One objective of my blog is to provide a public forum for presenting science-based facts about numerous issues that relate broadly to the use of biotechnologies and technologies for food production.  In the spirit of my blog being a public forum, students in a first-year seminar course I taught this Fall (Animal Science 110S: Animal Biotechnology and Society) had to write a short blog about some aspect of biotechnology and agriculture.

My objective was for the students to learn about biotechnology AND engage in a learning activity about communicating science to society.  I shared with the students that writing a blog would be a terrific learning experience about communicating science.  You will be the “judge” of how well they did this.  

The project was team based…that is, several students were assigned to teams.  Each team selected the topics and submitted their blogs to me for review (and grading).

The blogs were supposed to be 300 to 400 words.  I also conveyed to the students that as the authors of each blog they were responsible for the accuracy and content of their blog.  In addition, they have the responsibility of responding to any comments readers might have.  Thus, if you have any perspectives to share with the autors, please post a comment and I will forward it to the appropriate team for their response.

Enjoy reading the blogs.

****

Team 1:  Joslyn Beltram, Kassie Heeman, Sarah Nafziger, and Lucy Stubler

I Just Found Out there is rBST in My Milk!  What is it Doing There, and Should I Still Drink It?

 What is BST?

Bovine somatotropin (bST) is a naturally occurring  protein hormone produced by all cattle (1). Its basic function is to direct the nutrients from feed throughout the body, and in cows it also directs the nutrients to the udder.  When cows are lactating, bST causes feed energy to be used more for milk production instead of tissue synthesis (2). BST is present in all milk.

What is rBST and Why is it Useful?

rBST is recombinant bovine somatotropin, or  bST that is synthesized using recombinant DNA technology(3).  Cows are injected once every two weeks with rBST in order to increase their milk production.  With increased amounts of BST, the udder absorbs more nutrients from the bloodstream and is able to make more milk (4).  In addition, the efficiency of the conversion from feed to milk increases.

This is markedly beneficial in the dairy industry because each rBST-supplemented cow produces on average one extra gallon of milk per day, while consuming the same amount of feed and without any additional health problems!  That’s a 10 to15 percent increase in milk production with a cost increase of less than 5 percent (2).

Is Milk Produced by rBST-supplemented Cows Safe?

In 1993, rbST was approved by the Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. agency responsible for regulatory review of the product (5).   Despite huge amounts of testing to search for any potential health risks, no professional science groups have ever found any evidence that there is any doubt about the safety of rBST in milk production (6).

rBST is not harmful to humans.  This is due to the fact that human somatotropin receptors do not recognize it. This causes it to be completely inactive in the human body, meaning that it can do no harm (3).  This being said, using rBST to increase milk production in dairy cows only produces more milk.  That is it.  Humans are completely safe to consume the milk produced by the cows receiving these hormones.  rBST is a protein and not a steroid, so rbST in milk is broken down (digested) in the human body just like every other protein we consume.

References:

1. “Bovine Somatotropin (BST).” Biotechnology Information Series, North Central Regional Extension Publication, Iowa State University, December 1993. <http://www.biotech.iastate.edu/biotech_info_series/Bovine_Somatotropin.html>

2. Brennand, Charlotte P. and Bagley, Clell V.  “Food Safety Fact Sheet: Bovine Somatotropin in Milk.”  Utah State University Cooperative Extension. <https://extension.usu.edu/files/publications/factsheet/FN-250_6.pdf>

3. Global Dairy Innovation, Elanco 2010. <https://www.globaldairyinnovation.com/dairy-milk-production/what-is-rbst.aspx>

4. Rushing, John E.  and Wesen, Don P.  “BST and Milk.”  NC State University Dept. of Agriculture and Sciences Cooperative Extention.  <http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/foodsci/ext/pubs/bstandmilk.html>

5. “Report on the Food and Drug Administration’s Review of the Safety of Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin.” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, FDA U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 23 April 2009. <http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/SafetyHealth/ProductSafetyInformation/ucm130321.htm>

6. “BST Fact Sheet.” University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of Food Science.  <http://foodsci.wisc.edu/news/2001/bst_qa.php>

****

Team 2:  Julia Brown, Meleni Hoffman, Kendall Proctor, and Clayton West

Artificial Insemination in Alpacas

Artificial insemination (AI) is a technology used in many livestock breeding programs and has proved to be a very useful tool in the livestock industry.  It has decreased breeding costs, increased breeding efficiency, and helped control the spread of diseases.  Unfortunately, AI technology does not yet exist for any camelid species.  In order to develop the necessary technology, additional large-scale experiments must take place.  However, due to the low volume of the ejaculates, the samples cannot be split into the appropriate number of portions, or aliquots, necessary to perform said experiments (1).  Also, sperm quality varies within and between males, making it difficult to obtain consistent samples needed to test different preservation protocols (2).  Besides that, the high viscosity of the semen makes it difficult to divide the samples into aliquots (1).  In addition to these issues, there are also several obstacles when it comes to the female’s reproductive physiology.

In female alpacas, ovulation does not occur spontaneously, it is induced during mating.  During the act of copulation, the male’s penis stimulates the cervix of the female, which causes the release of hormones that, in turn, cause the final development of the follicle and lead to ovulation.  If mating does not occur, then the follicle will regress.  Because of this, female alpacas do not go through a period of estrous, but instead show a “prolonged period of sexual receptivity (3).”  Because of this, and the difficulties presented by male physiology, it is difficult to artificially inseminate an alpaca.

