Terry Etherton Blog on Biotechnology

Student Blogs – AN SC 110S: Animal Biotechnology and Society (First-Year Seminar Course)

tetherton — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 14:52:13 +0000

Terry D. Etherton

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.

2. Brennand, Charlotte P. and Bagley, Clell V. “Food Safety Fact Sheet: Bovine Somatotropin in Milk.” Utah State University Cooperative Extension.

3. Global Dairy Innovation, Elanco 2010.

4. Rushing, John E. and Wesen, Don P. “BST and Milk.” NC State University Dept. of Agriculture and Sciences Cooperative Extention.

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.

6. “BST Fact Sheet.” University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of Food Science.

****

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.

BASF Farm Perspectives Study Shows Strong Agreement between Farmers and Consumers

tetherton — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 16:24:53 +0000

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

Here a Sustainable Farm, There a Sustainable Farm – What’s Going On?

tetherton — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 15:00:26 +0000

Terry D. Etherton

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 Need for Food Biotechnology

tetherton — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 19:50:17 +0000

Terry D. Etherton

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!

Biotech Firms Warn EU over Pace of GM Crop Approvals

tetherton — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:43:03 +0000

By Charlie Dunmore

BRUSSELS | Tue Oct 11, 2011

(Reuters) – Europe’s biotechnology industry has warned the European Commission that agricultural imports vital to EU food security are increasingly being put at risk, due to the slow pace of the bloc’s approval system for genetically modified (GM) crops.

In a report to be presented to EU policymakers on Tuesday, biotech association EuropaBio said the speed of GM crop authorizations in Europe is slowing — even as governments worldwide seek to step up the pace of their approvals.

“The EU authorization process for GM products takes substantially longer than comparable systems, despite the fact that government processes around the world to assess the safety and impact of GM products are essentially the same,” it said.

EU policy on GM crops has long been politically fraught, with a majority of consumers opposed to modified foods, but the bloc reliant on imports of about 30 million tonnes of GM animal feed each year — equivalent to 60 kg per person.

EuropaBio estimates the EU’s approval process takes 15-20 months longer, on average, than in the three top global exporters of GM crops — the United States, Brazil, and Canada.

The number of GM crops awaiting approval in Europe has risen from about 50 at the end of 2007 to 72 today — 51 for import and 21 for cultivation. Based on current trends, EuropaBio said it expects more than 90 products to be pending approval by 2015.

Only two GM crops are currently approved for cultivation in Europe, compared to 90 in the United States and 28 in Brazil.

As well as blocking EU farmers from growing GM crops, the lack of approvals increases the risk of import disruptions due to contamination with unapproved GM varieties, the report said.

“It’s a double whammy — we don’t allow farmers to import these GM crops because they haven’t been approved here, and you can’t cultivate them either. We’re putting ourselves into a corner,” EuropaBio Secretary General Nathalie Moll told Reuters.

In its report, EuropaBio urges the European Commission, which oversees GM crop approvals, to set targets for reducing the backlog of applications.

POLITICAL IMPASSE

The Commission said its own analysis of GM approvals found the delays were not as significant as stated by EuropaBio and that it gave extra priority to cases that could disrupt imports.

“The Commission pays particular attention to authorizations which can have a major impact on trade, and looks for efficiency gains whenever they are possible,” EU health and consumer spokesman Frederic Vincent said.

EU environmental groups argue that pro-GM countries in other parts of the world cut corners in safety assessments, and that if anything the EU should beef up its approval system.

“In the U.S., GM crops are riddled with failures, so Europe shouldn’t be compared with a weaker system. EU laws are there to protect the public and environment from the risks of GM crops,” said Mute Schimpf, GM campaigner for Friends of the Earth.

Last month, U.S. agribusiness giant Cargill and agricultural processor Archer Daniels Midland refused to accept grain that had not received EU regulatory approval, for fear that traces in shipments could shut off a key export market.

In a bid to avoid such disruptions to animal feed imports –which totaled more than 50 million tonnes last year, worth some 15 billion euros ($20.5 billion) — the EU adopted rules in June allowing tiny amounts of unapproved GM crops in feed shipments.

While the so-called “low level presence” (LLP) rules will help, EuropaBio argues that their scope — applicable to feed, but not food — and the threshold for unapproved GM material of just 0.1 percent will not prove an effective long-term solution.

