GMO 'fish oil' crop trials - how to respond?

Rothamsted Research has applied to field trial GM Camelina plants that make long chain omega-3 fatty acids - an important nutrient currently available only from fish. This poses a dilemma for those who have so far opposed GMO foods.

 Long chain omega-3s are not readily available, especially to poor people or those in hot countries far from the sea. There is also a global crisis of over-fishing.

The application to trial the GM Camelina oilseed - a species similar to the well-known oilseed rape - is certain to receive Defra's permission and we can confidently expect the crop trial to begin shortly, in time for the 2014 growing season.

Established GM campaigners have lost no time to oppose the application. Helen Wallace, executive director of Genewatch, spoke today on the BBC's World at One to denounce it as a "desperate attempt" by the GM industry that would bring "no real benefit to health" and was "not a sustainable solution".

Rather than representing a genuine benefit to people suffering from poor diet and nutrition, she insisted, it was merely "tinkering". She went on to warn of "unintended side effects" that might result from the genetic modiciation, with possible dire consequences for health.

Her conclusion was clear and firm - the crop trials should not take place.

Omega-3 fatty acids are essential

But the facts of the matter are not quite so clear and simple. Long chain omega-3 fatty acids are not strictly essential in the diet, no. But omega-3 fatty acids are, and most people eat nowhere near enough of them.

Modern diets are over-rich in the omega-6 fatty acids abundant in nuts, seeds and vegetable oils like soy, corn, sunflower and safflower. The far more fragile omega-3 oils are relatively scarce and most of us eat much less of them that we should.

Moreover the vegetable omega-3 oils that we do get - linseed, hemp seed and green leaf vegetables are good sources - are of the short-chain variety, predominantly alpha-linolenic acid, or ALA.

And ALA is many metabolic steps away from the long chain omega-3 fatty acids, EPA and DHA for short, that are needed to maintain good health - especially in the brain, nervous tissues, heart, and immune system.
Our bodies can and do extend the ALA into EPA and DHA, but it is a long and metabolically 'expensive' process requiring the well-functioning of numerous enzymes.

Moreover not everyone can produce enough of the long chain omega-3s. Some are genetically disadvantaged. Others may suffer from mineral deficiences that cause a shortage of key enzymes essential to the elongation process.

Fish oil - a valuable nutrient

That's why millions of people take fish oil as a nutritional supplement, or make a point of eating oily fish like mackerel or herring. The EPA and DHA is especially beneficial for babies and children who need far more of it than adults to build a healthy brain and nervous system.

But it's beneficial to get additional EPA and DHA right through life, and those who do are likely to enjoy better cognitive, nervous and cardiovascular health - something to think about as ever more elderly people are afflicted by Alzheimer's disease.

There is however a serious problem. The seas are unable to provide enough fish to feed the world. Of course it's not helpful that the biggest consumer of the world's fish catch is not actually people, but ... fish.
That is, high value fish like salmon kept in fish farms and fed on low value 'trash' fish turned into fishmeal. These in fact eat an astonishing 80% of the world's fish oil production.

But fish is also expensive and in many parts of the world, either not affordable or simply not available at all. And that's not to mention the vegetarians and vegans who choose not to eat fish on principle.

Fish may also be contaminated with heavy metals like mercury from coal fired power stations, bio-concentrated in marine ecosystems. There are also growing fears about radioactive contamination to Pacific fish from Fukushima.

There are real benefits to be gained

So if crops were to provide us with the EPA and DHA that we need without needing to catch and kill fish, that surely creates a real benefit for us, and the quality of our diet.

It could also reduce the world's dependence on wild-caught fish and relieve pressure on dwindling fish stocks. The EPA/DHA rich oilseeds could make a real contribution to both health and environment.

This is in stark contrast to the direction of the GMO industry to date. Two very specific interventions characterise the current generation of GM crops: resistance to herbicides like glyphosate and glufonisate; and built-in pest resistance using Bt toxins from Bacillus thiriguensis.

GM crops so far - a disaster

Both have had serious and undesirable consequences. Herbicide resistance allows farmers to spray the growing crop with herbicides to control weeds.

And because a crop may be sprayed to control weeds several times over a growing season, it inevitably causes far higher levels of herbicide residues in the resulting food - with reported consequences on animal health.

