Bad for the poor and bad for science (pushing GM)

[cprise]

<snip>
The crucial claim for GM crops is that they are necessary. They can out-yield traditional varieties, and can be made especially rich in protein and vitamins. The world's population is rising fast and without GM, the story has it, famine and increasing deficiency are inevitable. To oppose their development is to be effete to the point of wickedness.

But this is not the whole picture. The world population stands at 6 billion, and the UN says it will reach 10 billion by 2050 - but then should level out. Present productivity could be doubled by improving traditional breeding and husbandry, so whatever the virtues of GMOs, necessity is not among them.

Present-day deficiencies are almost never caused by an inability to produce enough. Angola is a good example: it is always bordering on disaster, yet it has two-and-a-half times the area of France and every kind of climate, and only 12.5 million people. Its farmers are highly accomplished. Famines result not from inability but from the civil war that raged for 30 years.

<more>
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1152102,00.html

[markus]

1. GM enslavement of the poor

One of the hidden facts about GM crops is that they will enslave farmers to the seed companies. Farmers cannot save GM seed. It's illegal. They must buy new seed every year.

One farmer is North Dakota has been sued becuase his own crops had become contanimated by GM crops, and they tried to tell him he could not keep his own seed for re-use.

This is the equivalent of the campaign of companies by Nestle' to get third world mother's hooked on powdered baby formula in past decades.

[treepig]

3. why don't you start your own seed producing company

and give out the seeds for free for the benefit of the world's poor?

the point i'm trying to make is that trying to make a connection between unethical behavior on the part of big corporations and the merits of this (or any) technology seems to put your opposition on awfully thin ground. in any event, the point you make is hardly "hidden" - it's generally the very first talking point trotted out by the anti-gmo crowd.

[cprise]

6. Non-GM farmers are regularly attacked in the courts

...because GM DNA contaminates their crops and then they are guilty of of 'stealing' the GMO product.

And that's just for starters.

How is a 3rd world seed company going to compete with the effects of political bribery (sorry, campaign contributions) and temporary dumping undercutting the price of their product? Wall St. is obsessed with the idea of controlling the "intellectual property" of food production; they can and do poney up the money to allow GE corps. to wage this kind of war.

[treepig]

8. once again, an obtuse person such as myself

would greatly appreciate an explanation of how the bad behavior of capitalists/corporations/lawyers (et al) has anything to do with the underlying merits of genetic engineering technology. to evoke godwin's law early on in this thread, this tactic seems akin to saying "hitler was a vegetarian, therefore being a vegetarian is evil."

[cprise]

16. it has everything to do with them

...because you said it yourself, it's a "technology"... it is about industry and what they can control. Botanical GE isn't much to do with science, because it is dominated by corporations and their profit motive. Science informs us as to what not to do with the world around us, as much as anything else. This is inconvenient or worse to industry and their paid-for politicos, and so we get directed inquiry that not only puts a premium on creating engineers, but also threatens scientists with job loss and every euphemism in the book.

[treepig]

19. yes, i agree that corporations can be bad,

but they have ample opportunity to do evil with naturally-occurring organisms, if they so desire (nature itself has provided plenty of nefarious virusus, microorganisms, and on up).

in the current case of algae optimized for oil production - there are two ways to achieve this goal - "traditional" breeding/selection experiments or targeted genetic intervention to achieve the same outcome (i.e., higher levels of oil production).

as of now, in many cases not enough is known about cellular metabolic networks to reliably rationally design changes to bring about the desired goal. therefore, often the tedious and cumbersome traditional selection method is used to allow the organism to figure out the optimal metabolic solution to the problem at hand (in this case, optimized oil production). once such an organism is attained, let's say after five years of work (or longer for organisms with longer breeding cycles) - the genetic changes responsible for the improved metabolism can be determined, and then "reverse-engineered" by genetic engineering methods into additional hosts (for example, algae better suited for living in saltier or less salty water, or into algae better suited for warmer or colder climates). the benefit of the genetic engineering methods is that the changes can be achieved in days or weeks, instead of years, but a fundamental level, the genetic changes are exactly the same. the paranoia about the methods used in genetic engineering technology is quite baffling.