The European Commission drafted rules last year to allow EU governments to decide themselves whether to grow or ban GM crops, which could speed up the process. But opposition from members including France, Germany and Britain — and the biotech industry itself — stalled talks on the plans.

The impasse coincided with a fall in the number of GM crop authorizations proposed by the Commission for approval by governments.

“The processing of approvals has stopped while Europe works on these political issues … and there’s no reason why these two things couldn’t go in parallel,” said EuropaBio’s Moll.

Stefan Marcinowski, executive board member of German chemical giant BASF, said Europe’s slow approach went beyond a threat to imports and a lack of EU cultivation.

“We are not starting any new projects that are exclusively dedicated to being marketed in Europe, despite having many crops which have a special European demand. It makes no sense with this uncertainty to make long-term investments into such projects.”

God and Science

tetherton — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 01:59:44 +0000

Terry D. Etherton

Ag Progress Days (APD) was held a few weeks ago at Penn State. Ag Progress Days is a 3-day event that is hosted by the College of Agricultural Sciences at Penn State University. Typically, APD attracts about 50,000 attendees (for additional insights into what APD is, please see: How I Spent a Summer Day at Penn State’s Ag Progress Days).

This year, the College hosted a program that involved short presentations by various Penn State employees about a variety of scientific topics and agriculture. I was invited to speak about Biotechnology in the Barnyard…a topic near and dear to my heart. An important aspect of my talk addressed the issue of how are we going to feed a growing world population? I believe that the development and application of science will play a role in trying to feed the world in the future. While I have given versions of this talk countless times over the past 30 years, this presentation, actually the question and answer session, turned out to be very different.

Different in what way?

At the conclusion of my talk, an individual in the audience asked if I believed in God. That has never occurred before! The closest I had come have been conversations about God and Science but never in a formal meeting.

My response was: ”I believe in a Higher Power that many individuals elect to call God.” Her response, was that I didn’t answer the question!

I immediately started processing the thought that the attendee must be concerned that scientists don’t believe in God. I didn’t speak to this issue, however, in the question and answer period.

Her subsequent comments veered to her story about deep prayer and “clean” food accounting for her recovery from a serious health condition. She shared words to the effect “that the biotechnology-based food was dirty…”! At this point, I thought “oh oh”!! Viewing certain food production practices as resulting in “clean” or “dirty” food is not a position supported by any science. We didn’t have time to elaborate on the details of what she meant by using the word “dirty”.

Over the years, I have had more than a few opponents of science and biotechnology in agriculture attack the topic in many ways, ranging from “it isn’t safe” to “we don’t need/want it”, etc. However, I have evolved a response to the question about the safety of science and biotechnology by asking the person posing the question the following: Heaven forbid if you have a child with a catastrophic illness…would you take them to the best and brightest physician and use the latest medical science and biomedical biotechnology to help? Or, would you prefer to use medical technology and healthcare practices from the 1850′s? For those who answer the question, I have never one individual select “1850′s healthcare”!

Of course, there have been a slew of individuals who have dodged the question. In fact that attendee at APD said, “what do you mean” and “hmm, that is hard question”, without answering. I didn’t press for an answer.

My question is intended to “force” a look at a different value system (appreciation) for science. It is clear that individuals differentiate their value for science in a manner that depends on the application, i.e., ag biotech versus medical biotechnology. The scientific methods are the same so safety is the same; however, some in society make value judgments about science and technology without truly understanding the underlying science. We all do this…I don’t have a clue how my computer works but I make value decisions about what to buy based on perceptions.

Confusing isn’t it?

I am grateful that God created the scientific method and scientists. Imagine where society would be without all of the goods, products and services we use that evolved from science. Fortunately, the cohort who is concerned about science in agriculture are a vocal, small minority. And, for that, I thank God.

Speaking of Communicating

The fact that the cohort who questions or doubts the need for science in agriculture is small should not be interpreted that scientists should stop communicating about the need for ag science in feeding a growing world.

I have spent about 30 years traveling down the “road” of trying to communicate science to the public. It has been an interesting journey. I launched my blog, Terry Etherton Blog on Biotechnology, in 2006 for many reasons, including the idea of providing science-based facts for consumers about many public discussions around food biotechnology in which activists and activist groups try to scare consumers.

