BREEDING BETTER CROPS

Still Life 2.  Tomatoes are often grown in hot, dry climates. More than 13 gallons of water per tomato is needed. Growing less thirsty varieties would use less water and cut costs. Crossing domestic varieties with a wild relative from Peru's Atacama Desert is hoped to result in a tomato that will achieve both. (From National Geographic, Oct. 2014.) 

Genetic Modification is possible through a variety of methods, and the goal is to increase yields of crops in an increasingly challenging climate.Genetically Modified Foods get a lot of public attention, but there are different categories of Plant Breeding or plant modification that if clarified, could reduce controversy.

A recent Article in National Geographic Magazine, The Next Green Revolution, by Tim Folger, (Oct  2014) has listed five methods of Plant Breeding that explain the differences:


Traditional Breeding:
Desired traits are identified in separate individuals of the same species, which are then bred to combine those traits in a new hybrid variety. (This kind of  cross breeding has been used intentionally or by accidental selection since the origins of agriculture.) 

Interspecies Crosses 
Breeders also cross different but similar species. Modern wheat comes from such hybridizations, some of which happened naturally.

Marker-assisted Selection
When genes for a trait aren't precisely known, targeting a DNA marker near them can speed up breeding. It identifies plants with the trait even before they mature.

Genetic Modification
Genes identified in one species can be transferred directly to an unrelated species, giving it an entirely new trait - resistance to a pest, or perhaps to a weed killer.

Mutation Breeding
Seeds are irradiated to promote random mutations in their DNA. If a mutation happens to produce a desirable trait, the plant is selected for further breeding.

Rice, Corn, potatoes, wheat, and other plants are being studied with the goal of increasing yields, and to make some crops disease or pest -resistant, or in locations where weather threatens to destroy food security.




This Blogger's comments:
Over the past 10,000 - 50,000 years humankind has survived and adapted by adjusting to a variedand omnivorous diet, that was maintained by migrating seasonally to different food sources, locations or climates, and seemingly to also be able to eat a wide variety of kinds of foods with both nutritional and medicinal values to survive. Some individuals did not always survive the diverse organic chemistry their way of life provided or demanded. Those who did survive passed on their genes to the Earth's current populations. Never in our history have so many food sources been so drastically altered, or have so many diverse foods been available to us.

Some large seed companies have attempted to change a plant's genetic resistance to pesticides that destroy the pests that destroy crops, but the pests have adapted to be ever more resistant to the pesticides. How the poisons affect the food values of these crops and what potential harm is caused to people or animals that ingest these poisoned plants or  domestic animals is a concern, that is frequently denied by distributors, and may be ignored entirely.

It is commonly known that selecting foods that are sweeter, starchier, or fatter has not resulted in a healthier human species. A common fear is that changing the delicate organic chemistry of many of our food staples could produce dietary deficits, unhealthy imbalances of harmful elements in our diet, or even ultimately poison us. That is why testing of these new varieties and their impacts upon populations that eat them, seems very important.

The very least option should be that we have the choice to refuse to eat the artificially created genetically modified foods. We deserve to have consistent food labels that have a dependable definition throughout the country and hopefully throughout the world.


The above image and Blogger's Comments are the Copy Right of Ruth Zachary.

PROPOSED TOXIC WEED KILLER’S HEALTH RISKS

-

Crabgrass- Are the Poisons Enough to Kill the Weeds?

A Warning posted on June 11, 2014 by Just Label It, and written by Mary Ellen Kustin (EWG) announced the EPA was poised to approve  Dow Chemical’s bid to market a new toxic weed killer. The agency had failed to consider the weed killer’s danger to children’s health, as the federal law requires, it said.

The new toxic herbicide would be marketed to farmers to spray on fields of corn and soybeans that have been planted with recently developed genetically engineered varieties built to withstand the spraying. The spraying could be used indiscriminately. 

Just think of how many (hundreds ) of processed foods contain elements of corn and soybeans!

It is now up to the U.S. Department of Agriculture to  allow the new GE corn and soybean crops to be sold without regulation on the open market, in which case, the EPA will follow suit and approve the weed killer created to be used on those crops.

EPA is accepting public comments through June 30, 2014 on their pending decision to approve the weed killer. They could make their final decision anytime after the comment period closes.

The Just Label It group, insists that consumers have the right to know what is in the foods they buy in the open market, and advocates full disclosure of Genetically Modified Organisms, as well as the toxins used in producing such products.

 The Just Label It group claims the EPA failed to fully assess the serious health risks of a new herbicide formulation that, if approved, would lead to the largest increase in use of a known toxic weed killer in decades. The group also says EPA’s assessment omitted the possibility of inhaling 2,4-D – even though that’s one of the primary routes of exposure for people. EPA also disregarded the immune and reproductive toxicity of 2,4-D and overlooked potential links to Parkinson’s and cancer.

So, WHY ask for approval of a three-fold increase in use of a toxic herbicide that’s been linked to cancer, Parkinson’s, reproductive problems and immune system failure?

Because the last toxic herbicide designed to work with genetically engineered plants stopped working, is the Justification.

How many increases in toxic chemicals will be needed to keep up with the ability of weeds and insects adapt  to the poisons and to resist them?  And you want to eat foods that are altered to tolerate toxins that people will unknowingly end up eating?

Dow AgroSciences (a subsidiary of Dow Chemical Company) has asked EPA to rubber-stamp its application for widespread distribution of Enlist^® Duo herbicide, a mixture of 2,4-D and glyphosate, the main herbicide found in Monsanto’s best-selling RoundUp^® weed killer.

• EWG’s analysis of EPA’s recent risk assessment for 2,4-D and Enlist^® Duo finds that the agency did not take steps to protect children’s health, as required by the Food Quality Protection Act.  (• Environmental Working Group, www.ewg.org.)

