When a cotton harvest turns to worms - The importance of Integrated Pest Management

There is no doubt that farmers have their jobs cut out for them.  They can't control the weather for one.  Even when the weather cooperates there are other fast balls that get thrown at them such as pests or disease.

I recently listened to a presentation at work on the pink cotton bollworm.  This is a huge pest in the world of cotton.  The female lays its eggs in a cotton boll (the fruit that houses the cotton lint).  As the eggs hatch the larvae eat through the cotton lint to feed on the cotton seeds located in the boll.  The insects are doing damage to the lint and the seed both of which are used for cotton fabric and seed oil, receptively.  They also put wounds on the bolls that allow other insects and fungi to get in and cause additional damage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_bollworm

The first generation of GM bollworm control came from Monsanto in 1996 and was called Bollgard I.  This was a single gene that controlled bollworms with a Bt protein.  This is the same protein that is approved and still used by many organic farmers.  Instead of applying the protein on the plants, the pants naturally produce this protein.  When a pest ingests the Bt protein, pores (or holes) form in the insect's gut, ultimately killing them while being completely harmless to humans.  This product was amazing and cotton farmers quickly adopted this new technology.

The problem is one gene can be overcome by a pest, bacteria, or virus.  I want to make a few things clear going forward.  In this story, a single gene was inserted into plants through a genetically modified approach.  Conventional breeding is used to do the same thing.   For instance there are many cultivars from various crops that have one gene bred to control something.   When I worked in tobacco, the "N" gene was conventionally bred into commercial lines to give tobacco mosaic virus resistance.  

This story is not a GM vs conventional breeding thing.  The real issue that these technologies compliment each other and both give farmers the tools to reduce the impacts from insects and disease.   We are facing a world wide problem today of bacteria developing antibiotic resistance.  The same thing can  happen with insects and crop diseases.  They are always working to find ways to overcome the defenses we put into plants.  The comparison of bacteria and antibiotics and vrops and disease/pests is so similar.  The reason we are developing antibiotic resistance so fast is because we are overusing antibiotics and even when we need them we don't always follow the instructions and take them till completion.  The same goes with these insect and disease resistance genes.  The tools work, but good practices must be followed to keep that tool working.

Bollgard I was an example where the bollworm overcame resistance.  Bollgard II followed  Bollgard 1 and this new product contained 2 genes that control bollworms instead of just one.  Multiple genes, or stacks are always preferred because it is much harder to overcome.  That still means the "prescription" needs to be followed to make the product last as long as possible.  The prescription in this case is insect resistance management  (IRM),   Integrated Pest Management (IPM)  is another popular term.  Even though the plants have a gene to control these worms, we want to do other things on the farm to protect the product and not give the worms a chance to develop resistance.   IPM to relies on multiple forms of control rather than just relying on couple genes no matter if  those genes come from a conventional method or GM approach.   Crop rotation, using beneficials, using correct cultivation methods, and using the right chemical at the right time are all other aspects of managing a pest.

Bollgard II is an incredible product.  However as Spiderman says, "with great power comes great responsibility."  This technology has great power, but there may be cracks forming in certain regions because that IPM "prescription" was not followed.  In Gujarat, India bollworms successfully became resistant to Bollgard I.  And now there are at least some rumors that boll worms have resistance to Bollgard II in Gujarat, India as well.   One source:  http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/economy/agri-business/wily-pink-bollworm-survives-monsantos-bollgardii/article7814810.ece

The US really pushes IPM and in some places are working towards eradication of pink bollworm.  In parts of India these practices are not being followed and we can see the results.  This video highlights what happens when when we have great technology, but we don't bring it all together.  A colleague shared this video which is mind is mind-blowing and sad.  The video is of a cotton harvest in Gujarat, India.  Look closely and you have wonder whether they are harvesting cotton or pink bollworms.