During this journey, I have come to appreciate the need for scientists to become more proactive in communicating science. Specifically, the scientific community needs to be much better at conveying what they do and how science and technology benefit consumers. I have written about this, most recently in Please Explain: Training Scientists to be Better Communicators imploring scientists to get involved.

In my travels down this “road”, I have become sensitized to the issue of how the information I present is being “heard” by the audience. This can be a real adventure, especially when some in the “audience” share “they don’t believe the message(s) or messenger” (i.e., me). This raises the interesting question of what to do?

Yes, there are those who do not believe in science and technology.

Here is a good example. A colleague (Dr. Ann Macrina) and I wrote an article, Hormones in Milk – Are they Causing Early Puberty in Girls? that was posted on the Best Food Facts blog in June. Recently, a consumer, “Rachel”, submitted a comment for posting: “I don’t believe all the information in this article. I think the facts are skewed. There is a great milk lobby out there. Not all they say is true. Hormones are indeed causing younger girls to mature ahead of time. This is true for girls that are not even heavy. I have seen this with my own eyes. More than once.”

Not a shred of what Rachel shared in her post is true based on science. Our blog clearly presented the facts that hormones in food are NOT the cause of early onset puberty. Rachel, however, obviously elected to not believe this! I have no idea what the basis for her decision was.

And, with this comes the question: What to do when clear scientific evidence is not believed?

The answer? We keep communicating – it works. Here are some examples.

It is clear that many Americans value science and technology. In 2010, the National Science Foundation released a report, Science and Engineering Indicators: 2010, showing that Americans overwhelmingly agree that science and technology will foster “more opportunities for the next generation”; about 89% of respondents agreed with this statement (see: Chapter 7, Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Understanding).

In the 2010 Consumer Perceptions of Food Technology Survey, conducted by the International Food Information Council, only 2% of respondents listed biotech when asked: What, if anything, are you concerned about when it comes to food safety?

Another recent report, Making Safe, Affordable and Abundant Food a Global Reality, that was posted on the Plenty to Think About Blog presented compelling evidence that 95% of survey respondents are either neutral or fully supportive of using technology to produce their food.

With this, I shall get back on the “road” and keep communicating what science is and the benefits that science offers to the public. And, as always, do so with great appreciation for the fact that there are different opinions for how best to feed the world, and with immense gratitude for learned minds in science who strive to do their best to develop science-based solutions that are of benefit to the world.

In the Pursuit of Communicating Science

tetherton — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 20:48:49 +0000

Terry D. Etherton

During this journey, I have come to appreciate the tremendous need for scientists to become more proactive in communicating science. Specifically, the scientific community needs to be much better at conveying what they do and how science and technology benefit consumers. I have written about this, most recently in Please Explain: Training Scientists to be Better Communicators imploring scientists to get involved.

In my travels down this “road”, I have become sensitized to the issue of how is the information I present being “heard” by the audience. This can be a real adventure, especially when some in the “audience” share “they don’t believe the message(s)” or messenger (i.e., me). This raises the interesting question of what to do?

Yes, there are some non-believers of science and technology “out there”.

Here is a good example. A colleague (Dr. Ann Macrina) and I wrote an article, Hormones in Milk – Are they Causing Early Puberty in Girls?, that was posted on the Best Food Facts blog in June. Recently, a consumer,”Rachel”, submitted a comment for posting. Her comment: “I don’t believe all the information in this article. I think the facts are skewed. There is a great milk lobby out there. Not all they say is true. Hormones are indeed causing younger girls to mature ahead of time. This is true for girls that are not even heavy. I have seen this with my own eyes. More than once.”

And, with this comes the question: Now, what to do?

The answer? We keep communicating – it works. Here are some examples.

It is clear that many Americans value science and technology. In 2010, the National Science Foundation released a report, “Science and Engineering Indicators: 2010“, showing that Americans overwhelmingly agree that science and technology will foster “more opportunities for the next generation”; about 89% of respondents agreed with this statement (see: Chapter 7, Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Understanding).

With this, I shall get back on the “road” and keep communicating science and the benefits of science to the public.

