Bt-maize, the genetically modified crop, is commonly used in the field because it is resistant to certain insects. The group of scientists tested the Bt crop’s effects on pigs over the short term (31 days), longer term (110 days) and over generations. Scientists fed the piglets Bt-maize and recorded the increasing or declining health of the pigs. The initial results from the study suggest pigs of all ages can safely consume Bt-maize with no detrimental effects.

While it is true that humans and pigs differ, the researchers of the experiment believe that this should provide some comfort to individuals who consume genetically modified corn. Certainly, Bt-maize is not the only genetically modified product on the market, and scientists are hoping to conduct further experiments in order to strengthen their studies on other modified foods.

For now, this study suggests that Bt-maize is safe to consume.

Discussion question: While pigs and humans do have similar gastrointestinal tracts, why might it be premature to conclude that genetically modified Bt-maize is perfectly safe for people to consume?

Article source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120124140103.htm

Journal source: http://www.teagasc.ie/news/2012/201201-24a.asp
Image source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Corn_01.JPG

Researchers at Iowa State University have discovered a way to increase the amount of protein in the plants that we eat. While performing studies on the Arabidposis plant, professor Eve Wurtle and assistant professor, Ling Li, came across a gene sequence with an unknown function.  After some additional study, the researchers found that the gene was associated with regulating starch buildup, also known as deposition. Further studies reveal that this gene, known as QQS, is somehow involved in changing the plant’s overall framework.

By transferring the QQS gene from Arabidposis to soybean, a seeded plant that is a source of protein and oil, researchers noticed that there was a 100% increase in the amount of protein made. Specifically, the transgene increased the amount of protein from 30 to 60 percent in the soybean plant.

There is hope that this gene could be implemented in a variety of other crops that are considered staples to our diet. Furthermore, this once unknown gene could lead to increased protein content in the diets of malnourished people.

Discussion Question: Besides soybean, what other vegetables might be rich in protein? What foods do you normally get your daily intake of protein from?

News article: http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-starch-controlling-gene-fuels-protein-soybean.html
Research Article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-313X.2009.03793.x/full

Researchers at Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory and Oak Ridge National Laboratory have been genetically altering trees and other plants in order to study their effects on the environment. They found that plants isolate the carbon dioxide from their surroundings and transform it into a more usable element, carbon. Specifically, scientists are able to genetically alter the plant so that it sequesters carbon to its roots and eventually into soil carbon. By storing carbon in its soil, the plant is able to live longer and better endure the difficulty of developing on land. GM trees prove beneficial as they provide enhanced bioenergy and a better harvest.

Studies show that such alterations cause plants to take in more carbon dioxide than they remove, increasing the overall carbon sequestration and making our air cleaner. Scientists believe that genetically altered trees might help reduce the buildup of greenhouse gases in the environment by seizing more carbon dioxide from their surroundings and ameliorating global warming.

Discussion Question: What do you think are some societal views on genetically manipulating trees in order to mitigate global warming?

News article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101001105205.htm
Journal article: http://www.aibs.org/bioscience-press-releases/resources/Jansson%20et%20al.pdf

Beer, the third most consumed beverage in the world, contains a variety of different proteins from a couple of plants. Aside from the 40 yeast proteins found in beer, the drink also contains 20 barley proteins and 2 proteins from corn. These proteins can play many different roles, such as assisting in fermentation or maintaining the attractive foam that is found atop the golden beverage.

A more detailed understanding of beer’s proteome has some implications. For example, controlling which proteins are expressed when could change the taste or texture of the beer. In addition, introduction of proteins into beers could provide nutritional value or increase the efficiency of beer production. Further understanding beer’s proteome could only assist in the ability to engineer optimal beers for the future.

Discussion Question: What benefits could you imagine that engineered brews would have?

News Article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100929105642.htm
Journal Article: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/pr100551n

Many studies are being performed to see if wheat plants have any influence on various types of insects in the plant’s community. Specifically, by modifying the wheat plant’s genome, scientists are hoping to see its effect on the environment. Transgenic wheat plants have been altered in a way such that they are disease-resistant and immune to pests. While this may sound beneficial to the wheat plant, researchers have found that there may actually be other negative repercussions on the ecosystem that affect various trophic levels of the food web.

Concerned about the adverse effects on non-target species, a PhD student at the University of Zurich and fellow colleagues conducted an experiment to see if transgenic wheat plants provoke the aphid-parasitoid food web. Aphids are also known as plant lice and are small insects that can damage plants. Their study looked at the differences between GM wheat strains and non-GM equivalents and compared the foraging behaviors of three species that consume the wheat: primary parasitoid wasps, secondary parasitoid wasps and herbivores. It was observed that while the primary wasps gnawed on the herbivores, the secondary wasps chewed on the primary wasps. This interaction between the insect lines shows that by genetically modifying wheat plants, you may be harming more than just the initial pest.