There are many tools at a farmers disposal to combat insects, disease, drought, and other challenges. All of these tools including,  biotech, conventional breeding, cultivation practices, insecticide and pesticide use, beneficials, and others are indispensable.  This story highlights what happens if only a couple of the tools are used and others are ignored.   All the work the research companies and the farmers are doing everyday are keeping yields sustainable and growing, but disease and insects are not sitting idle.

Parts of Arizona have shown what can be achieved if IPM is used correctly.  There some farmers don't even know what a pink bollworm looks like.   Hopefully all regions of the world will work to make this chart reality everywhere.

http://ipmwest.blogspot.com/2014/01/pest-loss-survey-in-cotton-quantifies.html

Resources:

More info on IPM:

The National Academy of Science breaks down GM crops in a HUGE report

The National Academies of Science just released a HUGE study with a large amount of information on GMOs.  I am still reading through it, but I really encourage everyone to take a good look at the info in the report.

The report can be found here: http://www.nap.edu/23395   It is a PDF that you can download for free.  You may need to put your email in at one point to get the download, but it is fairly straight forward to get a copy.

The Academy also put out a video that gives a short synopsis of each chapter of the report of which there are 9 chapters.  It comes in kinda long, but has a lot of information straight from the report summed up quite nicely.

https://vimeo.com/167020587

Here are just a few shots of the key points from the video.  Of course much more detailed information is in the report if any of these points below interest you.


Background information and reason for the study:

More evidence on GMOs is always welcome especially one that is as comprehensive as this one.  As the authors point out there still exists a very confusing landscape for the public on the GMO issue.  Even in the US states are having different opinions on GMO labeling emphasizing the lack of clarity on this topic. 

The Study

This study was one of the most comprehensive studies I have seen.   No only did they look at a LOT of previous studies, but they also reached out and went through comments from the public.

Differences in crop-improvement approaches:

One of the more interesting aspects of the study is that is getting harder and harder to determine the differences in our crops between GM and conventional breeding.  Both methods are changing the plant's genome in ways that is becoming harder and harder to differentiate.  That also means to make generalizations about just GM crops because conventional breeding and GM are so closely interlocked.  Due to the blurring lines of these approaches, we need to look at the safety of  conventional breeding just as much GM approaches.  

Safety:  

Of course safety did come up.  The study looked at many original studies and agreed with what has been found for years.  There is no evidence of adverse health affects.  They did put the cavet that we we can never scrutinize every variable and therefore we can never know everything there is to know.  However any effects we don't measure, both favorable or non-favorable could come from non-GM food just as much as from GM food.

Environmental effects:  

Again the message is no adverse environmental effects of gene flow from GM crops to the wild have been documented.  One interesting point from the study is that data from the USDA does not show GM crops have increased the RATE at which US crops yields are increasing.   I must admit this was an interesting finding and not one I expected.   However if we deep dive into just insect resistance GM crops, they do reduce yield losses from pests, and application of synthetic insecticides has gone down in Bt maize and cotton crops.  Further more insect diversity is actually higher in these populations of crops.   There are benefits.  The downside is insects can develop resistance to GM crops and thus insect resistant management  really needs to to followed by the farmers.  Don't forget insects can develop resistance to non-GM crops too.   In regards to herbicide resistance, we also know weeds develop resistance.  This is true for both GM and non-GM crops with resistance.  From the GM perspective Round-Up is an example where weeds can still grow even after application of the herbicide.  Yields can sometimes be better, but the real benefit is the flexibility farmers get from a logistics view on their farms.  

These slides are just some highlights.  There is lots of data and information in this report including all kinds of supplemental information.    It is great to see a study come out like this.   Once again there is no evidence of adverse safety concerns.  The study also points out that GM crops are not the only answer, but it is a technology we need to embrace just like every other technology that will allow our farmers to grow the food we need to feed the world.

Talc Powder and Cancer - Does the science support the Lawsuits?

 If you have younger siblings you probably remember helping your parents change diapers or at least watching and being grateful you didn't have to do it.  If there is one thing I remember very clearly it was every clean diaper got a good shake of baby powder.  That nice fresh smell of Johnson's baby powder really did the room good when my little sister decided to fill a diaper.