[treepig]

2. i trust you see the irony

in your periodic, but consistent, gmo-bashing, and your advocacy of schemes such as using large scale algae cultures to provide energy?

that's because if the oil-producing algae technology ever becomes feasible, it will almost certainly exploit genetically-modified organisms.

that's because of problems with algae that no will address on the other threads - first, how is it financially feasible to buy land for the algae farms where needed? (i.e., close to the proposed sewage sources). further, how much of the country is suited for year-round algal ponds? (not too much, i'd estimate).

there are further problems with large scale algal growth, quoting an article in Nature:

Currently, some algae are grown commercially in shallow ponds to make dietary supplements or food for shellfish farms. The ponds often get contaminated by other microorganisms and are at the mercy of the elements. Also the algae grow only at the top of the pond, below which they shade each other out.

http://www.nature.com/nsu/010614/010614-13.html

the good news is that gentically engineered algae can be grown in high yields in fermenters (from the same link):

Modified algae, on the other hand, grow throughout the kind of fermentation vats used by the biotech industry, not just at the top, Apt's group reports. Vat yields are 10-50 times greater than those typically achieved in ponds. The growth and purity of cultures is also easier to control in a vat - a vital factor if the aim is to produce pharmaceuticals or dietary supplements.

Despite the need to add sugar and other nutrients, Apt and his colleagues estimate that vat-grown algae costs about ten times less than the pond-grown version.


basically, the vat-grown, gentically modified algae could grow round-the-clock (i.e., in the dark), more information at:

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns9999889

Algae that normally need sunlight to survive have been genetically modified to grow in the dark. The algae feed on glucose and could be grown inside industrial fermenters, say US researchers.

This would provide a cheaper and more efficient way of cultivating algae on a large scale for use in aquaculture feed, for producing health supplements such as beta-carotene, or for development and discovery of pharmaceutical compounds.

Traditionally, biotechnology companies cultivate photosynthetic algae in large outdoor ponds. But microbes can contaminate the ponds and variations in temperature and light can make controlled growth of algae difficult.

Algae that use glucose instead of sunlight for energy could grow in controlled environments inside massive stainless steel vats, says Kirk Apt of Martek Biosciences Corporation of Columbia, Maryland.

"This work is outstanding and provides a novel approach in the area of algal biotechnology," says Michael Borowitzka of Murdoch University in Perth, Australia.






gm-algae may also be used to produce hydrogen:

Certain photosynthetic microbes produce hydrogen in their metabolic activities using light energy. By employing catalysts and engineered systems, hydrogen production efficiency could reach 24%. Photobiological technology holds great promise but because oxygen is produced along with the hydrogen, the technology must overcome the limitation of oxygen sensitivity of the hydrogen-evolving enzyme systems. Researchers are addressing this issue by screening for naturally occurring organisms that are more tolerant of oxygen, and by creating new genetic forms of the organisms that can sustain hydrogen production in the presence of oxygen. A new system is also being developed that uses a metabolic switch (sulfur deprivation) to cycle algal cells between a photosynthetic growth phase and a hydrogen production phase.



A set of bio-reactors use can use light (sunlight or artificial light) and the natural activities of enzymes in green algae to produce hydrogen from water. Photobiological production of hydrogen is a promising renewable option for the long term.

http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/hydrogen/production.html

[cprise]

7. Hard to engineer good irony

B-)

Esp. in such a long-winded fashion.

Could these GM algae compete with the unmodified pond-grown kind? Not for fuel. You are losing some of the sugar's energy by having the algae convert it to oil; i.e. wasting the solar energy stored by the sugarbeets or corn that produced the sugar. Fuel algae convert solar energy directly into combustable oil with no other biological process in between.

Natural algae strains yield high productivity gains over dry-land farming already. And the model for dry-land biodiesel production is non-GMO European rapeseed. Compare that to GM-soy biodiesel in the US, that gains about 40% less energy, yields 1/2 the volume per hectare, and is outclassed in total output for the forseeable future.

I do not support the GE efforts for fuel-algae. I think tinkering with these small organisms is probably more risky than nuclear energy in the long term.

You imply that certain classes of objects are not risky; I assert that processes determine the risk to our environment. GE is not safe as a component of general production.