If progress could be made in developing  an artificial insemination program for alpacas, the industry would benefit greatly. The main advantage would be the possibility of widespread use of quality herd sires.  In addition,  AI would permit crossbreeding, which can change a production trait and would accelerate the introduction of new characteristics.  It also would reduce the risk of spreading sexually transmitted diseases and other diseases.   AI also would reduce the costs of breeding by eliminating the need to transport animals for mating.2  Overall, the addition of artificial insemination technology to the alpaca industry has been, and will be, a difficult goal to achieve, but it would greatly benefit alpaca farmers throughout the world.

References:  

1. Morton, Katherine, and W.M. Chris Maxwell.  The Continued Development of Artificial Insemination Technologies in Alpacas.  Australia: University of Sydney, 2006.  PDF.  25 Oct. 2011.

2. Reyna, Jorge.  “Artificial Insemination in Alpacas.”  Alpacas Australia. 2005; 48:38.  23 Oct. 2011.

3. Australian Alpaca Association (AAA).  “Key Reproductive Features and Reproductive Physiology.”  2008.  PDF.  25 Oct. 2011.

**** 

 Team 3:  Briana Cardie, Morgan Kimmel, Lindsay Royer, and  Zach Wolff

The Ethics of Biotechnologically Enhanced Animals

 There are some common misconceptions about animal biotechnology; however the pros far outweigh the cons. For instance; some people are concerned that genetically enhanced animals will compromise the purity, and change the overall biodiversity of the specific breed. Though animals naturally adapt to their environment, genetic enhancement alters this ability, which some consider unnatural and unethical (1).

While these concerns are understandable, some people are unaware of the benefits of genetically modified animals. There is a growing need for more food and fiber to support an increasing World population. The world population is increasing, and consequently food production needs to increase to meet the growing demands of the world (2). Genetically enhanced animals can help fill the ever-increasing gap between supply and demand. With medical breakthroughs, farmers can raise healthier animals with the use of antibiotics and vaccines (3). Less disease decreases the mortality rate, and increases production for less cost meaning more income for the farmer, and more supply for the market. This increase in income can benefit smaller farms who mostly use family labor force (4), as well as farms that, like any business, have suffered from the current economic instability of current markets. These enhancements can lead to less workers and more income for farms. The increase in product supply will decrease the consumer price as well, creating a “win-win” scenario for farmers and consumers.

Animal biotechnology benefits more than just the market and health of animals, but also our environment(5).  Biotechnology can enhance the wellbeing of people and animals by decreasing the amount of phosphorus and nitrogen in the soil by genetically modifying pigs to reduce release of gases such as methane into the atmosphere.  An increase in quality of meat can be attained by genetically enhanced pigs who produce more muscle and less fat (6).  Sheep can be genetically modified to produce more wool.  Human health can even be improved by the change in milk composition by deleting the Beta-lactoglobulin gene (one of the major proteins that causes milk allergens) which can reduce the mammary gland engorgement and infections associated with this protein(6).

So, while genetically enhanced animals may seem scary and unnatural, they are not but simply misunderstood.  They have a lot to offer our society, and are part of our generation’s way of improving our world.

References:

1.  Murray, J. D. Dickson, J. Transgenic animals in agriculture. Wallingford, Oxon, UK ; New York, NY,USA:CABI Pub., c1999.

2.  Twine, R. Animals as biotechnology : ethics, sustainability and critical animal studies. London; Washington, DC : Earthscan, 2010

3.  Rollin, B. E. An ethcist’s commentary on animal rights versus welfare. Can Vet Journal. V 43(12) pp 913.

4.  Swain, D. L., D. Lloyd. Redesigning animal agriculture : The challenge of the 21st century. Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK ; Cambridge, MA : CAB International, 2007.

5.  Peacock, K. W. Biotechnology and genetic engineering. New York : Facts on File, c2010. Canadian Veterinary Medical Association. 2002.

6.  Houdebine, L. Animal transgenesis and cloning [electronic resource] / Louis-Marie Houdebine; translated by Louis-Marie Houdebine … [et al.].  Chichester, UK ; Hoboken, NJ : John Wiley & Sons, c2003.

 ****

Team 4:  Michael Chacko, Taylor Marino, Julie Schou, and Caroline Wu

Food Biotechnology

By definition, food biotechnology is the application of biological processes to increase rates of food production.  Because the population of the World is expanding, we need a highly sustainable and more efficient method of producing food(1). For example, by 2050, it is estimated that we will need to feed nine to ten billion people(5). With an increase in population, there is a decrease in available farm area. With that being said, it is not only prudent, but it is vital that we find an alternative to traditional farming methods.

Population growth is dependent on the number of deaths and births(5). As time goes on, there are fewer deaths than births in the world. Thus, there is a net population growth. As population increases, food consumption also escalates, because they are directly proportional. Not only does the world have considerably more people than it did years ago, but the consumption of food per person is much higher than it previously was in Developed countries, due to individual income growth in Developed countries. In conclusion, we need to maximize crop production efficiency (quantity produced per acre) to compensate for this increase in population growth.

Food biotechnology is an important main alternative to solving the problem of feeding a growing population. One use of this biotechnology is growing plants faster and larger. To do this, scientists splice specific genes in crops and create a desirable DNA strand(3). For example, scientists can genetically alter a specific crop to be less likely to wither from lack of water (i.e., be more drought resistant). Today, many foods are being grown with biotechnology, but most of the population is unaware of this. Some in society view the use of this technology as being controversial(4). The main reason for this is that people are unsure if what is being done to these foods is safe(6). There is still much to learn about this technology, however, for now this seems like the most effective method of producing food.

