Science Facts & Fallacies

Ag recycles! On this episode of Biotech Facts and Fallacies, plant scientist Steve Savage delves into the world of agricultural stewardship, specifically agricultural container management. Mark Hudson, executive director of the Ag Container Recycling Council, discusses how ACRC’s program has helped to recycle more than 190,000,000 lbs. of pesticide containers since 1992!

Steve Savage is a plant pathologist and senior contributor to the GLP. Follow him on Twitter @grapedoc. The Pop Agriculture podcast is available for listening or subscription on iTunes and Google Podcasts.

Biotechnology is fundamentally changing food and medicine. Thanks to genetic engineering, for example, we have access vitamin-fortified GMO crops, plentiful supplies of insulin and even new vaccines to combat infectious diseases. While these technologies remain controversial among some activist groups and consumers, the tangible health and environmental benefits of genetic engineering have countered most of the ethical concerns raised about manipulating DNA to produce desirable food crops and life-saving drugs.

But this doesn't tell the whole story. In the coming decades, certain developments in biotechnology will almost certainly force us to ask some awkward ethical questions—for which there aren't yet clear answers. So-called 'artificial womb' technology is one such example. Recent research suggests that it may be possible one day to keep a human fetus alive outside its mother's uterus from fertilization to full-term infancy. This would be great news for the 30,000 babies born prematurely each year. However, if and when that technology leaves the realm of science fiction, the ongoing political debate over abortion, for instance, will never be the same. As RealClearSciece editor Ross Pomeroy recently noted:

As artificial wombs arrive and push the age of fetal viability earlier and earlier, the debate over abortion will transition to one over "extraction." Imagine a world where the developing embryo is viable immediately at conception. Under current laws, states could potentially prohibit mothers from killing the fetus and require them instead to undergo an extraction procedure to place it in an artificial womb until it is ready to survive outside as a fully-formed baby.

On this episode of Biotech Facts and Fallacies, Pomeroy joins the GLP's Cameron English to explore how this artificial womb technology could drastically change the discussions we have about abortion, parental rights and even the government’s role in our medical decisions.

Subscribe to the Biotech Facts and Fallacies podcast on iTunes.

Ross Pomeroy is a science writer and the editor at RealClearScience. Follow him on Twitter @SteRoPo and visit his blog.

Cameron J. English is the GLP’s senior agricultural genetics and special projects editor. He is a science writer and podcast host. Follow him on Twitter @camjenglish

Following some groundbreaking experiments in the early 1970s, biologists discovered they could move DNA between species. This development launched the field of biotechnology and yielded significant results in medicine and agriculture, including genetically engineered insulin and herbicide-resistant crops that were widely adopted by farmers. Biotech research has advanced significantly since its early days. Today we count vitamin-fortified rice, novel cancer treatments and disease-resistant plants among the many products made possible by genetic engineering.

While these discoveries excited many scientists and benefited consumers, they also fueled concerns that science had gone too far, eventually giving rise to the modern anti-GMO movement that has mischaracterized biotechnology and worked fervently to slow its progress. Join plant pathologist Steve Savage as he takes a look back at the humble beginnings of this revolutionary field of research.

 

Steve Savage is a plant pathologist and senior contributor to the GLP. Follow him on Twitter @grapedoc. The Pop Agriculture podcast is available for listening or subscription on iTunes and Google Podcasts.

This time it’s all about the bees! From the composition of a working hive to the diseases that plague honey bees, plant pathologist Steve Savage delves into the basics of bees.

 

A world-famous expert on bees once said, “you can never tell with bees.” That was none other than Winnie the Pooh. Okay, so he is just a fictional character who really likes honey, but there is a grain of truth in what he said that is relevant today. Over the last 14 or so years there have been many dramatic warnings of a pending “bee apocalypse” that will threaten a significant part of the human food supply. Although this apocalypse has not materialized, and bee populations are healthy in many regions, that does not mean it isn’t a topic of importance.

Back in 2006, there was a phenomenon known as “colony collapse disorder,” in which many hives of bees mysteriously failed to survive through the winter. Much of the blame in the media and among activists focused on a particular class of widely used agricultural insecticides called neonicotinoids, or “neonics” for short. While this misguided focus is considered sensational “news” and great for the fundraising efforts of environmental groups, it’s really not that simple and it’s why I like to cite Pooh’s acknowledgment of some uncertainty and complexity when it comes to bees.

In a future PopAgriculture episode, I’ll get into the question of whether certain insecticides are or are not threatening a “bee apocalypse,” but on this episode I want to get into the basics on bees because they are an interesting component of the human food production system.

[Editor's note: See the GLP's Pollinators and Pesticides section to learn more about neonics and bee health.]

Now, as humans we really enjoy the phenomenon of flowers with the huge range of diversity among the many species of plants that make flowers and their various, distinctive scents. These flowers are all part of a prehistoric business deal between plants and various animals that play the role of pollinators. These pollinators regularly mix and match the plant’s genes so that they can evolve and adapt to changes in climate or pest threats as needed.

