, so that you could avoid the costs, even if you could somehow afford them, of medical care for one of those mosquito borne diseases-

Would you?

Syringe stuck in a potato ©David Crockett via iStockphoto.com

You bet you would.

I'll be back with more about GMOs next week. So many of you had no idea of the good side of GMOs, or where the ideas that GMOs are bad came from. I'll be hoping to add to the broad perspective that Thelma Lee has built. As always, thanks for reading...

Article text content © Thelma Lee Gross, DVM

Blog end comments © Bright Nepenthe, 2011

All other images were purchased from iStockphoto and/or are fair use via Wikipedia as noted.

© Bright Nepenthe, 2011

Genetically Modified Organisms: Is it Nice to Fool Mother Nature? Part 1

DNA Model and Vegetables in Refrigerator © Günay Mutlu via iStockphoto.com

Back in the days when I had grand plans for this blog, before a slew of family issues, health problems (and all the attendant depression that goes with all your grand plans getting totally messed up and not wanting to get bogged down with any negativity in my writing), I promised my readers a series on GMOs. After my poor friend Thelma Lee spent many hours working on an article that would give readers a scientific understanding of GMOs, I just tanked with the blogging for a time. Sourcing photos and deciding what I might be able to say or not say (legally) in any follow-up posts (after receiving some cautionary advice from a reader and a friend) made it all seem daunting. But, given the ever evolving world around us, the topic seems more relevant than ever. In the wake of violent storms, floods, droughts, earthquakes, volcanic ash thick enough to scramble international flight patterns and therefore affect sunlight in some agricultural areas, the issue of genetically modified agricultural products is timely.


Actually, though you might think most about GMO foods, GMOs impact three areas of our world currently- agricultural (yes,  food products, but what about textiles fibers, and other applications?), medicinal (think vaccines or drug delivery or vitamin augmentation) and industrial (think waste remediation, for example). But what do you think when you hear about GMOs? Many people think:

But what is it that you're actually saying no to? And... should you be?

Most people have no idea what the deal is with GMOs. I feel strongly about such subjects because as a PhD chemist, I'm weary of hearing that 'chemicals are bad'. Your body is made up of a delicate balance of chemicals. 'Chemicals' are not bad. And let me tell you, not all organic stuff is good, either. Wanna talk about some natural or organic stuff that's bad? I could go on for days, listing things like arsenic (naturally occurring), radon (naturally occurring), ricin (naturally occurring), saxitoxin (naturally occurring) or how about a humble little protein called avidin, found in egg white and which binds the vitamin biotin with one of the highest affinities known, to name but a few. Avidin is actually one of the reasons that you shouldn't eat raw egg whites. (Biotin is kind of useful in the human body, ya know?) But avidin, which on the face of it might seem bad, has actually been an incredibly useful tool in biological and medical research science.

The goal of Thelma Lee's article (split into two parts, so you can better absorb the information) is to explain the current science behind GMOs and some of the lofty goals that GMO producers have explored, many of which have been, or are on the verge of being, achieved. And you should ask yourself, as you read, if GMOs really sound all that bad, once you understand them better? And if you're still unconvinced, ask yourself: Is every GMO bad? Is the science bad? Is the business angle or potential for monopolies of a GMO product bad? Does the potential for good far outweigh the potential bad? The facts may challenge your thinking and, at a minimum, will have you considering:

Genetically Modified Organisms: Is it Nice to Fool Mother Nature?


by Thelma Lee Gross, DVM

Introduction and Background

Since the 1953 discovery of the chemical structure of DNA by Watson and Crick, humans have wanted to manipulate it.  A unique double helix of chains of sugars and phosphates attached to nitrogen bases (adenine: A; cytosine: C; guanine: G; and thymine: T), DNA both codes for the production of proteins and controls which ones are turned on or off; i.e., made or suppressed.  In this way, the characteristics of an organism are genetically determined for traits such as disease resistance or products such as hormones.  Modifying DNA meant that humans might change the outcome of a cellular characteristic or product in a more specific and controlled fashion than by the conventional routes of selective breeding and, later, mutagenesis, which is the relatively nonspecific alteration of genetic material using chemicals or radiation.

Using enzymatic scissors (endonucleases, exonucleases) and glue (ligases), scientists soon learned how to manipulate DNA and its subcomponents, genes.  In 1973, Stanley Cohen and Herbert Boyer invented the technique of DNA cloning, which created copies of the segment of DNA under study.  By increasing the amount of DNA available for manipulation, this technique allowed genes to be transplanted between different biological species and signaled the birth of genetic engineering.

In order to produce a genetically modified organism, or GMO, the gene or genes must be chosen, replicated and isolated, and then transferred to the host genome.  Plasmids, circular pieces of DNA usually found in viruses or bacteria, are common vectors or vessels of transfer, particularly for plants.  Simply put, the spliced gene is incorporated into the plasmid by cutting its circular structure, inserting the new genetic material, and closing the circle.  The plasmid is then inserted into the host via plasmid-infected bacteria.  Genes can also be “shot” via microinjection into host cells in cases where plasmids cannot function well in this capacity, particularly in the case of animal cells.  The organism is then regenerated from the transformed cells.  Antibiotic exposure to eliminate non-transformed organisms that do not co-express an antibiotic resistance gene, polymerase chain reaction (PCR), or bioassay testing is required to insure that the chosen gene is expressed in the regenerated organism and will function as expected.