However times have changed and Johnson's baby power or talcum powder is not associated with clean and fresh anymore.  Instead it is associated with cancer.  There used to be a time when talcum powder included asbestos and that definitely had an association with cancer.  Asbestos was removed in the 70s, but there are still claims it is correlated with ovarian cancer.  I don't really have any answers today.  I was just reading and listening to some stories about talcum powder decided to dig a little deeper.

The first question is what does the science say?   Secondly, should juries be awarding large settlements to women who develop ovarian cancer they claim is from talcum powder?

Just do a Google search for Talcum powder and cancer and you will see this:

  

The next big thing to see is that settlements are being handed out, thus I guess the reason for the prevalence of these lawyer ads.

Here is one source talking about the settlements awarded so far:  http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/business/talcum-powder-cancer-johnson-johnson-1.3563809

A St. Louis jury awarded a family 72 million dollars in another case.

I don't want to take away from the deaths and sickness these families are going through.  I do want to look at the facts though.  Is talcum really causing cancer?  If so then of course these lawsuits have merit.  The entire reason I bring this topic up is that I have found conflicted evidence that seems inconclusive in some cases are more conclusive in others that talc powder causes cancer.

The first paper I found was published in 1999 from the Journal of the National Cancer Institute :  http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/92/3/249.full

Take a read, but here is the summary.

Of course this paper admits that they lacked information.

The American Cancer Society says:

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/talcum-powder-and-cancer

They bring up a point we need to consider which is recall bias.  If someone has cancer they may remember talc powder more than other factors simply because it has been in the news as a possible cause.

Another paper that just came out in May of 2016 thinks talc may be more of a factor in causing cancer.   http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4820665/

We have studies that say yes, there may be some correlation to ovarian cancer and genital talc use.  Many more studies are are much less clear.  Some have trends that show cancer correlations, but no statistical differences.  And most papers have a hard time controlling for recall basis.

Does talc powder cause ovarian cancer?   I would certainly be cautious after reading literature, but at this point the science is still trying to figure it out.  Is there enough scientific evidence to dish out 72 and 55 million dollar lawsuits?   There are over 1200 more lawsuits pending.  How should we handle cases where juries really need to dig into scientific evidence and not rely on emotion?   I do not feel like Johnson and Johnson was hiding evidence like the big tobacco companies may have in our past.    Even now the papers are divided, but how liable should Johnson and Johnson be? I also am trying to wade through these waters in my own mind.

Any other opinions?

Kid Science: Extracting DNA from Plants

Oklahoma State conducted a survey a couple of years ago that for me really hits home the need for exposing people to science as much as we can.  The survey asked "Do you support mandatory labels on food produced with genetic engineering?"  As expected 82% of people polled agree with that statement.  However another very important question was on the survey that asked  "Do you support mandatory labels on food containing DNA?"   For that that question 80% of participants supported this idea..

Let's think about this one for a minute.  DNA is the building block of life.  Everything living contains DNA including our food which means every food product we eat contains DNA.  The worrisome part is if our society has this misconception on DNA, then of course they are going to have misconceptions on GMOs.  People might support labeling GMOs but it is hard to know if they really understand why they are asking for labels if labeling all food with DNA get the same response.

Well there is a a quick and fun way to show that even our food contains DNA.  We just had National Bring your Kids to Work Day.  A shout out goes to all the awesome people I work with at Bayer CropScience for organizing a great day that not only let us take our kids to work, but introduced them to the fun side of science.   My two boys Landon and Carter got spend a day learning and doing science.  Landon wanted to do one of the experiments we learned again   So we both are on a mission to prove that even plants have DNA.  In this experiment we are going to actually extract the DNA and there will be so much of it we will actually see it .

The items we need are:

Fruit:  Strawberries or Bananas work best
Detergent (Dish Soap)
Salt
Zip-lock bag
Coffee Filter (an funnel if you have one)
Toothpick, paperclip, or wooden stick
COLD Alcohol:  95% ethanol works best   but 70% rubbing alcohol will work too.

