GMOs cause allergies: More false propaganda

I hear one concern about GMOs more than most and it is a concern that also comes up on surveys about why people are scared of GMOs.   People are fearful that they will be allergic to GMOs.   This Frankenfood has foreign DNA that is going to be harmful if you eat it.   I don't want to get off topic, but I want to clarify one thing. When two cultivars of the same crop species are crossed there is foreign DNA being introduced as two different plants combine DNA to make a new plant that is genetically different from its parents.   I know the argument then shifts to "well there is DNA from another species in my food with many GMOs."  I have a couple blog posts already showing that in nature foreign DNA from other species is being incorporated in plants,w including in foods we eat now like sweet potatoes.

But lets get back to allergies.   The GM plant is now making a new protein and so I might be allergic to GMOs.   It is true that food allergies come from proteins and biotech companies are well aware of allergen risks.  However if you read any anti-GMO propaganda you will quickly believe that allergens in GMOs are all over the place.  Again the fear mongering without the facts is rampant on the internet. Just one quick Google search and this was the first thing that pops up for me.

https://www.organicconsumers.org/old_articles/ge/allergies111603.php

Read this and you would think biotech companies are just carelessly putting products on the market.   Most of the proteins "have never been ......tested for their safety"   Really!!  Wow.  These lies are why the public has such a misconception of GMOs.  The FIRST thing a a company does in the early research is run any new protein against a database of known allergens.  If it is even remotely a hit the protein is dropped.  Secondly a new product takes 10-15 years to reach the market.  Agronomic testing and breeding multiple generations to get the final seed is part of that long timeline, but regulatory and safety testing is the other reason.  Any new product goes through a lot of testing to ensure the new protein is safe.

Go to http://www.allergenonline.com/ and dig around there for a bit.   This is a database maintained by the University of Lincoln-Nebraska and contains peer reviewed sequences of allergens.   There is so much science to make sure allergens are a non-issue in any GMO product.   This is a great database and not even the only one that will be used in an allergen cross-reference.

Here is an excerpt from an article on the same topic. When you get a chance check the entire article out at https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/04/16/are-gmos-causing-an-increase-in-allergies/

I have heard of people saying they cut out GMOs and all of a sudden there allergies were cured.   In the US, 90% of allergies come from peanuts, tree nuts, milk, eggs, wheat, soy, shellfish, and fish.   If you want to see what GM crops are approved then check out this nice resource:  http://www.isaaa.org/gmapprovaldatabase/.  The only GMO crop widely available in the US consumer market that is a known source for food allergies is soybean.   Monsanto is working on a wheat variety that will be resistance to Round-Up but it is limited in availability at this time.  So most of the allergy inducing foods out there aren't even GMO to begin with.

The GM varieties that are on the market are scrupulously tested for allergen hits before release.    In fact some I would wager that GM crops are tested more for allergens than many "non-GM" foods that have been introduced in the US.  Now I love Kiwi's, but they were not tested for allergens when introduced in the US in 1962.  However, Kiwis can cause serious allergies in some.  For more info on Kiwi allergies take a look at http://allergicliving.com/2010/09/01/serious-fruit-allergy-kiwi/    The fact remains that Kiwi's are not in the headlines as some evil food because it causes allergies.   If you are allergic to a protein in soybean, then you are going to be allergic to it no matter if it is GMO or non-GMO.  And when there is a GMO variety, there are a minor number of protein additions which again have been robustly tested for allergies. Everything else about the plant is the same as any other soybean plant.

The bottom line is I cannot say that no one out there will NEVER be allergic to a new protein from a GMO crop.  However you are more likely to be allergic to something that is already a known allergen than any protein that a biotech company discovers.  If a new protein shares an amino acid sequence (the building blocks of proteins that ultimately comes for a DNA sequence) with an allergen it is not going to be released.  Because of the strict science and knowledge of what causes food allergies in humans, no new protein from a GMO to date has been shown to cause an allergy no matter what the anti-GMO propaganda may say.

http://www.foodallergens.info/Facts/GMO.html

Astrophototography: Bubble Nebula

I think the bubble nebula may be my one of favorite targets to date.  There is just something captivating about a bubble of gas sitting in space. When you throw a rock into a pond you see a ripple travel through the water.  That ripple might even even travel the entire width of the pond.  It boggles my mind to think "ripples" of gas are traveling through the universe, but instead of pond size the ripples are light years in size.    In the case of the bubble nebula a very big star that is 45 times the size of our sun and hundreds of thousands of time brighter, has sent out its own ripple of stellar wind   The star's stellar wind has blown gas from around it, and the gas is contained in a tight bubble by a molecular cloud that happens to be in the same area.  The bubble we see in the picture is actually 10 light years across.