Next I will outline the current use of genetically modified plants and their benefits to agriculture, medicine, and industry. 

The Use of Genetically Modified Organisms in Agriculture   

Genetic modification of food crops has been directed to several key goals.  Crops have been altered to resist pests and herbicides; to improve nutrition; to survive in climactically or soil-challenged locations; and to provide increased yield, improved taste, and longer shelf survival. 

Pesticide Resistance  The principal types of genetically modified crops that resist pests are those containing the Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) gene, which produces a bacterial-derived larvicidal toxin.  Bacillus thuringiensis toxin displays no significant effects on the environment, or mammals and birds, but is toxic for certain species of caterpillar larvae. 


Crops that are modified to be pest-resistant can be beneficial in several ways.  The use of Bt crops reduces the use and therefore the cost of chemical pesticides.  Bt cotton has been highly effective in reducing the need for Bt pesticide in commercial production.


Secondly, GMOs containing pesticide have been found to protect conventional crops in the vicinity, as in recent studies of Bt corn planted alongside conventional corn.  Conventional corn was protected from borers simply by co-planting with Bt corn.  This increased yield and reduced overall cost since conventional corn is less expensive to grow.


Lastly, naturally occurring, pest-protective genes from one crop plant can be inserted into another, thus “sharing the wealth,” as in the recent studies of natural proteinase inhibitors of potatoes and tobacco that were transferred to cotton.  Transferring inhibitors from more than one source increased the resistance of cotton to caterpillar pests because caterpillars quickly develop new proteinases when exposed to one type of inhibitor only.  This stacking technique improved the performance of these GMOs.


By all available evidence, Bt crops are beneficial to farmers.  The supposed failure of Bt cotton in India may be linked to the use of spurious seeds and the planting of cotton in inadequate and under-irrigated soils, which produces failure of all varieties, Bt cotton included.  Farmers who can show crop failure may be able to obtain cash settlements, thus increasing the incidence of claims. 


Herbicide-resistance This group of GMOs is best known by the “Roundup (glyphosate)  Ready” group that include soybeans, corn, canola, cotton, and, more recently, sugarbeets and wheat.  These crops are modified to resist the use of the herbicide.  The planting of these modified crops allows farmers to use less tillage (another method of weed control that physically removes the weeds), thus reducing soil erosion and assisting in soil conservation.  Studies have also found water contamination of more harmful pre-emergent herbicides is reduced in areas of Roundup Ready crop plantings. Farmers’ production costs are lowered; thus, there has been rapid and widespread adoption of this type of GMO.
 
Disease-resistance  This area of research in genetic modification is more problematic, and results have been slow.  There has been limited success in genetically modifying organisms that resist bacterial diseases, for example.  Efforts to fight “greening” of Florida oranges, a disease caused by a bacterium that is spread by a tiny insect (psyllid), have been heretofore of limited success.  As the January 10, 2011 article in the New Yorker explains (“We have no bananas”), the drive to save the commercial banana, the Cavendish, from the fungal disease Tropical Race Four is being aided by one group of researchers which successfully inserted a gene from thale cress that resists a related disease, Race One, into another strain of banana.  Early results are promising, but large scale production of resistant strains is still likely years away and it may not outpace the ultimate destruction of the crop worldwide.

Nutritional Augmentation Genetically modified microorganisms are already increasingly used to manufacture vitamins, enzymes, flavors, and other food additives.  Improving the nutritional content of food crops, or biofortification, also may be accomplished by genetic modification.  Most of these food crops are not yet available for use.  An important recent example is “Golden Rice,” which should be ready for release within the year.  Syngenta donated several of its patented technologies to the Golden Rice project for humanitarian purposes, with other biotech companies also making contributions.  Golden Rice is the product of modification of two genes, which enables production of up to 35 micrograms of beta carotene (a precursor of vitamin A) per gram of edible rice.  Rice can make beta-carotene in its leaves, but the modification gives the same ability to the rice grain.  This food is expected to avert blindness and death throughout areas of the third world where rice is the staple. 

via Wikipedia, under Fair Use

The legal hurdles are phenomenal, however. Golden Rice was ready in 1999 and was featured on the cover of Time Magazine (shown above) in 2000 with its co-inventor, Ingo Potrykus.  It is still going through the regulatory process.  As stated by the Golden Rice Humanitarian Board:  “It will take at least until 2011 before the first Golden Rice obtains final regulatory approval and can reach the first group of small holders in a target country.  Considering the enormous humanitarian potential of Golden Rice in reducing blindness (500,000 children per year) and children's deaths (2-3 million per year), it is hardly understandable that lobby groups and the authorities are not learning from the accumulated experience and making the regulatory process more science and experience based.”  Professor Potrykus, a member of that board, addressed the humanitarian issues of such a delay in his opinion piece in the July 2010 issue of Nature. 