It also means that fallen seeds in the field can contaminate the following year's crop - unless a different herbicide is used to get rid of them. Now as crops are engineered to be resistant to multiple herbicides, it will become ever harder to find herbicides that can do the job without resorting to ever more toxic ones.

The herbicide resistance genes have also spread to wild crop relatives, creating new 'super-weeds' - again requiring the use of new and often more toxic herbicides for their control. The result is detrimental to both health and environment.

Bt toxins - not so harmless?

Bt toxins can indeed be effective in controlling insect pests. But they too are not ideal - after all they are produced within the tissues of the plant itself, and are therefore present in the resulting food, not to mention pollen and possibly even nectar, so they can kill beneficial insects like bees.

Moreover insects can acquire resistance to the Bt toxins - as has happened with aggressive strains of boll-worm in India. The answer has been to increase the number of Bt toxins in the GM crops, and even to create new synthetic toxins not found in nature.

One such example is StarStax corn, widely grown in the USA, engineered to be resistant to both glyphosate and glufosinate and expressing eight different Bt toxons, one of them synthetic.

And while Bt toxin is not meant to be harmful to humans, this notion is coming increasingly under question. The truth is that the long-term food studies that would prove that is safe to eat Bt toxins in our daily food have simply not been carried out. Safety has been assumed.

The anti-GMO movement hs won all the arguments

This dire state of affairs has enabled anti-GMO campaigners to win all the arguments as far as health and environment are concerned, as well as the battle of public perception. GM food is quite rightly seen as a liability and anti-GM movements are growing across the world.

There may be benefits for farmers - some of them at least, for a time - and GMO companies like Monsanto and Dow Agrosciences have grown rich on the proceeds. But where is the benefit for consumers or environment?

The answer is clear - there is no benefit to consumers or environment, only hazards and harm.
The development of Golden rice, engineered to express Vitamin A, has been a sop in the direction of providing consumer and health benefit.

But that's all it is - because the sought-after benefit can be achieved simply by eating a few green leaves and other vegetables, which also deliver a host of other vitamins and mineral nutrients that the Golden rice could never deliver.

This time there is a difference

The EPA/DHA Camelina is different. The long chain omega-3s are not readily available, especially to poor people or those in hot countries far from the sea. There is also a global crisis of over-fishing.

Yes, there are other possible solutions to these problems. The long-chain omega-3 fatty acids could be eaten in the form of algae, for example. And there is no actual need to feed quite so much of the world's fish catch to fish, rather than people - merely a powerful economic driver.

But to judge by the price of algae-based dietary supplements in health food shops, there is nothing cheap about growing, harvesting and preparing algae for human consumption.

And to judge by the success of campaigners to date in reforming the world's fishing and fish farming industries, we should not expect any major transformation any time soon.

Should campaigners be more open?

So maybe campaigners should be more open to the GM Camelina. Of course it needs to be tested and screened very carefully for any unforeseen and undesirable consequences of the kind alluded to by Helen Wallace.

Far more complete, thorough and long lasting tests must be performed to prove their safety before they enter into the food chain, than has been standard practice with GM crops to date.

But these are not arguments against carrying out the trials. They may actually be arguments to carry out the trials, and to ensure that the trials themselves and the subsequent food safety testing are carried out to the highest standard.

A question of principle?

Of course there are those who oppose all GMO and GM technologies on a matter of ethical or philosophical principle, or from simple conviction. They are fully entitled to that view.

But many GMO campaigners still need to work out in their own minds exactly where they stand. Are they opposed to GMO technology itself?

Or are they opposed to the way in which obnoxious, aggressive and over-powerful multinational corporations have used GMO technology, allied it with restrictive and monopolistic practices, defended it with flawed patent and intellectual property regimes, and used it to attack the environment and human health in the callous and single-minded pursuit of profit at all cost?

On the second point I know exactly where I stand.

On the first, I'm still thinking about it.

Source: http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2251435/gmo_fish_oil_crop_trials_how_to_respond.html

Where Is The Best Place In The World For Healthy Eating?

The U.K. has plenty of fresh produce available, such as these vegetables on display at a garden show in Southport, England. But these healthy options cost more in the U.K. than in any other country in Western Europe.

The Dutch are known for their lax drug laws, tall statures and proficient language skills.
Perhaps we should add stellar eating habits to that list, as well.