[treepig]

9. interesting, i look forward to more enlightenment from you

on the biochemical pathways in algae.

you say "Fuel algae convert solar energy directly into combustable oil with no other biological process in between."

consequently, these "fuel algae" are quite remarkable organisms. all other organisms, currently described in the scientific literature, have numerous biological processes between the solar energy and "oil" stage.

the traditional process currently understood by "science" is outlined by following the following links:

first, start with photosynthesis:

http://www.genome.ad.jp/kegg/pathway/map/map00195.html

second, in the photosynthesis diagram (above link), click on the "CARBON FIXATION IN PHOTOSYNTHETIC ORGANISMS" link (near the center, or follow the following link:)

http://www.genome.ad.jp/kegg/pathway/map/map00710.html

once on the "CARBON FIXATION IN PHOTOSYNTHETIC ORGANISMS" please note the CO2 (atmosphere) notation on the far left of the screen. then follow the metabolic steps to the far right side of the screen and click on the "GLYOXYLATE METABOLISM" link, or the following:

http://www.genome.ad.jp/kegg/pathway/map/map00630.html

now, on the "GLYOXYLATE AND DICARBOXYLATE METABOLISM" find ribulose 1,5-bisphoshate (or it may be called ribulose 1,5P2, the last intermediate from the previous page) in the lower left quadrant of the screen, and follow the metabolic steps up to the "PYRUVATE METABOLISM" link near the top of the screen. click on this link, or use:

http://www.genome.ad.jp/kegg/pathway/map/map00620.html

now, you need to find oxaloacetate near the center of the left side of the screen and follow the steps to "FATTY ACID BIOSYNTHESIS (path 1 and 2)" links. these links show how "oils" are made:

http://www.genome.ad.jp/kegg/pathway/map/map00061.html
http://www.genome.ad.jp/kegg/pathway/map/map00062.html


clearly, there are dozens of metabolic steps between carbon fixation and oil production in traditional, non-fuel algae - and that's also why algae that are genetically modified to intake glucose (and thereby bypass many of these steps provide Vat yields are 10-50 times greater than those typically achieved in ponds. . . . Despite the need to add sugar and other nutrients, Apt and his colleagues estimate that vat-grown algae costs about ten times less than the pond-grown version. , with the quote being from NATURE, a highly respected scientific journal.

http://www.nature.com/nsu/010614/010614-13.html

so let's consider the scenarios - here in the usa, the unh people claim an operating cost of $12,000 hectare, with an annual production (in the sonoran desert) of 50,000 gallons of biodiesel, which appears to be quite attractive financially ($0.24/gallon). however, they then backtrack and say they didn't really mean the desert, they actually meant scattered around the country near sources of sewage (for example). perhaps new jersey would be a good site for sewage gathering. however, in new jersey, it'd be too cold to grow algae (efficiently) for at least half the year, therefore the price per gallon would go up to $0.48/gallon. also, you'd need land to put these ponds on, industrial/farm land in new jersey runs from $200,000-500,000 hectare (or higher). factoring support area for each pond, financing costs (assuming a 7% interest rate) will run about $35,000/hectare, increasing the cost to $1.88/gallon. then there's still distribution costs/taxes, etc - the final cost to the consumer would be at least $2.50/gallon. close, but not quite there. but consider that vat-grown (genetically modified) algae costs about ten times less than the pond-grown version - or in my scenario about $0.25/gallon - exactly which option do you think is going to be more attractive to those providing financing for this scheme?

of course, your "Fuel algae (that)convert solar energy directly into combustable oil with no other biological process in between" no doubt render all these considerations moot, and once again, i'm eager to learn the biochemical mechanism by which they perform this amazing transformation.

[cprise]

11. You just keep repeating the same stuff, and it doesn't mean anything

These GM algae look like a way for industries like cosmetics to capitalize on sugar subsidies. The Nature article did not even consider the possibility of using them for fuel; That you had to reach for THIS one puts your argument in a prety weak position.

The solar energy for the sugar has to come from somewhere. You should be comparing the land-use for algae photosynthesis with the land-use for sugar production, and the energy yield from both.

$1.88 /gallon is pretty damn good under those conditions, I'd say. Even if they can only sell it for $2.00/gallon, that is still a waste treatment system producing a return on investment. The system would also produce glycerine and significant amounts of organic fertilizer, reducing the fuel's cost. Will Jersey see such an algae farm? I kinda doubt it. There is no need to push for all or even most of the land use cited as an example in the UNH paper. Microalgae may displace some of the soy and corn production in certain places. Mostly likely, we'll see it used to handle agricultural run-off along the Mississippi river, and in the Sonora desert. And when petro-diesel goes over $2.00/gal, even Jersey may seem like an attractive place for algae farming.