In 2009, researchers in Spain, writing in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), reported they had genetically altered corn to contain 169 times the beta carotene of normal corn, 6-fold the normal amount of vitamin C, and twice the normal amount of folate.  The beta carotene concentration is reportedly five times higher than in Golden Rice.

Transgenic potatoes in India have 60 per cent more protein per gram than conventional potatoes; a medium potato can provide 10% of the daily protein requirement of an adult.  As a surprise bonus, the GM crop also yielded more potatoes per unit area planted. Flavonoid-enhanced tomatoes, increased carotenoids in potato tubers, and increased essential fatty acids in soybeans and canola have also been developed. This area of GM research is developing exponentially so more products should emerge rapidly in the next few years.

Survival in Challenging Soils and Climate The International Rice Research Institute runs its own GM programs.  Traits like efficient water and nitrogen use and tolerance to salinity and flooding are early targets. In September of 2010 an Australian group produced a salt-tolerant form of rice, which traps salt in the root of the plant, preventing its transfer and damage to the more susceptible shoots.

Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA) varieties are being tested and should result in increased yields by up to one third.  This allows farmers to grow maize successfully in dry areas that may have been below subsistence levels. This area of GMO development will continue to provide crops that can be grown in areas of greatest need where soils and climate are perennial challenges.

Improvement of Quality and Yield A laudable goal for genetic modification is the improvement of yield as well as quality of the food product.  Yield and flavor-enhanced varieties of GMOs provide a one-two punch and appeal to growers and consumers alike.  Dr. Zachary Lippman of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory has modified a single copy of a mutant gene in tomatoes, which has resulted in increased production per plant and simultaneous sweetening of the fruit.  These potent producers are the result of manipulation of the “flower power gene,” known as SFT, which tells the plants how many flowers to make.  This scientific manipulation may lend itself to all kinds of crops, including melons and soybeans.

The Use of Genetically Modified Organisms in Medicine

In human medicine genetic modification of organisms first allowed the manufacture of products which until then could be obtained only in small quantities from a natural source.  In 1982 insulin produced by a genetically altered bacterium was approved for use in humans.  Human growth hormone, factor VIII (for clotting disorders), and interleukin-2 (to fight cancer) are other important examples.  Artemisinin, the world’s most important anti-malarial medicine, which previously could only be naturally sourced from sweet wormwood (Artemesia annua), now can be efficiently synthesized in bacteria, reducing its cost by 90%.  It will be commercially available to victims of malaria by 2012, as reported in the September 28, 2009 issue of The New Yorker in an article about synthetic biology (“A Life of its Own”).

GM plants also have increasing importance in modern medical application.  Tobacco is being used to produce flu vaccine.  Indeed, according to the January 31, 2011 issue of the New Yorker Magazine (“Going Viral”), during the recent fear over a swine flu pandemic, scientists affiliated with the U.S. government adapted the tobacco technique to swine flu vaccine, rapidly accelerating production to about a month from the approximately six months required by the traditional technique using hen’s eggs. Rice is being modified to provide oral cholera vaccine, to orally treat cedar allergy, and to contain reduced protein levels so that it may serve as a nutritional source for renal failure patients who cannot tolerate much protein in their diets.  Several varieties of rice have also been modified to fight iron deficiency anemia by expressing lactoferrin; this rice is also superior nutritionally, having higher available protein for absorption.

The Use of Genetically Modified Organisms in Industry

Plants, including those that are traditionally used for food, are being genetically modified for industrial application.  Potatoes are being engineered to make only one of its usual component starches, amylopectin, which can be utilized in the production of paper and concrete.  Called the Amflora potato, its use was approved for the European Union market in March 2010 by the European Commission.  Maize plants are being engineered to produce enzymes such as Trypzean, a transgenic trypsin that is used in industry. 

Tobacco may be used in future to remove organic pollutants from the soil in a process called “phytoremediation”.  

Next I will deal with various problems that have arisen through the use genetically modified plants. 

Part 2 of Thelma Lee's article will be posted tomorrow.

In the meantime, your homework? Here is some rice. Imagine it has been genetically engineered to have a cholera vaccine in it. Good thing? It sure sounds like it whether you live in India or Burma or Haiti. Who owns it? Who paid for the research studies of it? Will they give it away in regions prone to cholera outbreaks? Can the genes be transferred to rice plants that weren't genetically engineered? Should we even worry if they could? These are some of the many and varied issues surrounding GMOs.

To see a cure in a grain of rice...

Rice © Srdjan Stefanovic via iStockPhoto.com

is a very amazing thing.

Article text content © Thelma Lee Gross, DVM

Blog introductory and ending comments, no GMO sign and GMO question sign © Bright Nepenthe, 2011

All other images were purchased from iStockphoto and/or are fair use via Wikipedia as noted.