As is apparent, food biotechnology is a vital part of the lives of people around the world, whether they know it or not. Although this topic can sometimes be controversial, due to the media and people’s lack of knowledge, it is an important topic that needs to be discussed in order for the world’s population to survive for generations to come.

References:

1.) Ervin, David E. Glenna, Leland L. Jussaume, Raymond A. Jr. “Are biotechnology and sustainable agriculture compatible?” Renewable agriculture and food systems. 2010 June, v. 25, issue 2 p. 143-157.

2.) Vianna, G. R., N. B. Cunha, A. M. Murad, and E. L. Rech. “Review Soybeans as Bioreactors for Biopharmaceuticals and Industrial Proteins.” Genetics and Molecular Research 10.3: 1733-752. Rpt. in 2011.

3.) Fleet, G.H. “Biotechnology and Food Production–relevance to Nutrition.” Journal of Food & Nutrition of Australia 45.Dec. 1988 (1988): 90-93. AGRICOLA. Web. 8 Oct. 2011.

4.) Avery, A. A.; Irish Grassland Association, Borris in Ossory, Irish Republic, Irish Grassland Association Journal, 2003, 37, pp. 17-27.

5.) Etherton, T. (2011). PowerPoint Lectures August 23-November 15, AN SC 110S. University Park PA, 16802.

6.) Isshiki, K. “Food Technology Development and Safety.” Seibutsu-kogaku Kaishi. 2010 Vol. 88 No. 11 pp. 609-611.

****

Team 5:  Carrie Clark, Samantha McKinney, Alyssa Sheppard, and Kelsey Zook

 Organic Farming Economic Efficiency

 Organic farming is a form of agricultural production in which the use of artificial production aids such as fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides are strictly controlled or excluded entirely from the operation. While organic farming appeals to many consumers, there is evidence that shows that the disadvantages may outweigh the advantages of organic food production in comparison to conventional farming practices.

There are many obstacles that are faced by both farmers and consumers that are involved in the production and sales of organic products. There are high managerial costs involved with organic farming, as well as the added risk of shifting towards a new way of farming.  In general, producers and consumers alike have a limited awareness of organic farming practices. In addition, issues with marketing and business as a whole involved in organic farming have been observed (1). Certified organic suppliers are most commonly utilized in the distribution of organic goods (2). States now charge additional fees for certified producers because they are seen as an ongoing expense. Consumers, in turn will face a higher price because of these state implemented fees (1).

When analyzing cost and profit for conventional and organic farming no significant differences between either of these areas for the two different methods can be seen. In a study conducted in Hungary, it was found that in winter wheat production the material costs were the same for organic and conventional farming, but the production cost per unit was up to 35% higher in organic farming. The material costs in conventional farming stem from the chemicals used for crop production, while the costs for materials is due to a greater amount of soil and plant conditioning in organic (3). Higher prices for organic products are the result of these added production costs (1).

While consumers may believe that there are added health benefits related to consumption of organic products the economic disadvantages to organic farming are quite high and outweigh these possible benefits. While organic producers may see a higher profit, the overall economic advantages are difficult to recognize (3).

References:

1. Green, C., Kreman, A. (2000). U.S. Organic Farming in 2000-2001: Adoption of Certified Systems. U.S. Department of Agriculture Economics Research Division Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 780. http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS34764

2. Dimitri, C., Oberholtzer, L. (2008). Baseline Findings of the Nationwide Survey of Organic Manufacturers, Processors, and Distributors. U.S. Department of Agriculture Economics Research Division Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 36. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/EIB36/EIB36.pdf

3. Urfi, P., Kormosne Koch, K., Basci, Z. (2011). Cost and Profit Analysis of Organic   Farming In Hungary. Journal of Central European Agriculture. http://www.cabi.org/cabdirect/FullTextPDF/2011/20113302396.pdf

 ****

Team 6:  Isaac Haagen, Casey McQuiston, and Jessica Solis

 Therapeutic Cloning

Great strides are being made in biotechnology.  The necessity to increase knowledge and skills within this field is ever increasing.  Today, our society is recognizing the myriad of benefits biotechnology has provided. It is an exciting time, in which the previously intangible is now becoming tangible. One such exciting advancement in recent history is the evolution of therapeutic cloning.

Therapeutic cloning is a relatively simple concept.  It involves cloning an embryo for the purpose of creating a store of embryos which can then be used for extracting embryonic stem cells. These stem cells can then be put to use in regenerative medicine and also combating many genetic disorders. While this may appear to be rather simple concept, it has, however,  proved much more difficult in practice.  The first human embryo was successfully cloned in 2001 without successfully producing any embryonic stem cells. Since then, scientists have successfully managed to retrieve embryotic stem cells form several mammalian species; however, attempts to obtain embryonic stem cells from cloned human embryos have remained fruitless (1,2).

Regardless, strong efforts are being put forth to make the use of therapeutic cloning a success.   The primary reason for this continued interest is the exciting possibilities therapeutic cloning provides the medical field particularly in the area of regenerative therapy.   The use of therapeutic cloning would allow for one to remove the current constraints involved with organ and tissue transplants.   Specifically, therapeutic cloning removes the possibility of organ and tissue rejection from donor to patient and alleviates the severe shortage of organs the medical field is currently facing.   In addition, therapeutic cloning holds huge promise in treating neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s disease, genetic conditions such as Duchenne muscular dystrophy, and common diseases such as diabetes (3,4).