The first step is to make sure your alcohol is cold.  This is important to protect the DNA.  Go ahead and put your alcohol in the freezer and get it very cold (it will not freeze).

The experiment:

1.  Put piece of banana or strawberry in a Ziploc bag
2.  Push air out, close bag and and mash for 2 minutes
3.  Add 10 mLs of salty water (just add 3-4 good pinches) + 2-3 drops of dish soap in the bag.  Mash for 2 more minutes
4. Take a coffee filter, place in funnel on top of a tube or container.  Pour fruit paste in filter and let the liquid pass through.  You may have to squeeze the filter.  Bananas are a little pasty and need more help getting the liquid through than strawberries.
5.  Pour 2 ml of the filtered contents into a clean tube.
6.  Add 5 mL of COLD ethanol by running it gently down the side of the tube (2.5 volume ethanol to 1 volume fruit juice).  Do no stir or shake..
7.  Wind the DNA with a stick.  Even before you wind it you will see the DNA suspended in your fruit juice.

Here are the supplies you need:

Put the banana in the bag

Mash the fruit:

Add Salty water and dish soap and mix again.  The soap breaks the cells apart so the DNA will be released out of the cells.  The salt keeps the other stuff in the cells from separating with the DNA.

Pour the fruit paste into a coffee filter and filter the juice into a tube:

Squeeze the paste to get the pure fruit juice:

Get 2 mL of the juice in a new tube.:

Add 5 mL of ethanol down the side.  Do not shake or stir.  DNA is not soluble in alcohol.  So once you add it the DNA is not in a dissolved state like it was was in the fruit juice.  Once it becomes insoluble you can see it with the naked eye.

The DNA is already precipitated out:

Place a wooden stick in the tube and twirl.  The DNA will stick right to stick.  Bananas work so good!!

Yep... It looks like a big snot ball.

Strawberry works too and you get the added benefit of the red color.

Even the baby wanted to do some science. While we were doing this experiment I turned around to find her like this:

Science is fun!  And what an easy and great learning tool.

Astrophotography: Jupiter

Most of the pictures I have taken of space objects are considered deep sky objects.  Deep sky objects are mostly galaxies and nebula.   I know when I think about space I usually think about the planets before I think about another galaxy.  Yet, planets are one of the targets I have probably spent the least amount of time trying to capture.  The main reason is that planetary imaging is much different and in some ways more difficult at least in my opinion.

For deep sky objects the very basic plan is

1.  Take a bunch of images of the object with long exposure times or at least as long as possible for your equipment and location.

2.  Stack your images into one image.

3.  Process that image to "stretch" the date.  In other words pull out as much detail as possible while also adjusting for light pollution and other noise that is introduced

Again this is very general an I will eventually have some posts explaining each step in detail.  However planetary imaging is much different.  Planets like Jupiter, Saturn or Mars require very high magnification.  Besides having a scope that can go to high magnifications, you may also need something called a Barlow or Powermate to further push the magnification of your scope.  Take right off Wikipedia:

"In its astronomical use, a Barlow lens may be placed immediately before an eyepiece to effectively decrease the eyepiece's focal length by the amount of the Barlow's divergence.^[1] Since the magnification provided by a telescope and eyepiece is equal to the telescope's focal length divided by the eyepiece's focal length, this has the effect of increasing the magnification of the image.

Astronomical Barlow lenses are rated for the amount of magnification they induce. Most commonly, Barlow lenses are 2x or 3x, but adjustable Barlows are also available. The power of an adjustable Barlow lens is changed by adding an extension tube between the Barlow and the eyepiece to increase the magnification."

The Barlow just helps get your magnification up.  They are very small targets and you need these high magnifications, but the higher the magnification the more you are subject to turbulence from Earth's atmosphere.   That turbulence causes the planet to become blurred.

