Its here. GE crops were not enough, the FDA has now opened the door for GE animals and fish. They have announced that they will begin accepting applications for commercialization of GE animals and fish. Please read the story at Food Democracy, especially the FAQ published by the FDA. It is incredibly disturbing.

This new regulatory process brings up a number of serious concerns.

• No labels will be required, so unless we buy organic or “non-GE”, we will end up eating GE meat. So basically, don’t eat at fast food anymore, or you will be eating some featherless chickens
• The major market for GE animals is for “biopharm” animals. Basically genetically engineered animal factories producing pharmaceuticals.
• Renderings from biopharm animals can be fed to other animals.
• Offspring of GE animals which are not considered to have inherited the GE trait, are not considered GE. This means that if a GE featherless chicken has a feathered offspring, it could be considered non-GE… and possibly organic? Hopefully organic regulations will keep up.
• I think the FDA’s approach to containment speaks for itself: “It also would be extremely unlikely for any GE animal to accidentally displace conventional animals. Most developers of the GE animals will likely control their breeding opportunities to further their business interests.” Free market environmental protection? Free market biodiversity protection? Free market bioethics?

The FDA is known to be controlled by the industry. They are acting in the interest of business profits at the expense of our environment, biodiversity, and human health and safety. Can you Americans ask Mr. Obama to overhaul the FDA, and the regulation of GE foods? I certainly hope the CFIA doesn’t follow suit, as the did with GE crops.

Will asked me to answer a question on his blog. The question was “is organic soymilk guaranteed free of genetically modified soybeans?”

My answer

The Biotechnology Industry Organization Pacific Rim Summit on Biotechnology and Biofuels wrapped up on Friday. I would like to conclude my coverage of this conference by giving out a few undoGE awards for the best and the worst of what I saw.
(more…)

From left to right: Michael Doane, Monsanto; Maria Wellisch, Natural Resources Canada; McKenna Long and Alderidge rep; Terry McIntyre, Environment Canada. Photo Credit, Nigel Tunnacliffe.

The final session of the conference, called “Sustainable Development of Bioenergy and Biofuels Production Systems”, was the most representative of the relationship between industry and our government when it comes to biotechnology and biofuels. (more…)

Today’s plenary lunch session was the most interesting of the sessions so far. Dr. Drew Endy, Assistant Professor at the Bioengeneering department at Stanford and the President of the BioBricks Foundation (a registry for DNA code), spoke about synthetic biology. His vision for the technology (which is well underway, by the way) is that there will be a large registry, sort of like iTunes, where one can download DNA sequences. Using an assembler, they can produce the DNA, and essentially write a computer program (organic machine) using DNA. Apparently, they have already mapped the DNA for all boolean algebra.

(more…)

I am sitting throught the third session in which the speaker claims to have solved the “food vs. fuel debate”. This particular company produces a biproduct which currently has no industrial use but it can be fed to cows. Therefore, the food vs. fuel problem is solved, right? Well he later mentioned that they are developing a way to turn the biproduct into ethanol.
Nice try. It’s just more PR - Predictable Rhetoric.

I heard a new term today in a discussion with a genetic engineer at my lunch table. “Cisgenic” is the introduction of a trait from the same species into its DNA. They use a different term because one of the criticisms of genetic engineering is that traits are introduced from organisms in a different kingdom, which makes some people uncomfortable. This new distinction, some industry players hope, will reduce public opposition to genetic engineering. Too bad cisgenic organisms still carry almost all the same risks. As Jefferey Smith pointed out, there is a ripple effect in the DNA of the host organism when a trait is inserted which effects the entire genome. Unrelated genes can mutate, make extra copies of themselves, change their levels of expression, and/or randomly turn on or off.

When I posed this to the man I was speaking to, he said that it is simply not economically feasable to see what other impact the insertion might have on the genome. In fact, for good measure, they will put in multiple copies of the trait they want to see expressed, because they have no idea how to ensure it works. Essentially, we just don’t know enough about genetic engineering to be playing around with gene insertions at this point.

When I posed that point, he agreed, but said that there is a cost-benefit analysis as to whether it is worth it because we can grow fuel instead of sucking it out of the ground. Too bad the people who accept the risk are not the people who receive the benefit.

Yesterday two speakers made arguments for biofuels projects. One said that there are good and bad biofuels projects. That is difficult to argue with, especially when using a fallen tree on your yard to heat you home, or burning waste veg oil in a diesel engine are considered biofuel projects. The other speaker outlined for criteria for evaluating biofuel projects, which are as follows:
1. No displacement of food crops
2. No conversion of undeveloped land
3. No errosion, runoff, or NOx emissions
4. All GHG emissions assessed on full lifecycle
These guidelines are very well thought out, and would be good for determining the environmental sustainability of any given project.
The problem is that the projects these two gentlemen were promoting did not meet the criteria. In fact, I believe that the criteria statement is purely PR. The biofuels industry has a PR problem.

The highlight of the first session was Christina Drake. Her title is Sr. Research Engineer with Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, and her role is to integrate nanotechnology and biotechnology into LH research.
My favourite quote was “biotechnology is just chemistry.” Of course anyone who has done any research into the issues of generic engineering has realized by now that a fundamental problem is that the scientists are viewing plants and bacteria as machines rather than living organisms which are part of greater system.