It is important for one to realize that therapeutic cloning is performed specifically for the purpose of producing embryos for embryonic stem cells; under no circumstances is the use of therapeutic cloning performed for the creation of a new human being.  With this in mind, it is clear that the use of therapeutic cloning is a scientific advancement that will prove most beneficial to the aid of peoples around the globe (5).

References

1 Arshad, S. (2008). Cloning. In Gale Carnegie Learning. Retrieved November 10, 2011, from Gale Virtual Reference Library.

2 Aschheim, K. (2011, November 8). Toward human therapeutic cloning. In Nature Biotechnology. Retrieved November 15, 2011, from PubMed (22068535).

3 Seidel, Jr., G. E. (2004). Cloning: I. Scientific Background . In Gale Carnegie Learning. Retrieved November 17, 2011, from Gale Virtual Reference Library.

4 Kfoury, C. (2007, July 10). Therapeutic cloning: promises and issues. In PubMed Central. Retrieved November 10, 2011, from PubMed (PMCID: PMC2323472).

5 McGee, Glenn. “Human Cloning.” Encyclopedia of Science, Technology, and Ethics. Ed. Carl Mitcham. Vol. 2. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2005. 938-942. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 20 Nov. 2011.

LUDWIGSHAFEN, GERMANY, November 8, 2011 – Consumers’ interest in agriculture and personal respect for farmers is high, even in countries where less than two percent of the population works in agriculture, according to the BASF Farm Perspectives Study, which surveyed 1,800 farmers and 6,000 consumers. Yet farmers and consumers also agree that farmers’ reputations remain low. The study, which outlines the way farmers and consumers view the farming profession, its challenges and its support network, revealed surprisingly strong agreement on major issues, including the role of farmers and the major challenges farmers are facing in the 21^st century.

The study was carried out in Brazil, India, the United States, Germany, Spain and France in cooperation with the global market research firm Synovate GmbH and Professor Dr. Ulrich Oevermann, Professor for Sociology at the University of Frankfurt.

Both farmers and consumers view farming as a vocation, one that is dedicated to providing nourishment, supporting rural culture and caring for the land. “Steward of the land” or “Caretaker of the land” is farmers’ favorite self-description in all six countries (over 80%), but registers significantly lower with consumers (50-60%). In a related question, many consumers blame farmers for environmental problems, with concerns strongest in Brazil, India and France (38-43%), the U.S. and Germany (23%).

Introducing the study at the BASF Agricultural Solutions Press Info Day, Dr. Stefan Marcinowski, Member of the Board of Executive Directors, explained: “Many farmers take the consumers’ concerns very seriously and do their best to address them properly. For us this is an important finding since it clearly shows us where we can help farmers to overcome this gap with more sustainable products and solutions.”

21^st century challenge: Feeding the world

Around 80 percent of farmers and consumers from all countries agree that farming’s primary objective is to feed the world. Even so, a majority of farmers believe that consumers do not understand the full dimension of the food supply challenge or the reality of farming. Agreement on the contribution of plant biotechnology was strongest among farmers and consumers in countries with high adoption of genetically-modified crops, such as India (76% of farmers and 62% of consumers), Brazil (78% and 29%) and the USA (53% and 25%).

Interest-understanding gap

Consumers show a high level of interest in farming (from 84% in India to 50% in France), but also admit that they do not know enough about farming to judge it properly. Although farmers also see an understanding gap among consumers, many (ranging from 40% in the USA to 74% in India) take consumers concerns seriously and say they should do more to meet consumers’ expectations.

Price an obstacle, little support for subsidies on environment

The price of food and, conversely, the price of conservation remain obstacles for both farmers and consumers. A large majority of farmers believe consumers are not willing to pay higher prices for food produced in an environmentally-friendly way. Though some consumers (30%) say they would pay higher prices, a slight majority in France, Spain, Germany and the USA would not. Subsidies are seen by both groups largely as a means to keep food prices low, especially in India (74%), Brazil (67%) and Germany (64%) rather than as environmental lever (around 30%).

Farmers believe that industry and consumers should do more to support agriculture: More environmentally-friendly products and representation in public from industry; better grasp of farming and willingness to pay for environmental benefits from consumers.

“These results are a clear message that farmers expect support on challenges that go far beyond their business success. At the same time, it’s also a signal to all of us, industry, consumers and policymakers, that we need to bridge the farm-knowledge gap and give growers broader support going forward,” concluded Marcinowski.

The press release is available at:  http://www.basf.com/group/pressrelease/P-11-492

This article was first published on the IFIC Food Insight Blog on November 4, 2011.

Sustainable is a popular word these days in conversations about the practices used to produce our food.  The word is used and misused extensively.

I have asked many folks what sustainable food production means.  The answers are diverse, and astonishing in some instances.  Relative the latter, some convey that sustainable food production is the only “way” and that unsustainable agriculture doesn’t work.  The latter response is more than puzzling to me.  If the business is not economically sustainable then it is unsustainable.

My perspective is that sustainable should first be viewed through the “lens” of economic sustainability.  Farms are businesses.  If they don’t make money they close…pretty simple.

However, sustainable gets used in a myriad of confusing ways.  For example, some in society talk about sustainable in the context of this being the “best” food production practice to embrace.  I am sure many readers have seen the marketing message:  organic food production is more sustainable than other agricultural production practices and, therefore, better.

There are other sound bites that convey free-range or pasture-fed production practices are more sustainable than conventional ag production practices.  I even went to a restaurant in San Francisco that markets their restaurant as being sustainable because they focus on urban, rustic food that was sourced from a “sense of place”.  By the way, I still don’t know what urban, rustic food is.