Our objective is still to get many images and stack them together;  With planets we will be dealing with the turbulence from the atmsophere and so we use a different approach to get our pictures.  Instead of taking a lot of still photos we get our frames by taking a video.  We can then separate each frame from the video and only stack the good ones. The best way to take that video is hook up a USB camera to your telescope

I use a a camera made by ASI called the ASI120MM.   Instead of a DSLR camera attached to my scope I just slide this USB camera in.  So for planets you will usually have USB video camera > barlow > scope.


Then we focus on the planet and record a video.  Watching the video points out how blurry things get.

Some software is then used to break the frams out, find the good ones and stack them.  My first attempt at planetary imaging is honestly not very good at all.  But hopefully I will have some better ones in the future.

9.7 billion by 2050 - Are GMOs the answer?

The world population is growing.  We all know this and hear about it all the time, but how are we going to feed all these people?   Are GMOs the answer?  Can conventional breeding keep up with the rise in population?    Some may argue that we don't need to worry at all.  They would say why worry when already have enough food for today's population, but we just re not distributing it around the world efficiently.   If we do a better job with food distribution then we can already feed more people.

  As a society we do waste more food than we should, but the reality is we are not feeding everyone in the world with our current system.  Sure we could make logistical improvements and feed more people.   However think about the situation we will be in when the population does indeed go up.  If we can't feed the world now, how are we going to feed the world with a population that continues to increase.

When we talk about the world's population increasing we are talking about a huge number of people.  Right now the Earth is home for 7.4 billion people as of 2016.  Estimates vary some about the actual population numbers in the future, but most models are pretty consistent.  Most estimates show that by 2050 our population will increase to approximately 9.7 billion in 2015.

http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/population/2015-report.html

There is one fact that cannot be argued.   As we have more people live on Earth we will need more food.  Even if we get better at food distribution and waste less, more people will eat more food.   So what is the solution?  I stumbled on a paper that I wanted to delve into.

The paper is about One crop breeding cycle from starvation? How engineering crop photosynthesis for rising CO2 and temperature could be one important route to alleviation

The paper has a lot of information that I will not get into, but there are a couple of take-aways from this paper that are thought provoking.

1.  We don't have infinite land to just grow more crops

Quoting from the paper:  'Human population growth is putting severe pressure on food production to keep up with increasing demand. Two-thirds of calories are derived indirectly or directly from just four crops: rice, wheat, maize and soya bean. In terms of global production of primary foodstuffs, these are the world's top four crops with 741, 716, 1018 and 276 million metric tons, respectively, produced in 2013 [1]. With rising population and changing diet, it is estimated that the world will require 87% more of these primary foodstuffs by 2050.'

The article points out that we needs to increase our staple crops by 87%.   From a study in 2005, we know that we use 40% of the Earth's land in food production.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1209_051209_crops_map.html

Just take a look at this map from National Geographic.  It is pretty clear that land is a finite resource.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/feeding-9-billion/

If we already use 40% and we need to increase by 87%, which is no small feat.  I would even say it is an impossibility.  We still need land to live and we still need to take care of environment.   Gaining access to more land means deforestation mostly of rain forests and this is just not a solution   I am sure humankind will use resort to more deforestation in the future but we also need to make more with less.  The is not what we want to continue:

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/feeding-9-billion/

2.  Conventional breeding is not the only answer

Every culture has a staple crop and world has the big 4 consisting of rice, wheat, maize, and soybean.  When thinking about increasing food we have to focus on these.  These crops are what is going to feed the world which means these operations have to be high yielding and efficient.   The problem is that we have already spent years improving these four crops for yield through breeding.  We are seeing that conventional breeding just cannot keep up with the dramatic increase in food production we need.  Yield increases are are plateauing. Conventional breeding is still needed and I have no doubt it will continue to increase yields on its own merits.  However even conventional breeding is not a quick fix.   It takes 7-17 years to release a new cultivar.   If you are interested in conventional breeding development here is a great read:

http://www.cropj.com/shimelis_6_11_2012_1542_1549.pdf


So development of a new conventional breeding cultivar being developed today, which will only have small increases in yield at best, wont come due until possible 2033.  I feel there is the misconception that conventional breeding will fix all our problems just like it always has.  All of this technology whether conventional breeding or GMOs take time and resources.  More importantly they need support.