EPA is accepting public comments through June 30, 2014 on their pending decision to approve the weed killer. And they could make their final decision anytime after the comment period closes.

 

Sweet Corn.            Do we want the corn enough to risk the toxins?            Virtually all corn is genetically modified.

Dow is hoping to market Enlist to corn and soybean farmers for whom Monsanto’s RoundUp no longer works because the weeds in their fields have become resistant to it. USDA estimates that more than 60 million acres of farmland is infested by weeds that have proved Monsanto’s scientists wrong about GE crops requiring fewer weed-killers.

If Enlist Duo is approved, farmers would use it on varieties of corn and soybeans that Dow has genetically engineered to survive blasts of 2,4-D.  

The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that the approval would lead to between a three- and whopping seven-fold increase in today’s use of 2,4-D on crops by 2020.

In the rise and fall of Monsanto’s RoundUp and “RoundUp Ready” crops, we’ve watched a “miracle” weed killer designed to work with specially genetically engineered crops lead, first, to the acceleration of herbicide-resistant “superweeds” and, ultimately, application of even more herbicides.

USDA reports that some weeds are already growing resistant to 2, 4-D, which has been used for decades but at nowhere near the amounts under consideration by EPA. 

Even though Dow’s Enlist^® Duo is even more toxic than Monsanto’s RoundUp,  the EPA’s analysis is that they:
            Failed to fully account for the risk to children;
            Disregarded endocrine toxicity and immunotoxicity findings from animal    studies.
            Ignored 2,4-D inhalation, one of the primary routes of pesticide exposure for  
                  communities in the   vicinity of sprayed fields; and
            Overlooked serious impacts on wildlife, including endangered species and   honeybees.

The science is clear: allowing Enlist Duo into the marketplace would be a disaster to people’s health – especially to children close to fields where the toxic weed killer would be applied – and would keep us on the path to even more toxic weed killers in the future. 

Click here to sign a petition demanding that the EPA deny Dow Chemical Company's application to use a combination of glyphosate and 2,4-D on GE crops.

- See more at: http://justlabelit.org/epa-disregards-toxic-weed-killers-risks-to-children/#sthash.vWJMsuww.dpuf

Note: Written Materials were gathered from a Just Label It Petition.

Images were modified  from a Better Homes and Gardens  Garden Book, 1968 .

A FINE FETTLE OF FISH

One of the First Genetically Engineered Animal Foods- Salmon

This week a group supporting the labeling of GMO foods  (-http://www.JustLabelIt.org/takeaction) was encouraging  concerned consumers to contact the FDA about plans to approve genetically engineered salmon, stressing,“We have no time to lose.”

“The FDA is preparing to approve genetically engineered salmon, which would be the first genetically engineered animal on supermarket shelves in the United States. The salmon is engineered to produce growth hormones year-round that cause the fish to grow at twice the normal rate. The government already requires labels to tell us if fish is wild-caught or farm-raised -- don't we also have a right to know if our salmon is genetically engineered? Without labels, we'll never know.”

“As consumers, I think we have a right to know how the food we buy is produced, including whether it's genetically engineered. Otherwise, we can't decide what's best for us and our families.” By the author of the letter from the JustLabelIt Organization.

Many countries in the world are modifying foods to make them more resistant to cold, or to accept more powerful pesticides so that plants will survive harsher conditions or pests, and in order to produce greater crop yields. However, the United States is one of the few developed nations that does not require the labeling of genetically engineered foods. Even China and Russia label them!  

It is becoming ever more apparent that Human bodily chemistry is unbelievably complex, and it is monstrous to hide a GMO in a protein source which is also in a major source of Essential Fatty Acids (Omega 6). This GMO change will pass along growth hormones to children as well as to adults without any recourse unless people have the information so they have a choice.

If readers would like to contact the FDA to weigh in on this issue, the contact Information is included below.

Google- Search for FDA GMO info

Contact  the FDA

ConsumerInfo@fda.hhs.gov

Consumer Health Information

Room 5377, Building 32

10903 New Hampshire Ave.

Silver Spring, MD 20993 

The FDA has a well organized web site and blog, featuring topics from A to Z. I recommend checking it out. It contains a lot of information, including the article below, taken from their site. 
 

Graphic from the FDA Web Site explaining the difference between Genetic Engineering and controlled pollination or cross- breeding different species of plants and animals.

FDA's Role in Regulating Safety of GE Foods

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Foods from genetically engineered (GE) organisms, also known as biotech foods and referred to by some as food from genetically modified organisms (GMOs), have been in our food supply for about 20 years.

Genetic engineering refers to certain methods that scientists use to introduce new traits or characteristics to an organism. For example, plants may be genetically engineered to produce characteristics that enhance the growth or nutritional value of food crops.

Using a science-based approach, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates foods and ingredients made from genetically engineered plants to help ensure that they are safe to eat.

Since people have been modifying plants for thousands of years through breeding and selection, FDA uses the term "genetically engineered," or "GE," to distinguish plants that have been modified using modern biotechnology from those modified through traditional breeding.

FDA regulates food from GE crops in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is responsible for protecting agriculture from pests and disease, including making sure that all new GE plant varieties pose no pest risk to other plants. EPA regulates pesticides, including those bioengineered into food  to make them more resistant to  climate extremes.

Other Threats to Wild Salmon.
Oil Companies are seeking to drill for petroleum products along the major waterways in Alaska where a major source of Wild (Pink) Salmon are harvested.

Writing of the first article is the Copyright© of Ruth Zachary. The Article about the FDA's Role in Regulating Safety of GE Foods was taken from the FDA website and blog.