The reality is that well managed and profitable farm businesses are sustainable irrespective of production practice.  And, the food is all the same from a nutrient quality and health standpoint.

Some “spin” sustainable in an environmental context to convey that there are ag production practices (think large scale ag) that are not being managed in an environmentally and sustainably effective way.  This is another example of misleading and inaccurate messaging.

Some even use sustainable to attack science…if products of biotechnology are used in agriculture, the food production practice is not sustainable!  In fact, the opposite is the case, use of biotechnology has many benefits on agriculture that range from environmental to improved production efficiency.

The sustainable campaign even spins into the arena of subsidies for farmers.  I have come to appreciate that more than a few individuals believe that without farm subsidies, large farms would not exist.  They rail that we should limit subsidies to big agribusinesses.  This is another deceptive and misleading communication message.  Recent data published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) indicates that the level of support to agriculture in the U.S. is much lower than many other developed countries (see Figure).  In the U.S., the Producer Support Estimate was 9% in 2008-2010.  This is dramatically lower than the European Union level of support (22%), which some view as a haven of “sustainable” food production practices.

My encouragement is that we celebrate the contemporary food system that we have evolved, and not get hung up on the use of the word sustainable.  One looming issue that is high on my priority list is to develop and implement new technologies that will help feed the 10 billion individuals that are projected to populate the world in 2050.

The public discussion about the need for adequate food is a luxury that well-fed people in developed countries can afford.  But in developing countries where the population is growing while the supply of farmland shrinks, people are grappling with a much thornier and higher-stakes dilemma.  Unless they can grow more food on less land, they may not have enough to eat.  The scale of this is already daunting – more than 1 billion individuals in the world go to bed each night hungry.

Agricultural biotechnology is helping to solve this by making it possible to grow more and healthier food in conditions and places where it could not be grown before. The new agricultural biotechnologies offer great promise for producing enough food for the growing world population.  The world’s population is expected to increase to 9 to 10 billion individuals by 2050, with more than 60% of the growth occurring in Africa, Southern Asia, and Eastern Asia.  This increase in population translates to a projected increase in annual global food production from 9.9 trillion pounds to about 14.3 trillion pounds in 2050 (see post at Terry Etherton Blog on Biotechnology at:  http://blogs.das.psu.edu/tetherton/).

Some may be amazed at the extent to which plant biotechnology is being adopted in agriculture.  The rate is accelerating impressively.  For example, in 2010, the accumulated acreage planted during the past 15 years (i.e., from 1996 to 2010), exceeded one billion hectares for the first time.  This is equivalent to more than 10% of the total land area of the USA or China.   This translates to an 87-fold increase in acreage planted to GM crops between 1996 and 2010, making biotech crops the fastest adopted crop technology in the history of modern agriculture.

It is important to appreciate that feeding the growing world population will be a challenge.  As farmers in developing nations clear-cut more land and consume more natural resources to grow the food their mounting populations need to survive, the world faces an environmental dilemma in addition to a humanitarian one.  I don’t think we want to continue to destroy more wildlife habit or tropical rainforest to plant more soybeans.  What is the answer?  One important answer is to invest in science to develop future generations of technology that improve productive efficiency of plant and animal agriculture.  (Food productive efficiency is an increase in the quantity of food produced per acre for crops, and the quantity of meat or milk produced per unit of food consumed by animals.)

Opponents of ag biotechnology contend (incorrectly) that many consumers are opposed to modern biotechnology.  However, the science-based consumer survey evidence clearly shows that the majority of Americans have accepted the benefits of the new food biotechnologies  (see: Terry Etherton Blog on Biotechnology at:  http://blogs.das.psu.edu/tetherton/).

There are many compelling reasons to support and promote ag and food biotechnology for the global village.  These “biotechnologies” contribute importantly to alleviating some of the major challenges facing global society, including: food security and self-sufficiency, sustainability, alleviation of poverty and hunger, and help in mitigating some of the challenges associated with climate change and global warming.  We are fortunate that we are traversing an era where there is so much science that is being applied to pressing societal issues.  Let us celebrate the many positive contributions that ag biotechnology has made to the world, and will make in the future!

In the April 6 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Dr. David Ludwig concluded in a commentary “Technology, Diet, and the Burden of Chronic Disease” that “reducing the burden of obesity-related chronic disease requires a more appropriate use of technology that is guided by public health rather than short-term economic considerations”.  In the commentary, Dr. Ludwig’s usage of “technology” pertains primarily to food technology.

When I read this article and got to the last paragraph…I thought:  Here we go again!  Another not so subtle condemnation of food technology with a different “slant”…if you make food technology better it could help reduce the burden of obesity! My opinion is that this strategy won’t do much to solve a very serious public health issue…the ongoing obesity epidemic.

As I have written on countless occasions in my blog, we have the best and safest food system in recorded history.  This was achieved by developing and implementing a huge array of food technologies over the past decades that span the spectrum of food production practices, harvesting and processing, product development, food safety, nutrition, packaging, cooking, and shipping so that we have all the food you see at your local grocery store. Research advances in food technology have played an essential role in evolving the current food system, which is a present day “wonder”.  I haven’t found many individuals who wish to go back to the food system and technology used in 1850.

Despite the “wonder” of our present food system, it is a fair point that not all the food available in the market space meets the criteria for “healthy” and can be included in a healthy diet on a routine basis.  However, this is where moderation comes into play.  All foods, in moderation, can be included on occasion in a healthy diet.

My point?