Food Safety – Then and Now

tetherton — Tue, 02 Aug 2011 18:08:21 +0000

Terry D. Etherton

Disease outbreaks that originate from consumption of food attract great media attention, and create concerns for many in society…for good reason. The recent outbreak of Escherichia coli (E. coli) in Europe is a good example of this and the societal problems that ensue. As of July 26, 2011, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control had reported 3900 confirmed or probable E. coli cases including 46 deaths from the recent E.coli outbreak in Europe. The media attention that a disease outbreak like this causes is staggering!

How staggering?

A Google search of the word sequence “E coli Europe 2011″ on July 26 resulted in 10,600,000 results! Media scrutiny like this can create the image for many in society that food safety issues abound. The fact is, however, that individuals living in developed countries have the safest food supply in recorded history. the challenge is how to communicate this effectively to the public.

The story of how agriculture research and contemporary food production practices allow the United States to produce the world’s safest food supply is one that tends to get “lost” in the media frenzy that explodes after a disease outbreak that is linked to food. When one looks at the record of food-borne diseases throughout recorded history, it is evident that today we have an armada of scientific and public health resources that are remarkably effective in reducing risk of contracting disease from food. In addition, the public health and diagnostic infrastructure that is in place is phenomenal at determining the cause of the disease outbreak, and delivering appropriate, high-level health care. I do not talk with many individuals who would like to live life using the biomedical and public health resources that were available in 1850.

To illustrate the power of science, consider the E. coli outbreak that began in Germany in May, 2011…by June 29, 2011, a paper [Brzuszhiewicz et al. Genome sequence analyses of two isolates from the recent Escherichia coli outbreak in Germany reveal the emergence of a new pathotype: Entero-Aggregative-Haemorrhagic Escherichia coli (EAHEC)] had been published online in the science journal “Archives of Microbiology” that presented the complete genome (DNA) sequence analyses of two isolates from the outbreak! This would have been impossible 10 years ago!

In the face of a disease outbreak like the one in Europe, we should not lose sight of the fact that advances in science and medicine have had a dramatic and beneficial impact on reducing risk of contracting food-borne disease. Advances in numerous technologies have made this possible. These include: canning; autoclaving; refrigeration; microbiology; assay technology (including rapid pathogen assays); meat science; packaging; use of biotechnology; shipping; epidemiology; disease outbreak tracking; and public health monitoring and intervention!

To the point of food safety…then versus now…we should be appreciative of the marvelous food safety systems that are in place, and extol the benefits of the scientific and technological advances that have made all of these possible. The food-borne outbreaks that occur are identified and dealt with quickly (especially versus prior decades) because of enhanced vigilance, application of science and public health monitoring.

Did You Ever Wonder Where Your Milk Came From?

tetherton — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 15:26:01 +0000

Terry D. Etherton

Did you ever wonder where your milk comes from? And, no, I am not referring to cows. My question pertains to the geographic regions of the United States that contribute most to milk production.

As you will see, the results are revealing.

Based on information released by the Market Administrator for the Central Federal Order No. 32, 59 counties accounted for 50% of the U.S. milk production (see Figure 1).

When you look at the map, it is evident that milk production is concentrated in a few geographic regions of the United States. The 11 counties (in red) that account for 25% of all milk produced in the United States are perhaps a more telling illustration of this. To put the 25% of milk in context, total milk production in the United States in 2010 was about 193 billion pounds!

You might ask: what does this mean?

One, a lot of milk/dairy products gets transported significant distances to get to consumers. Advances in technology have enabled this. Two, the greatest concentration of milk production is in California. And, three, the concentration of dairy production has important biosecurity implications. For example, if a dairy disease outbreak occurs in relatively few regions in the country, this would have a huge impact on milk production and availability to consumers throughout the country.

I have thought a lot about a “targeted strike” on the U.S. food system. One example of a targeted strike is the intentional release of an animal pathogen (such as the virus that causes food and mouth disease) with the intended consequence of causing economic and social upheaval. With respect to the dairy industry, the concentration of a lot of cows in few counties in the United States would greatly facilitate causing a “big time” problem. This concentration of food production is not unique to the dairy industry…it is common for other animal and plant commodities, as well.

If you wondering what the impact of an “intended” animal disease outbreak might be in the United States, consider the consequences of the foot and mouth disease outbreak in the United Kingdom in 2001…it had an economic impact of about $10 billion (see: Impact of Bioterrorism on Agriculture in the U.S.). If this occurred in the United States, the economic impact likely would be far greater! And, how the public would respond is likely to be closer to chaos than calmness.