[treepig]

12. if i keep repeating stuff, that's just because i never receive answers

for example, you say:

These GM algae look like a way for industries like cosmetics to capitalize on sugar subsidies. The Nature article did not even consider the possibility of using them for fuel; That you had to reach for THIS one puts your argument in a prety weak position.

actually, the Nature article proposed using algae for producing pharmaceutical and dietary supplements - both of which are high value products (say, thousands of $$ per gallon (or equivalent mass/volume) instead of the $2/gallon for biodiesel. nevertheless, algae ponds are still way too inefficient (hence the scheme to grow the algae in vats) even for these high value products - the need to increase efficiency is all that much greater for a low value commodity such as oil.

also, you say:

The solar energy for the sugar has to come from somewhere. You should be comparing the land-use for algae photosynthesis with the land-use for sugar production, and the energy yield from both.

if you had been able to comprehend my posts (and here i blame myself for not being able to express my points adequately) - the whole problem is that you cannot compare land-use for algae photosynthesis with the land-use for sugar production!! . that's because there is a huge amount of land in this country appropriate for growing corn (or sugar beets, or whatever) but there is very little land appropriate for growing algae (in ponds).

furthermore, despite repeated side-stepping of the issue, the cost considerations in the feasibility studies explicitly assumed a location in the sonoran desert, more specifically the salton sea. for example, here's a quote:

This (capital costs of $40-60,000/ha and operating costs of $12,000/ha/yr) assumes that water, nutrients and waste disposal (blow-down) would be provided by the Salton Sea or its tributaries, and that no centrifugation is used in harvesting.

so what's going to happen for Microalgae (to) displace some of the soy and corn production in certain places ?

first, most of these places are in the midwest/great plains states. let's assume nebraska. in this case "water, nutrients, and waste disposal" will not be provided for "free" - indeed, a pertinent question is if there is even adequate water available for algae ponds regardless of the cost.

second, the "salton sea" plan uses "unlined ponds" - in most areas, "lined" ponds will be required both to minimize water loss into the soil and contain the proposed sewage/animal waste nutrient source.

third, regarding the sewage use - the Nature article mentions a problem with algae ponds is the growth of unwanted microorganism other than algae, well, sewage is chock full of them, so how will the sewage be sterilized before use in the algae ponds?

finally, perhaps the most daunting problem of all, additional processing plants need to be built to convert the algae into usable fuel sources (whether it be methanol or biodiesel). in the salton sea, algae will grow all year round, in most parts of the country it won't. further, i don't see how it is feasible to store huge quantities of algae for use in the off season, in the way it is possible to store glucose from (or in the form of) corn or other grains.

but let's assume all the above-mentioned difficulties are overcome, and two companies begin using algae for growth of biodiesel. one of them uses "natural" algae, which can produce up to 50% of it's mass/wt into fatty molecules, but more typically actually only achieves 33%.

now consider a second company that uses computer aided metabolical models to analyze the flux through the biochemical pathways (such as presented in the previous post). these modeling techniques have become advanced enough to decipher control points in the metabolic networks, and coupled with genetic engineering, can optimize metabolic flux in such a way that the algae not only can, but actually will produce 50% oil-like molecules all the time. this second company will achieve a 50% increase in productivity over the first - and therefore (for example) might have a 55% profit margin as compared to the first company with a 5% profit margin. although my economics background is a bit shaky, something tells me that the second company, using genetically modified organisms, is soon going
to dominate this industry.

[cprise]

15. And water used on corn fields is efficient?

The consumption and land re-engineering from corn are not huge issues. They become huge issues suddenly when you mention something strange like "algae". Again, compare 11% of the Sonora desert to produce all fuel needs with algae, or 95% the entire U.S. land area to do the same with corn. The scale of land use simply isn't comparable; the burden of finding appropriate land not as hard as you think.

Unwanted organisms are probably the main problem. Do you have suggestions other than GE?

So far, GMO dominating certain crops has been more a function of politics than biological efficacy. And I still maintain it externalizes huge risks onto the environment. Algae are already optimized by nature to harvest energy without killing the life around them.