Food technology is not the cause of the obesity in the United States and other developed countries.  And, please don’t think that there is NOT a major public health crisis due to overweight and obesity in the United States.  There is an ongoing obesity-related public health epidemic  in the United States.  The most recent data published by Ogden et al. who work at the National Center for Health Statistics (which is part of CDC) indicate that about 74% of Americans over the age of 20 are overweight, obese or extremely obese!  The medical care costs of obesity in the United States are staggering – totaling about about $147 billion annually.

The argument is not about whether we need to dramatically reduce the incidence of overweight and obesity in the United States but how to fix the problem.

On the face of it, the fix seems simple, individuals who are overweight or obese just need to reduce energy intake and increase energy expenditure (via physical activity).  The difficult reality is that obesity is remarkable difficult to treat.  This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that the federal government and various health organizations in the United States have spent billions of dollars over the past decade on population intervention programs and initiatives to reduce the incidence of overweight and obesity, and, yet, about three quarters of the population is still markedly above ideal body weight!

Much of the responsibility for the obesity epidemic reflects choices individuals make relative to the dietary pattern they consume daily (i.e., their daily food choices) as well as the quantity of food (energy intake) they ingest. Public health experts clearly recognize this; however, the problem is that population-based  intervention programs that effectively modify eating behavior of overweight/obese individuals so that they consume healthier dietary patterns, and reduce over-consumption of energy on a life-long basis are difficult to implement and sustain.  I can’t predict what the timeline may be for developing strategies that reduce the incidence of obesity in the American population.  In the meantime, however, I do know that we shouldn’t place the blame for the obesity epidemic totally on the food industry.

Recently, a compelling and persuasive article was published by Dr. Jonathan D. G. Jones in a scientific journal (the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society) entitled “Why Genetically Modified Crops“.  In the article, Dr. Jones shares his exasperation over the widespread misrepresentation of genetically modified (GM) plant science.  Importantly, he presents that rationale (that is widely accepted by the scientific community) that adopting GM crops is essential for agriculture in the future because it reduces its environmental impact by reducing pesticide applications and conserving soil carbon by enabling low till methods.  Dr. Jones concludes with the perspective that “it would be perverse to spurn this approach at a time when we need every tool in the toolbox to ensure adequate food production in the short, medium and long term”.

The paper published by Dr. Jones reaffirms the need for the global village to maximize crop yields going forward.  It is estimated that at least 50% more food production will be needed by 2030.  And, this will have to achieved without “adding” additional cropland (i.e., destroying tropical rainforests and wildlife habitat), with more expensive energy, looming water availability issues (I have not written much about this but shall in the future), and the ever-present uncertainty of climate change.

A report published in 2009 “Reaping the Benefits: Science and the Sustainable Intensification of Global Agriculture” by the Royal Society presented the rationale for how science and technology could increase crop yields and made the recommendation that improved farming methods and the use of ALL available and approved biotechnologies be used to increase the yield potential of crop varieties.

My encouragement is that you read the article by Dr. Jones.  Tellingly, the article concludes with a poignant message:

“GM is a method to introduce new genes that can improve crop performance. In the last 14 years, both GM HT (herbicide tolerance) and insect resistance have been enthusiastically adopted by farmers in the USA, Argentina, Brazil, India and China. The outcomes have broadly been positive; easier weed control, better insect control with reduced insecticide applications, increased carbon sequestration by low till agriculture, and increased farm incomes. However, activists in Europe have greatly retarded adoption of GM, and the public has been misled by unwarranted criticisms of the technology from its opponents. This is unhelpful at a time when we need to use all available technology to secure food supplies over the next 20–40 years.

Europeans should consider the following questions about GM. First, why is so little consideration given to the costs of not using GM? For example, in the UK alone, farmers spend  approximately £50 million per year to control late blight, and a 10 year delay in solving the problem thus costs £500 million. The major beneficiaries from any such delay are the fungicide manufacturers such as Bayer and Syngenta, and the major losers are consumers. Second, European politicians generally support the desirability of strengthening the European bioeconomy, but how are we to compete successfully with the USA when our regulatory burden is so much more severe? Companies such as Monsanto are the major beneficiaries from excessive and expensive regulation; it increases the barriers to entry from competitors, and maintains their monopoly position. Third, EU taxpayers spend considerable sums both nationally and Europe-wide on plant science and technology that could result via GM in EU crops with better performance and reduced environmental impact. However, excessive regulation is preventing EU taxpayers from benefiting from their own investment—why? Finally, EU regulations on import of GM crops are influencing policies in developing countries and retarding the deployment of solutions to problems of food availability and quality. How can the harm that results from these European anti-GM prejudices be justified?”

Here is interesting release from the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) about the importance of livestock cloning.  Enjoy reading this.

WASHINGTON, D.C. (Monday, March 21, 2011) – Five nations have come out in support of livestock cloning as one of many agricultural technologies that can help meet our growing demand for sustainable food production.

These governments recognize that cloning is one breeding technology that helps farmers and ranchers produce healthier animals and contributes to more consistent food production, said Dr. David Edwards, Director of Animal Biotechnology for the Biotechnology Industry organization (BIO). There is global scientific agreement that foods from livestock clones and their offspring are no different than foods from livestock produced through conventional breeding and are completely safe to eat.

Intergovernmental meetings were held in Buenos Aires in December 2010 and March 2011 where discussions focused on the regulatory and trade-related aspects of livestock cloning in agriculture and food production.  Following these discussions, representatives from the governments of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, New Zealand and the United States signed a document in support of livestock cloning technology, and invited other Governments to sign on as well.