Quoting for our paper:  'Additionally, the time required by crop breeding and bioengineering to release improved varieties to farmers is substantial, meaning that any crop improvements needed to mitigate food shortages in the 2040s would need to start now.'


3. We need to use all the tools available

So what are the solutions?   There are many possibilities.  Conventional breeding is one.  Breeding will continue to make some gains.  There is also the possibility of insect farming.   Maybe your next loaf of bread will be made with cricket flour.   There is also the fact we spend a lot of our cropland providing food to feed animals.  I love meat in my diet, but the fact is we may need to improve our efficiency of raising animals too.  Lab grown meat is a possibility; we have already seen farm raised GM salmon that grow faster.  We can still become more efficient in how we farm.  Digital farming is becoming better and better to be able micromanage each area of a farm.  Yield maps can be made that correlate to soil parameters so that each part of field can be treated differently to maximize yields.     Of course we cannot rule out GMOs either.   As the technology improves I really believe it will be one answer to increase our yields.  The authors of the paper we have been discussing have talked about increasing a plant's ability to use carbon dioxide more efficiently to increase yields.  There are even more approaches from a biotech side that in combination with all these other tools can help make sure we feed everyone.

The take home is that we can't just wait until 2040 or 2050 to worry about this problem.  All the potential solutions on the table take time to research and develop.  It does not help when many are adverse to biotech solutions.   Even some governments are not asking science based questions when it comes to approving GMO crops.   We need to open our minds to all the tools, answer our questions with science and fact, and educate on this topic.  Just because we have food on our tables does not mean we are less responsible to make sure future generations have food as well .  We don't want to be "One crop Breeding cycle from starvation."


If you want to take a deeper dive into other solutions for feeding the growing population, the national geographic article is very good:

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/feeding-9-billion/

The paper discussed in this article also has another blog post that covers some of the same opinions, but is also worth reading.  I did not get into organic farming and the increasing population which this blog does touch on.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-need-for-improved-food-production/




.

Science for Kids: Make a comet

I shared a post a couple weeks ago about taking my first photo of a comet.  Comets are amazing when you think about them as a big ball of ice and gas travels through space.  As it gets closer to the sun it begins to heat up and that gas and ice leaves a big tail that we associate with comets.

To understand exactly what a comet is, you can make a small scale version.  This was a project I had done last year at my son's school when they were learning about space.  The best part is you get to play with dry ice, which you can buy at certain stores.

There are a couple safety concern with this project.  Dry ice is is very cold so you should have the appropriate gloves to handle it.  It can cause burns very easily if it stays on exposed skin.  When dry ice sublimates it makes carbon dioxide which can displace oxygen in an enclosed space.  Make sure you are working in a large room.  As long as you are careful it is safe to work with.

The supplies you need are:

2-3 cups of dry ice
2 cups of water
Small handfull of dirt or sand
Garbage bags
Mixing bowl
Wooden mixing spoon
Hammer
Safety glasses and gloves

To make your comet you just need to follow these steps:

1.  Crush you dry ice.  Most dry ice comes in a block or in pellets.  Place the dry ice in a garbage bag.  Double bagging works best in case you have a hole.  Take a hammer and gently hit the ice in the bag.  This is easy done with the bag on a garage floor or a sidewalk.  It will crush easily.

2.  Place the ice in a mixing bowl that is lined with a garbage bag.   If the garbage you just used to crush the ice is still in good shape then just place it in the the bowl.  Open the bag so the ice is exposed.  Or you can pour the crushed dry ice in a new garbage bag that is lining a bowl.

3.  Add the sand or dirt and mix it into the ice.  The dirt is another component of the comet and will give it that dirty look.

4.  Pour the water into the mixture.  Quickly take the garbage bag and wrap it around the ice/water mixture.   The dry ice is so cold it will freeze the water and make your comet.    Shape the mixture into a big snowball comet.