Merely cutting the current biodiesel cost by 30% makes fuel algae worthwhile, and I think the crop can achieve much more than that without GE. I hope we will find out soon enough.

New modes of generating energy do not take hold overnight. Agribusinness is resistant to new crops "just because", and consumers resist installing solar water heaters "just because" even though its cheaper than the gas and electric solutions.

[treepig]

10. hmm . . . . "more risky than nuclear energy "

sure, possibly, but still way less risky than getting struck by lightning or winning the MEGAsuperBUCKS lottery.

[jmcgowanjm]

4. Cereal carryover stocks to fall 2003-04

At the current forecast levels, the total cereal stocks-to-use
ratio in 2003/04 would drop to 19 percent, the lowest in
two decades

http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/J0858e/j0858e07.htm

and fertilizers

http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/J0858e/j0858e14.htm

Go to:
293 Not only Oil depletes
http://www.peakoil.net/Newsletter/NL36/Newsletter36.html

I know GM cotton corn beans- all Roundup Ready.
Looks beautiful, produce record yields. Our farm
avg-2 1/2 bales/acre/ 170 bu/acre and 45bu/acre
w/ beans.

To get these yields though, you need massive quantities
of water and fertilizer along w/ RoundUp/Monsanto
at just the right times.

All three inputs are being compromised world wide now.
Ergo cereal stockpile shortfalls.

[grower]

5. Starting with a premise

and then seeking a Guardian article to back it up is lame.

The fact is that GM enslaves in much the same way as steel did when the first steel self scouroring plow share came along or the first tractors or nitrogen fertilizer or pesticides.

Farmers still have free will and some are not using pesticides or fertilizer or GM. In a free market economy they will be productive or not.

What remains the biggest mystry to me is that GM crops have reduce the amount of pesticides used by billions (with a B) pounds. I would think that this benifit alone would cause a huge groundswell of support, rather than the constant demagogory that has happened

[NNadir]

13. Actually, genetic modification of crops has been going on for billions of

years.

It's called "evolution." Until about 30,000 years ago, it had very little to do with economics. The existence of agriculture did, however, create a selection pressure, creating strains of wheat that had seeds that could not be carried by the wind, and heavy ears of corn, originally referred to by its breeders as "maize."

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cprise]

17. GE is an artificial process

... that attempts to replace natural processes at the deepest levels.

To say otherwise is intellectual dishonesty.

Breeding is just that: It doesn't introduce changes across almost completely unrelated species; it doesn't take genetic information far out of its inherited context. It is not EXTREME.

[treepig]

18. the "toolkit" used by genetic engineers

is exactly the same as the "toolkit" used by "mother nature" as she freely shares genes amongst her many creatures - therefore the "artificial" nature of genetic engineering is a rather artificial distinction itself.


btw, genetic changes taking place out in the "real world" go far beyond "breeding" - there are many specific molecular mechanisms now known by which genetic information is transfered between species, and even across kingdoms. for example, the human genome has somewhere between 40 and 200+ bacterial genes, as outlined in this article from SCIENCE:

"For evolutionary biologists working on the exchange of genes between species (lateral gene transfer) , the most exciting news from the human genome sequencing project has been the claim by the "public effort" (1) that between 113 and 223 genes have been transferred from bacteria to humans (or to one of our vertebrate ancestors) over the course of evolution . We, and probably many others wanting to test whether this result is really solid (2), have been beaten to the punch by Salzberg and colleagues (3). Their analysis, appearing on page 1903 of this week's issue, suggests that the actual number of bacterial genes in our genome may be lower than the predicted 223" --the authors calculated the final number of possible BVTs to be 41 (Ensembl) or 46 (Celera).

So, the original description of 223 BVTs is probably overenthusiastic. But even 41 (or 46) BVTs is sufficient cause for excitement.
more at:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/292/5523/1848

the transfer of bacterial genes to humans (or their evolutionary precursors) could in all senses of the word be considered to be a "genetic engineering" experiment on the part of mother nature nowadays, everyone would recoil in horror if an evil evil scientist, especially if he or she was working for a corporation, would even suggest engineering a bacterial gene into humans - nevertheless this type of "extreme" gene sharing is exactly what you claim doesn't happen naturally, i.e., "It doesn't introduce changes across almost completely unrelated species; it doesn't take genetic information far out of its inherited context. It is not EXTREME."