The document identified five key points:

1. Regulatory approaches related to agricultural technologies should be science-based, and no more trade-restrictive than necessary to fulfill legitimate objectives, and should be consistent with international obligations.
2. Expert scientific bodies around the world have reviewed the effects of SCNT cloning on animal health and the safety of food derived from livestock clones. There has been no evidence indicating that food from clones or the progeny of clones is any less safe than food from conventionally bred livestock.
3. The sexually-reproduced progeny of SCNT clones are not clones. These progeny are the same as any other sexually-reproduced animal of their own species. There is no scientifically justifiable basis for imposing a regulatory differentiation between the progeny of clones and other animals of the species.
4. Restrictions specifically aimed at food from the progeny of clones – such as bans or labeling requirements – could have negative impacts on international trade.
5. Any audit and enforcement measure addressed to progeny of clones would be impossible to apply legitimately and would result in onerous, disproportionate and unwarranted burdens on livestock producers.

World demand for meat and dairy products is forecasted to increase dramatically in the next few decades, and much of that supply will need to come from more efficient livestock, said Dr. David Faber, President of Trans Ova Genetics and Chair of BIO’s Animal Policy Committee. Increasing pressure is being put on limited resources to meet the growing challenges to food security, and agricultural technologies such as cloning are going to play an increasingly crucial role in meeting these challenges.

In January 2008, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a final risk assessment on animal cloning concluding that livestock cloning is safe.  In July 2008, the European Food Safety Authority also issued a scientific opinion that food from clones is safe, and there are no implications of animal cloning on the environment.

• The FDA Risk Assessment on Animal Cloning is posted online at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/SafetyHealth/AnimalCloning/UCM124756.pdf.
• The EFSA scientific opinion is posted online at: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/ahawtopics/topic/cloning.htm.
• For more information on cloning visit CloneSafety.

The Federation of Animal Science Societies (FASS) has just released a position statement (Biotechnology as a Tool to Enhance Sustainability for Animal Production) about the importance of biotechnology for sustainably feeding a growing world population (the statement is presented below).  FASS is a federation of the American Society of Animal Science, the American Dairy Science Association and the Poultry Science Association, and is dedicated to promoting the benefits of science and education for the good of animal agriculture.

The FASS Biotechnology Statement:
The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity describes Biotechnology as “Any technological application that uses biological systems, living organisms, or derivatives thereof, to make or modify products or processes for specific use” ⁽¹⁾. This definition extends to many aspects of animal agriculture used over the last century including animal breeding, artificial insemination, and the use of vaccines. More recently, biotechnologies are used for gene transfer to modify gene expression (transgenics), in health care (insulin for diabetics), or for environmental clean up (bacteria that can digest oil). In addition, comparing genomics of organisms that are resistant and susceptible to disease to identify genetic markers is used to select for genotypes that favor desired health status or production traits.

The world population will increase from 6.7 billion to 9.2 billion by 2050 ^(2,3). By 2020, the global demand for meat will increase by 58%; milk consumption will increase from 568 to 700 million tons; egg production will increase by 30%; and demand for poultry, beef and pig meats will increase by 85%, 80%, and 45%, respectively, from 1995 levels ⁽²⁾. With only 2% more arable land available for food production in North America in 2050, there must be continual improvement in productivity per unit of land area ⁽³⁾. FAO estimates that 70% of these gains in production must come from the use of new technologies ⁽⁴⁾. Modern biotechnology offers solutions to challenges for environmentally sustainable animal production that are not achievable using historical technologies. However, the use of biotechnology in food animal production can be a contentious issue for some consumers.

Policy Statement:

• FASS recommends that the basis for acceptance of the use of biotechnology to improve the sustainability of agricultural production be from a science-based viewpoint. FASS believes that adoption of modern biotechnology is critical to meet the growing demands for sustainable food production in the next 25-50 years. FASS believes that consumers should have the right to choose what technology they embrace by having the freedom in the marketplace to buy products with the attributes they desire.

Policy objectives

• FASS endorses the importance of continuing to do research and where applicable adopt modern biotechnologies to safely improve the attributes of agricultural production systems, and the plants and animal products used and consumed by the world’s human population.
• FASS endorses that rational, scientifically-based systems be adopted in governmental policy regarding the research and introduction of agricultural biotechnologies, including the production, marketing, and global trade of plant and animal products derived from the use of biotechnology.
• FASS can provide information and educational assistance to any agency or educator as a resource to support the science underpinning the use of a biotechnology related to animal agriculture.
• FASS encourages funding for research and education necessary to provide the fundamental biological knowledge of organisms, including genomes, that will lead to strategies for global solutions that address the grand challenges for production of abundant, safe and affordable foods for the 21^st century and beyond.

References

1. “The Convention on Biological Diversity (Article 2. Use of Terms).” United Nations. 1992. Retrieved on February 6, 2008.
2. http://www.grid.unep.ch/geo1/ch/ch4_9.htm Accessed 07DEC2010.
3. USDA Agricultural Projections to 2017. Office of the Chief Economist, World Agricultural Outlook Board, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Prepared by the Interagency Agricultural
   Projections Committee. Long-term Projections Report OCE-2008-1, 104 pp.
4. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2004. Protein Sources for the Animal Feed Industry. Expert consultation and workshop. Bangkok 29April-3May 2002. FAO, Rome.