In astrophotography half the battle is taking the photos through the night.   However the other half of the battle is putting all of that data together to get your final picture.  I have tried several programs to get those final images and tend to use Pixinsight and StarTools the most.   The first picture is the final picture using Pixinsight.  It is probably the best representation of the nebula in terms of color, but the StarTools picture turned out decent as well.   These pictures just show that there is a lot of complex interactions going on when you combine 70 two minute exposures.  Every time you combine the data the final result is going to be a little different.

Is antibiotic resistance predictive of stagnic farm production?

So I know the title seems like a stretch.  How are antibiotics and farming even remotely connected and in reality they are not.  However there are correlations I see among both topics that I wanted to explore.

It all started when I was listening to a podcast (Raiolab) and  they were talking about the history of antibiotic resistance. It is a very interesting episode so take a listen:   RadioLab: Staph Retreat  We hear about antibiotic resistance all the time in the news.    MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) comes to minds as a particular nasty antibiotic resistance bacteria in our hospitals.   Lots of times the term "superbug" is is given to these emerging antibiotic resistant strains.  It is a real problem and so the first question to ask is why are there no more antibiotics coming on the market?

The first antibiotic was discovered in 1928 by Alexander Fleming and was a drug we have all probably taken at one point or another.  I still remember the pink bubble gum flavored penicillin I took as a kid.  With Penicillin the antibiotic revolution was kick started and the media was eating it up.

http://www.nww2m.com/tag/penicillin/

Penicillin was just the first of many antibiotics that  really got going in the 50s and 60s.  At that point there were so many antibiotics coming out that it looked liked we might have an answer for any bacterial infection. The figure below shows the peak of development before development declines.

http://www.scidev.net/global/health/feature/antibiotic-resistance-frequently-asked-questions.html

The other part of the antibiotics story is resistance.  Lots of drugs were coming out, but resistance was developing FAST!  Take a look this figure.

https://agreatcomplexity.wordpress.com/2012/05/05/the-cost-of-resistance-our-current-models-of-antibiotic-research-and-development-are-unsustainable/

Penicillin is introduced in 1941 with some resistance in the 40s.  Streptomycin is introduced in 1944 and resistance comes within a couple years.  Methicillin was introduced in 1952 and resistance was seen in 1960.   This list goes on with the same general trend.  When an antibiotic is developed the bacteria are very good at developing resistance and many times that resistance came 1-3 years after release.    Since the onslaught of new antibiotics in the 50s and 60s, the number of antibiotics have dramatically declined.   There are numerous reasons for this, but as the figure above mentions one of the biggest is that it is not appealing for pharma companies to spend millions on a drug that once released will only be used for a couple years before resistance pops up.    From a business perspective you can't blame them because if they can spend money on a drug that stays on the market for 10-20 years then they can recoup their R&D costs and turn a profit.   However as humankind we all are now suffering from those decisions.  There are very few antibiotics in the R&D pipeline compared to the peak of the 50s and 60s.  We now are live in a world where less new antibiotics are being released and bacteria are continuing to find resistance to what we do have.   As more resistance pops up and antibiotic choices dwindle, I think pharma companies will have to jump back into more R&D. I would predict this move purely on the the model of supply and demand;  especially if these superbugs start causing more and more deaths.  

Now let's jump to agriculture.   I was reading an opinion piece in the New York Times and realized that just like pharma companies not putting money into antibiotic development, the government is not putting money into agricultural development.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/04/opinion/we-need-a-new-green-revolution.html?ref=opinion&_r=2

So we went from 40% of American research towards agriculture in the 1940s to only 2% today.   Many other countries are also not contributing the needed R&D to keep yields going up.   If you go searching for yield gains for crops you will see increases.  However in many cases these increases are coming from private biotech or the fact we are just planting on more land!.