Pollen is the male contribution to a plant’s mating process, and pollinators are organisms that help spread it around to the female parts of flowers called “pistils.” Not all plants need help with their mating. In fact, some of the most widely grown crops cultivated by humans don’t need any help (Wheat, corn, soybeans, and grapes would be examples of self-pollinating crops that just need a little wind to move their pollen around). Those plants, however, don’t always get as much genetic mixing as those that employ the outside help.

For the crops that do need pollination help, honey bees are the most familiar actors. There are others involved like bumble bees, as well as bats and birds who are also important for pollination of certain plant species. Anyway, it is a good business transaction between the pollinators and the plants that need them. The plant gets the genetic mixing and the pollinator gets a sugary energy source called nectar. Some pollinators also use the pollen as a high- protein food.

European honey bees are the most familiar species that humans domesticated thousands of years ago. Humans have since moved the European honey bee all around the world to help pollinate orchards and crops. That means this species is an exotic, introduced and human-dependent species in much of its modern range. For instance, these bees were not native to North America and are only here because early colonists brought them.

European honeybees are cusocial insects which is essentially a community ruled by one “queen” who lays all the eggs,

One day soon, farmers may be able to raise food animals immune to deadly diseases and spare them painful but necessary procedures like horn removal. These innovations, made possible by CRISPR and other gene-editing techniques, could cut the cost of food production, reduce antibiotic use in agriculture and dramatically improve animal welfare. But federal regulation may very well stifle these developments in the US.

In 2017, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed a plan to regulate gene-edited animals as veterinary drugs under the 1938 Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, because their DNA is "intentionally altered." The proposal has drawn harsh criticism from animal scientists, some of whom are packing up their labs and leaving the US to avoid the FDA's rules. Food animals, these experts say, should be regulated based on the risk they pose to human health, not the breeding method that produced them.

Alison Van Eenennaam, an extension specialist in animal biotechnology at the University of California in Davis, has been a vocal critic of the FDA's proposal, urging the agency to reconsider its recommended gene-edited animal regulations:

Myself and fellow academic researchers reject the idea that intentional genomic DNA alterations should be regulated as a veterinary drug in food animals, and consider that the proposed approach will thwart the development of genetic approaches by public sector researchers and small companies to use gene editing to solve zoonotic disease and animal welfare problems in the United States.

On this episode of the Biotech Facts and Fallacies podcast, Van Eenennaam joins the GLP's Cameron English to examine the FDA's plan and outline her petition to harmonize US gene-edited food regulations, arguing that the USDA's approach to gene-edited plants offers a better way forward. While the future of animal gene editing in the US remains uncertain, Van Eenennaam says she's encouraged by countries like Brazil and Argentina, whose regulators have signaled their willingness to embrace the technology.

 

 

Alison Van Eenennaam is an extension specialist in animal biotechnology and genomics, Department of Animal Science, University of California, Davis. Follow her on Twitter @biobeef 

Cameron J. English is the GLP’s senior agricultural genetics and special projects editor. He is a science writer and podcast host. BIO. Follow him on Twitter @camjenglish

For decades, a small but influential group of environmentalists and animal rights activists has waged an effective scaremongering campaign against modern agriculture, often pejoratively called "factory farming." Although the Centers for Disease Control says our food supply has never been safer and strict laws regulate how agricultural animals are treated, environmental nonprofits including Food and Water Watch have not let up.

"Factory farming is an unsustainable method of raising food animals that concentrates large numbers of animals into confined spaces," the activist group says. "Factory farms are not compatible with a safe and wholesome food supply. It’s time to ban factory farms."

Bolstered by claims that these "corporate" farms are poisoning meat with added hormones and fueling the rise of  "super bugs" with the overuse of antibiotics, this negative messaging about modern agriculture influences how consumers view food production, with 49 percent of Americans supporting a ban on factory farming, according to a 2017 survey.

Lost in the wake of such heated rhetoric and calls for political action is more sober analysis offered by agricultural scientists, who say that much of what we hear about modern farming from activist groups and the media is wrong. On this episode of the Genetic Literacy Podcast, Ohio-based veterinarian and farmer Leah Dorman joins the GLP's Cameron English to correct some of the half-truths and outright falsehoods surrounding animal agriculture.

There are certainly examples of abuse and neglect in agriculture, Dorman says, but most farms go to great lengths to care for the animals they raise. Furthermore, new breeding technologies are poised to make even greater improvements in animal welfare possible. CRISPR gene-editing, for instance, may soon allow farmers to raise pigs and cows resistant to deadly diseases and spare them painful but often necessary procedures like castration and horn removal.

And while antibiotics and hormones are used sparingly in agriculture, neither pose a threat to human health and the meat you buy at the grocery store is safe to feed to your family.

 

Leah Dorman is the director of food integrity and consumer engagement at Phibro Animal Health. She holds a DVM in veterinary medicine from Ohio State University and has been a veterinarian for more than 20 years. Follow her on Twitter @AskDrDorman  and visit her website.

Cameron J. English is the GLP’s senior agricultural genetics and special ...