5.  Unwrap the comet to see it's unique shape.  Make sure you still have some cold resistant gloves to hold the comet.


Just like a real comet, as this miniature iceball heats up the carbon dioxide gas from the dry ice will smoke.  This is just like the gas from a real comet forming a tail.  You make even hear popping as large pockets of carbon dioxide that were trapped are released.  The surface of a real comet would be highly unstable just like this.


If you demo this, practice it first.  You may find that certain rations of water to dry ice give you the best results.

What are the arguments against GMO labeling?

Whether you like it or not, I think GMO labeling is coming to food near you.  It is all because of Vermont.  They passed a bill that will require GMO labeling starting in July.   If you are a food manufacturer the logistics of providing a GMO label is about to become very complicated.  The easiest solution for many food manufactures is just to label all their products with GMO labels whether a state requires it or not.  If they don't then they will have to be careful how they distribute food from state to state.

You can argue that consumers should have the transparency of what is in their food.  So are there reasons not to label GMO products?  I think the answer is yes on multiple fronts.

Food Manufacturers stand behind the safety of their products. 

Press releases have started to surface showing that is the stance food manufacturers are already taking including ConAgra Foods, General Mills, Kellogg's and Mars.  They will label all GM products and the business decision is sound.  If they only label in one state then they will have to increase costs to consumers and they don't want to do this yet.   They are being forced in a corner, but I am happy to see they all still stand firmly behind the science.  They all believe in biotechnology and GM food.   They know it is safe.   Take a look.

http://www.mars.com/global/press-center/gmo.aspx

Labels imply different

 A GMO label on a product implies that is a GM food is fundamentally different from its non-GMO counterpart.  And let's be honest, that difference is an implied danger.   Do you notice a trend in the food manufacturer press releases:  "we stand behind the safety," and "GMOs are not a health or safety concern". The GMO labeling hype is because people think GMOs are unsafe and want to see how to  avoid them.    A GMO crop was indeed engineered with one or maybe even 5 genes.  The DNA that encodes that gene is precisely sequenced and known down to every base pair.  That sequence is run against allergen databases.   It is tested for years in all kinds of studies.  The results of those few genes are tested and then tested more for safety.   When you conventionally breed crops to introduce a new cultivar you are changing and introducing hundreds of new genes.  But corn (or insert any crop) is corn right?.  Take a look at what conventional breeding did with corn and think about the thousands of genes needed to make that change.  There are NO labels when food from a brand new cultivar is released in the grocery store from conventional breeding.

http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2009/03/23/corn_domesticated_8700_years_ago/

The sad thing is the GMO labeling issue at the federal level was heading in the right direction in my opinion.  The bill H.R. 1599 Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act had passed the House, but is stalled in the Senate.  This bill states (https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1599):

Subtitle A--Food and Drug Administration

(Sec. 101) This bill amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to continue the voluntary consultation process established under the FDA’s "Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties." In that process, the FDA evaluates a scientific and regulatory assessment provided by the developer of a food produced from, containing, or consisting of a plant that is a genetically engineered organism (GMO).

The FDA may require a GMO food to have a label that informs consumers of a material difference between the GMO food and a comparable food if the disclosure is necessary to protect public health and safety or to prevent the label from being false or misleading. The use of a GMO does not, by itself, constitute a material difference.

The bill states it exactly right:   "The use of a GMO does not, but itself, constitute a material difference,"  anymore than a new plant variety.  However, the Vermont bill will imply there is a difference.

Consumers are going to be even more confused

Consumers are emotional and can change opinions from reading one false Tweet or Facebook post.  When it comes to GMOs, I think many consumers are confused.  This isn't a jab at consumers.  I think there is a "fog of war" when new technologies come out.  It takes a while for consumers to learn about the product and for it to find acceptance, but this particular labeling in Vermont is not going to help this cause.  A survey I found from 2014 shows some US public perception.  Take a look http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/07/01/chapter-6-public-opinion-about-food/

If we dive into the survey we see that 67% of US adults generally think GMOs are unsafe.