How Much Food will the World Need in 2050?

tetherton — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 21:01:36 +0000

Terry D. Etherton

Much has been written by others and myself about the need to feed a growing World population that will increase to between 9 and 10 billion individuals by 2050 (based on estimates from the Population Estimates and Projections Section of the UN). Making projections about the impact of population growth on food production raises the question of just how much food will be required to feed 10 billion people? While the question is straightforward, developing these estimates is remarkably challenging. The vast majority of numbers are derived from food disappearance data, that is food for human consumption that is produced is assumed to “disappear” via consumption. This is problematic, in part, because it has been estimated that 30 to 40% of food in developed and developing countries is wasted (Godfray et al., 2010). This wastage spans the spectrum of the food system from production to plate waste.

The question emerges, then, of whether there is more accurate approach for estimating projected food needs in 2050?

Inherent to any approach that is developed to estimate food production needs in 2050 is the reality that this must be considered in the context of the numerous events that could affect food needs and production capacity. These include aligning food production needs to the rapidly changing demand from a larger and more affluent population; doing this in environmental and socially acceptable ways; and ensuring that the world’s hungry are no longer hungry! Moreover, achieving this goal of adequate food production in 2050 also presumes that future climate change will not hinder food production, and that geopolitical strife will not disrupt food production (and distribution).

As I have written in Terry Etherton Blog on Biotechnology, growing food production by 2050 to meet population needs will require an increase in funding for science and technology. This raises the question of “who pays for this”? Related to this question is another daunting question: how will private sector companies that develop these new biotechnologies distribute them to developing countries, and at what price? Another pressure point on feeding the world in the future is the development of biofuels. The current business model of diverting feed grains, such as corn, to ethanol production is folly.

There have been numerous estimates of future food needs. In a report published by the World Bank, World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development, it was estimated that cereal production would have to increase by 50 percent and meat production by 85 percent from 2000 to 2030. This is similar to a report (Reaping the Benefits: Science and the Sustainable Intensification of Global Agriculture) published in 2009 by the Royal Society. Other estimates are that we will need 70 to 100% more food by 2050 (Godfray et al., 2010). In none of these estimates is the percentage increase translated to quantity of food actually needed.

To estimate future food needs, I used information about energy and nutrient requirements for men and women that were published in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2010, specifically the USDA Food Patterns (Appendix 7). I used two levels of dietary energy intake for women and men that are commonly used “benchmarks” for individuals at a healthy body weight. For women, this is 2000 calories per day and for men it is 2800 calorie per day. The USDA Food Patterns information translates recommended nutrient requirements to recommended daily intake for each food group (i.e., fruits, vegetables, grains, protein foods, dairy and oils) to a mass basis (i.e., cups or oz).. This approach permits the calculation of the quantity of food needed to meet daily nutrient needs for an individual.

Based on the above, the quantity of food needed daily for a healthy diet can be determined (1.93 kg/day for men and 1.6 kg/day for women) . This information can be used to calculate current and projected consumption (on an annual basis). Based on the current population of 6.8 billion people in the World, the estimated food production need is about 9.9 trillion pounds per year. In 2050, it is about 14.3 trillion pounds per year or an approximate 44% increase, which aligns with other estimates. If you are “wrestling”, as I am, with how to scale a “trillion”, consider that 1 trillion seconds is equal to 32,000 years!

There are several obvious constraints to these estimates. First, there are over a billion individuals in the World who are malnourished and are eating a diet that meets neither nutrient nor energy requirements. Conversely, there is a large and growing cohort of overweight and obese individuals that dramatically over-consume both nutrients and calories. Nonetheless, the evidence presented herein is based on an approach that accurately quantifies the amount of food we need to produce based on meeting nutrient and energy needs of normal weight individuals.

The results are telling in that considerable progress could be made to meet future food needs by reducing food wastage over the spectrum of the food system. This, of course, will be enormously difficult to do. As one example, can you envision a strategy that would effectively “redirect” food from individuals/countries that over-consume food to those who are in an energy and nutrient deficit? I can’t and this reinforces the reality that meeting future food production needs will be incredibly challenging and, most likely, costly. This does not bode well for having enough food in the World by 2050.