Examples of the impact of a private biotech trait on yield are seen in Bt and herbicides.



http://grist.org/food/why-gmos-do-matter-and-even-more-to-the-developing-world/

So while conventional breeding has shown a mostly linear progression of yield increase, there are points in history for several crops where we see what a GMO trait can do.  Of course we also have increases in yield because land use keeps going up as well.



http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131217/ncomms3918/full/ncomms3918.html

Look at how much land use has gone up in the last 10 years.  By using more land it is easy to mask the true issues we face.   Eventually the land will run out, but the population continues to grow exponentially.  The atricle for Nature sums up this point:

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131217/ncomms3918/full/ncomms3918.html

Our yields are plateauing and there are many reasons for this including "poor investment in agricultural research and development."


This brings us full circle  back to antibiotics.  I think the antibiotic shortage is predictive of the food shortage problem.  We should use the lessons from antibiotics as a warning.  If we are not going to spend the money and resources towards agriculture then instead of "superbugs we will may have a "super shortage."  GMOs are part of the answer, but we have to remember that the private industry is a compliment to academia and government research.    They are spokes on a wheel and without all three working together progress is much slower.   Academia is at a low for grant money received for agricultural research.  .Hopefully the trends will change.  The major symptoms are hidden in both cases.  There are still just enough antibiotics out there to make things seem alright even with the emergence of superbugs here and there.  There is still land to use that makes overalls yields go up each and every year.   If everything is working then why spend money.  Remember that the pipelines for both antibiotics and new crops can take as long as 10-15 years to get a product on the market.   So just throwing money at a problem may have positive effects, but not immediately.

Keep the pressure on the increase research in our universities.  And keep supporting the biotech industries.  They are all part of the effort to help keep everyone fed.  Here is one of many graphics that show the demand for food production is inevitably going to go up.  The question is whether we can keep the yields on pace.

Twitter @Bayer4Crops

What is on your organics? ...Bt for one

The term "GMO" has become tough to define.  For many it is an evil word, while "organics" are what is going to save the day.   I have nothing against organics, but while GMOs have a mixed reactions organics are the golden child that can do no wrong.  Organics have there niche and I am certainly not above buying them.   My biggest problem with organics is that they are very labor intensive and I do not see them as a sustainable option in the long term future as our population continues to expand drastically.   An even more common problem is the lack of information.    I do not think the general population fully understands that organics still receive some chemical treatment.  Just because something is organic does not mean it it was just grown in a field and nothing but pure water and sun ever touched the plants.

Let's take a look at one of the most common GMO products for insect control.   "Bt" corn and soy are widely adopted by farmers and do a great job controlling certain insects.  "Bt" stands for Bacillus thuringiensis.  Yhese bacteria make a natural protein that kills insects.  This is a similar concept to antibiotics.  Bacteria are always competing against each other and nature and thankfully make these compounds to keep them competitive against other organisms  competing in the same spaces.   The gene that produces this protein has been inserted into plants and when insects digest the protein they die.  But guess what?  Bt has been sprayed on plants for years and is allowed on organics because it is a natural protein found in nature.   In fact it accounts for up to 90% or of the organic pest control market (http://www.bt.ucsd.edu/organic_farming.html).   So GMOs are terrible because they have Bt, but Bt spray is fine.  Say what!!??

Here is my augment summed up nicely from http://grist.org/food/slate-anti-gmo-activists-say-the-darnedest-things/

There are also many other things that may be used on organics that you may not be aware of.   Here is the list of things that are allowed by federal regulations in the US:

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=9874504b6f1025eb0e6b67cadf9d3b40&rgn=div6&view=text&node=7:3.1.1.9.32.7&idno=7


Check out this article on the same subject.  It is very informative.

https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/12/07/myth-busting-on-pesticides-despite-demonization-organic-farmers-widely-use-them/

The point here is that insects are a problem and in order for you to have food to eat insects have to be controlled whether you are eating GMOs or organics.  I feel that organics have this reputation that they have absolutely nothing on them.  I understand the appeal of organics and there is some great tasting and quality food coming from organic farms. However, they still still use options to control insects. including Bt that has been an argument for anti-GMO activists for years.  The good news is Bt is safe whether in your GMO or organic food.