The second graph shows what happens to that view as education level goes up. As education level goes up, safety concerns by US adults goes down.  This tells me that the biggest problem we have with GMOs is education.  We need to get the science out to the consumer.  A GMO label does not educate but sows more confusion especially when every state is trying to introduce its own individual labeling law.

In ending I could not sum it better than a farmer in Iowa.  Read the opinion in full, but here is great synopsis:

"Consumer confusion

This is a recipe for bewilderment among consumers.

Moreover, these laws are bad on the merits. GMO foods are safe and healthy. They don’t need warning labels, as organizations ranging from the American Medical Association (AMA) to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) have said.

I don’t know about you, but I’d rather entrust my food labels to the experts who work at the FDA and listen to the advice of the AMA and the NAS — and not to a few politicians in Vermont.

Labels should educate, conveying reliable information rather than propaganda. We must honor their basic purpose, not let them become marketing devices for favored groups."

Full post found at:  https://www.iowafarmbureau.com/Article/Mandatory-GMO-labeling-is-a-recipe-for-consumer-confusion

Scouting: Making fire without matches

I recently went camping with the cub scouts and one of their requirements was to start fire without matches.  I had to brush up on my knowledge to make sure I could even start a fire without matches.   Flint and steel in my opinion is the easiest way to get a spark and thus a fire if matches or a lighter are not a possibility.   Modern "flint" that is an alloy is actually a little better than real flint and is found anywhere that sells camping gear.

Artificial flint

The spark is the easy part; getting the spark to turn into a fire is the hard part.  That is where the "tinder" becomes important.  There are three tinder's that I wanted to show the boys that can easily go into your survival pack.  You can always make a tinder nest out of pine straw, leaves, dry grass, etc., but carrying these can things much easier.

1.  Cotton Balls
2.  Steel Wool
3.  Char Cloth

Cotton Balls

I think this cotton balls are probably the easiest to find and use. Just fluff the cotton ball up real good and throw a spark on it.  To make it even easier, rub petroleum jelly on the cotton ball.  A small tube of the petroleum jelly is easy to carry in a backpack, but if you don't have it a cotton ball all by itself will do just fine.

Fluff the cotton ball (on the right)

Get a spark on the cotton

Steel Wool

Steel Wool is amazing stuff because once a spark catches hold of it, the entire thing of steel wool will turn into one big ball of hot metal.  Steel wool comes in different types from course to fine.   Use super fine steel wool for the easiest path to a fire.  Small fibers of steel wool will break off and give you a splinter so be careful.  However, the advantage is even if your steel wool gets wet just ring it out and it can still be used as a fire starter.

Use super fine steel wool when possible

Get a spark on the steel wool

Blow gently to really make the wool get hot

Char Cloth

This is one my dad showed me when I was a kid.  I had to look up how to make it again.   If you have an old cotton t-shirt just cut it up into squares.  Throw the squares of cloth into a metal tin.  An old Altoids candy tin or similar container works well.  I used a small evaporated milk can.  A soup can or any metal can would work.  Remember to remove the paper label.  If you have a tin with a lid place a small hole in the lid.  If you have a soup can then place aluminum foil as tight as possible over the top and poke a small hole on the top of the aluminum foil.  Now just place the can on heat.   A bed of coals from a fire works the best, but other hear sources will work fine.  I made some of the grill.  I had to place the can directly on the burner shield instead of the grill grate so I could get it hot enough.   After 10 minutes or so a billowing column of smoke will start to come out of the hole.  When the smoke stops coming out the container then you are done.  You will be left with charcloth, a slow burning fuel.  It is now a blackened material that can easily catch a spark.  Throw a spark on the cloth and then you can lightly blow on the cloth to make the spark spread and eventually get your fire going.

Closed metal tin with a lid (add a hole to the lid)

Charcloth

Gently blow to make the cloth get hotter

Once you get one of these tinder types lit with a spark, the rest is just building up bigger and bigger twigs until you get fire.  So next time you you forget your lighter, don't worry.  If you can make a spark, then you can make fire.

Spark onto steel wool = FIRE