It’s fascinating to see how one plant trait can have such a huge effect on the ecological environment and specifically impact species up to tertiary consumers. However, despite this finding, research continuously shows that disease-resistant wheat plants may actually have no more of an effect on insects than non-GM wheat plants, resulting in much uncertainty.

Discussion Question: Besides genetically modified wheat, can you think of any other transgenic plants that may affect their environment? If so, in what ways?

News article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110121103744.htmJ
Journal article: http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/01/18/rsbl.2010.1147

This would never happen in reality, right?

Wrong.

Chivalry may have died along with the “happily ever after” bit, but oddly enough, perfect roses may thrive in places other than fantasy land, granted your knight has a vegetable crisper.

Researchers at North Carolina State University have recently discovered that inserting a gene from celery into the rose plants actually gives roses a longer vase life.  Roses exhibit sensitivity to fungal pathogens that infect the plant and produce a sugar alcohol.  Mannitol, the sugar alcohol produced, actually inhibits the plant’s ability to fight off diseases such as botrytis, or petal blight.  Once the rose contracts petal blight, the flower’s petals become mushy and wilted; but a simple genetic modification can actually boost the rose plant’s natural defense mechanisms.

The team of North Carolina horticulturists, led by Dr. John Dole and Dr. John Williamson, inserted the celery gene mannitol dehydrogenase in efforts of stopping the production of mannitol.  Although the researchers have not tested whether the modified rose can withstand petal blight, they have determined that the rose looks and smells like a “normal” rose.  Ideally, researchers hope to lengthen the life of the rose to three to four weeks post harvest.

Alas, everlasting love may be closer than we think, even without a vegetable crisper.

Discussion Question: Do you think scientists could insert this same gene into other plants to help them survive longer?  Why or why not?

Link to Article: http://www.sciencecentric.com/news/11021124-roses-get-celery-gene-help-fight-disease.html

Link to Abstract: http://repository.lib.ncsu.edu/ir/bitstream/1840.16/6429/1/etd.pdf

Although these genetically modified plants have been exclusively grown in controlled agricultural fields, scientists currently performing field research in North Dakota have discovered the first evidence of established populations of genetically modified plants in the wild.

Meredith G. Schafer from the University of Arkansas and her research team consisting of individuals from such institutions as North Dakota State University, California State University, Fresno and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, established transects of land along 5400 kilometers of North Dakota interstates from which they have gathered, photographed, and tested over 400 canola plants. The results, which will be presented at the Ecological Society of America’s (ESA) annual meeting in Pittsburgh, show that genetically modified plants have successfully formed populations outside of US agricultural fields. In fact, of the 406 plants in the study, 86% tested for genetically modified proteins created by scientists in the laboratory to confer plants tolerance to various herbicides.

“There were also two instances of multiple transgenes in single individuals,” said one of the study’s coauthors Cynthia Sagers, University of Arkansas. “Varieties with multiple transgenic traits have not yet been released commercially, so this finding suggests that feral populations are reproducing and have become established outside of cultivation. These observations have important implications for the ecology and management of native and weedy species, as well as for the management of biotech products in the U.S.”

With the field of genetics advancing at such an extraordinary pace, I wouldn’t be surprised if one of Dr. Venter’s synthetic species finds its way into the wild at some point in the near future.  A disturbing thought?

Discussion Question: What sorts of dangers do you see genetically modified and produced plants having on the delicate balance of the environment? Benefits?

News Article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100806080321.htm
Ecological Society of America website: www.esa.org

Despite this former ease of shopping for produce, today’s consumers must now gear up for the battle of organic vs. non-organic before biting into that red delicious apple.  So, when faced with this additional choice, should consumers stick to the conventional fruits and vegetables or go organic?

The organic foods craze originated with the birth of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and various food protection and food quality acts.  Over the years, researchers have correlated pesticide usage with adverse health effects such as neurodevelopmental disorders and higher incidences of learning disabilities in children exposed to greater amounts of pesticides.  Thus, one might believe consuming organic foods to be healthier because of the food’s lack of exposure to chemicals during the cultivation process.  This particular pesticide limiting theory may hold true; however, when it comes to the taste of organic foods vs. conventional foods, which is better?