Adopted by the FASS Board of Directors on February 10, 2011

There was a great article in the Wall Street Journal “Let’s Restart the Green Revolution” (see below) that addressed the issue of regulation-induced stagnation.  Regulation-induced stagnation is a term that refers to growing regulatory (federal government) oversight for approval of genetically enhanced crops and livestock, and how this slows down the process to approve a new GM crop or animal.  The delay consequently adds greatly to the cost of getting a new ag biotech product through the regulatory approval “pipeline”.  The review process is important because approval is required before commercial sales of an ag biotech product can occur.

My concern about regulatory stagnation is not an indictment of the need for evaluating new ag biotech products.  The review process is critically important to assure efficacy of the new ag biotech product, and to determine that there is no increased risk (safety or environmental).  However, we have a looming need to increase the pace of developing innovative ways to feed a growing population in the world… the last thing we need are regulatory obstacles or politics to slow down the scientific review process.  The recent USDA World Agriculture Supply and Demand Report that projected ending U.S. corn stocks for 2010/11 will be at 15-year low (only 675 million bushels or an 18-day supply) is a telling sign of how close the current food system is to a situation where production of cereal grains is less than demand!

Consider what might happen if we have several years in a row where food supplies are less than societal needs?

Given this, the last thing we need is a more regulation-induced stagnation!

Enjoy the article by Mr. Jenkins.

++++

Let’s Restart the Green Revolution
By Holman W. Jenkins
Wall Street Journal
February 2, 2011

Food prices are up, and output and productivity is falling behind. Not enough attention is being placed on regulation-induced stagnation.

The U.N.’s food price index has hit an all-time high. Food price hikes are widely understood to be a trigger of Egyptian upheavals in a country that imports a large share of its grain. Some blame Ben Bernanke. Some blame the Chinese for gobbling up too much of the world’s resources. Not enough attention is focused on the forces of stagnation loose in our world. Agricultural output has been falling behind population growth for almost two decades, and so has productivity.

In a small way, consider the Obama Agriculture Department’s decision last week to throw up its hands and finally permit the planting of bio-engineered alfalfa.

Alfalfa is the country’s fourth biggest crop. Roundup Ready soybeans and corn, modified to resist the weedkiller glyphosate (known by the trade name Roundup), have been in the market for a decade. Roundup Ready alfalfa raised no new issues, and yet in 2007 a court found a wholly new excuse to block planting. The USDA hadn’t produced an “environmental impact statement” to consider the economic impact on “organic” alfalfa growers.

To be sure, these growers were about to be inconvenienced. The bio-engineered trait would likely turn up in their crops. The standard of genetic purity they need to meet to satisfy their health-food customers would become that much harder.

But organic alfalfa represents about 1% of the market. Functionally, it is not different from bio-engineered alfalfa. Only the label is different. “Organic” alfalfa is fed to “organic” cows so consumers can splurge on milk that says “organic” on the label.

Shoppers have every right to indulge themselves in this fashion, and farmers to make a buck meeting their need. But should other farmers be stopped from planting a new seed just because it would complicate their niche marketing strategy? When the gauze of environmental correctness is peeled away, the battle here isn’t about much more than keeping organic alfalfa (also known as hay) cheap so organic dairy operators will be less tempted to substitute another feed.

A similar lawsuit threatens to halt planting of Roundup Ready sugar beets, which account for nearly half of U.S. sugar production. Perhaps the best answer, brutal as it might seem, was offered by a beet farmer in Oregon. He told NPR that since the engineered beet had been found to be safe, if a neighboring farmer has “organic” customers who prefer to believe otherwise, “it would be in his interest to educate them.”

It’s too bad when change upsets somebody’s livelihood, but these lawsuits seek to award organic farmers a civil right not to have their high-end, advertising-created market segment disturbed by industrial progress. Tom Vilsack, the Obama agriculture secretary, twisted and turned for weeks trying to reconcile the interests of organic and mass-market alfalfa farmers. In the end, he gave up and made the right decision: The organic farmers will have to adjust to a reality that has shifted a little bit against them.

The world needs more such decisions.

When some hear the word “regulation,” they imagine government rushing to the defense of consumers. In the real world, government serves up regulation to those who ask for it, which usually means organized interests seeking to block a competitive threat. This insight, by the way, originated with the left, with historians who went back and reconstructed how railroads in the U.S. concocted federal regulation to protect themselves from price competition. We should also notice that an astonishingly large part of the world has experienced an astonishing degree of stagnation for an astonishingly long time for exactly such reasons.

Greece has destabilized the entire European monetary system because its government borrowed more than it could afford. But the flipside is an economy that can’t afford its debts because it has been buried under anticompetitive rules, guilds and monopolistic privileges that make enterprise all but illegal.

A few hundred miles to the south, Egyptian protestors clamor for “freedom” when American television reporters are present. But “food” has been the chant across North Africa since before the beginning of the year, in Algeria, where several protestors were killed, and in Tunisia where an autocrat chose to make his exit.

These upheavals got their start in a telling way. A street vendor in central Tunisia set himself afire as a protest after being harassed by police for trying to make a living selling vegetables without a permit. The nature of the modern regulatory state everywhere is to be hard on those trying to do anything new. In this way at least, the quaking North African regimes have been thoroughly modern.

I have discussed the “firestorm” of opposition that has flared up in response to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack’s idea of calling for producers of GM, non-GM and organic crops to “coexist” in previous posts on Terry Etherton Blog on Biotechnology.

Jim Webster of Agri-Pulse Communications has published an excellent article about the House Agriculture Committee’s view about de-regulating Roundup Ready alfalfa…their view is to de-regulate it without burdensome and non-science based restrictions, and do it expediently.  To read the article by Mr. Webster, click here.