According to an article from Natural-Health-Guide.com, organic food may actually taste better than conventionally produced food.  They attribute this taste difference to the water content of the produce.  Because conventional fertilizers include nitrogen, the plant will have a tendency to absorb more water, causing the fruit or vegetable to have a somewhat diluted taste.  Organic produce seems to have a more concentrated flavor because of the greater percentage of dry components.

In addition to their stronger taste, organic produce may provide consumers with a fresher alternative.  Many organic farms operate on a small scale and actually ship their produce to buyers soon after harvesting.  As opposed to some conventional produce that may have a longer journey from the field to the kitchen, the hasty shipment methods of organic foods may attribute to the increased freshness and improved taste.

The Department of Crop and Soil Sciences from Washington State University also found a significant taste difference in organic produce.  In their study of organic, conventional, and integrated apple orchards, researchers concluded organic apples to have a sweeter taste and to be firmer than the conventional or the integrated apples.

While many individuals may not possess the ability to choose the organic food over the conventional food in a blind taste test, the overall taste preference for organic produce may lie in the eye of the beholder.  For those individuals striving to limit their intake of environmental pollutants, they may perceive organic foods to taste significantly better than conventional foods.   Ultimately, without a ban on the use of pesticides and insecticides during farming, consumers have the right to choose the type of produce they wish to consume, regardless of the freshness or taste.

Discussion Question:  Would the overall health of society improve if the government only allowed for organic farming?  Do your own taste test:  what taste differences, if any, do you notice between conventional and organic produce?  Send us your findings!

Links to Sources:
http://www.natural-health-guide.com/benefits-of-organic-food.html
http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/pub/cm/symposium/organics/Reganold/

The study, led by John Reganold of Washington State University, exclusively used commercial farms in California for its data collection; researchers conducted the fruit and soil collection from 2004 to 2005.  Strawberries collected from organic farms yielded smaller fruits with greater dry weight than conventional strawberries; organic strawberries also lost less fresh weight when harvested and tested for shelf-life.  The study did not measure overall yield per acre of the farms.

Additionally, researchers found that organic strawberries had higher concentrations of ascorbic acid (vitamin C) and phenolics and higher antioxidant activity.  Organic strawberries contained less potassium and phosphorus, but the authors of the study note that strawberries are not the best sources of either element and claim that lower phosphorus concentrations may be beneficial in light of increasing phosphorus consumption in the United States.

Researchers also analyzed environmental effects of farming conditions by collecting surface and bottom soils and testing for concentrations of certain elements and nutrients, as well as microbial biomass and genetic diversity.  While the soils had generally similar levels of nutrients, organic soils contained more nitrogen and carbon, which can improve soil fertility and water storage.  Microbes in the organic soils showed greater biomass, genetic diversity, and essential enzymatic activity, such as the ability to convert nitrogen into a form useable by plants and animals.

This strawberry study is unique in its testing of an abundance of quality indicators, as well as its use of a large number of commercial farms.  In nearly all categories, organic farming came out on top, at least in its effects on strawberries.

Discussion question: What are some differences between tests conducted in a lab environment and those done in the field?

News article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100901171553.htm
Journal article: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0012346

Photo: kai-Martin Knaak, GNU Free Documentation License

Although there have been many positive effects associated with the use of natural pesticides and Bt crops, there are also drawbacks. Production of organic insecticides can often be costly or inefficient, while Bt crops face an entirely different problem. In a recent study done by researchers at the University of Notre Dame, remnants of Bt crops have been shown to flow downstream and into areas where Bt crops are not normally found.

When these insecticidal byproducts of Bt crops infiltrate other ecosystems, they could cause multiple problems. First of all, the insects in these areas can be directly impacted by the transgenic remains. As a result of directly lowering the fitness of non-resistant insects, insects resistant to Bt crops could become more prevalent. As mentioned in the second referenced article above, Bt crops planted in one field can also help minimize the damage done to non-Bt crops in adjacent fields because insects cannot differentiate between Bt and non-Bt fields. With the migration of Bt remnants downstream into other ecosystems, the delicate balance of non-Bt and Bt crops could be thrown off, resulting in the evolution of Bt-resistance in insects.
With this in mind, do Bt crops really provide a significant advantage over traditional and natural pesticides? In fact, could transgenic Bt crops actually accelerate the evolution of Bt-resistance in insects more quickly than spraying Bt toxin on crops? Further research will be key to answering these important questions, but we must also focus our attention on preventing the migration of transgenic remnants into other areas.

Discussion Question: What is one possible method for minimizing the migration of transgenic parts of crops to other ecosystems?

News Article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100928111128.htm
Journal Article: http://www.pnas.org/content/107/41/17645