The Netherlands ranked as the easiest country in the world in which to find a balanced, nutritious diet, the advocacy group Oxfam reported Tuesday.

France and Switzerland shared the second slot. And Western Europe nearly swept the top 20 positions, with Australia just edging into a tie for 8th.

Where did the U.S. land?

We tied with Japan for 21st place, despite the fact that we have the most cheap food available. Our friendly neighbors to the north, Canada, took the 25th position out of 125 countries.

A banana seller makes his way to the market in Burundi's capital, Bujumbura. The small country in eastern Africa ranked last in terms of malnutrition in children.

A group of researchers at Oxfam, an anti-poverty nonprofit based in Oxford, England, concocted the ranking scheme to measure the best and worst places to eat around the world.

We're not talking about the density of Michelin-starred restaurants or whether you can get wild salmon versus farmed-raised fish at the grocery store.

Instead, the ranking considers whether families have sufficient access to fresh produce, nutritious proteins and clean water — and whether these options are affordable compared with less healthful options.

The Healthy Food Rankings

 

According to the advocacy group , here are the easiest and hardest countries in the world to find a nutritious and diverse diet.

Best:
1. Netherlands
2. France, Switzerland
4. Denmark, Sweden, Austria, Belgium
8. Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Luxembourg, Australia
Worst:
121. Yemen
122. Madagascar
123. Ethiopia, Angola
125. Chad


The team's conclusion?

"Basically, if you arrive from Mars and design a food system, you probably couldn't design a worse one than what we have today on Earth," Oxfam's Max Lawson tells The Salt. "There is enough food overall in the world to feed everyone. But 900 million people still don't have enough to eat, and 1 billion people are obese. It's a crazy situation."

To compile the rankings, Lawson and his colleagues spent a few months analyzing eight reports from the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the U.N and the International Labor Organization.
A country's score depends on how much food is available (so richer countries have an advantage), the nutritional value of that food and how diet helps or harms the nation's health.

The team measured that last metric by looking at diabetes and obesity rates in each country. Not surprisingly, that's where the U.S. stumbles: We ranked 120th out of 125 countries in terms of how diet influences health.
The problem is linked to poverty, Lawson says.

"Food is very, very cheap in the U.S. compared to most countries," he explains. "But the fact is you end up with people malnourished in one of the richest countries because they don't have access to fresh vegetables at a cheap enough price to make a balanced diet."

At the other end of the spectrum are countries that struggle just to get enough food on each family's table each day. Chad, Ethiopia and Angola ranked at the overall bottom of Oxfam's list, in large part because of high malnutrition rates and the relatively high cost of foods in these countries.

 "People think that hunger is inevitable, but that's just not true," Lawson says. "There is enough food in the world to ensure that nobody goes to bed hungry."

The problem, in large part, is getting fresh fruits, vegetables and whole grains to people who need it, he says. "Even in countries with famines, there's still often enough food. Someone is hoarding it, or it hasn't been distributed."

And that problem isn't new. "Very famously," he says, "during the Irish potato famine, the British were exporting Irish wheat to the U.K."

Source;  http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2014/01/14/262465619/where-in-the-world-is-the-best-place-for-healthy-eating?utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=20140119&utm_source=mostemailed

Amazon forest loss risks water security across South America

Water, food supplies and energy production are all in jeopardy as the Amazon forest is felled for profit. And the damage is spreading well beyond Amazonia itself.

 The continued destruction of the Amazon to exploit its resources for mining, agriculture and hydro-power is threatening the future of the South American continent, according to a report by campaigning groups using the latest scientific data.

Five countries - Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru - share the Amazon, and for all of them the forest area occupies more than 40% of their territory. All face threats to their water supply, energy production, food and health.

Declining rainfall

In addition, the report says, because of the over-exploitation of the region rainfall will fall by 20% over a heavily-populated area far to the south of Amazonia known as the La Plata basin, covering parts of Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Paraguay and Uruguay.

Last month it was reported that deforestation in Amazonia had increased by almost a third in the past year, with an area equal to 50 football pitches destroyed every minute since 2000.

The report, the Amazonia Security Agenda, authored by the Global Canopy Programme and CIAT, the International Centre for Tropical Agriculture, says the prosperity of the region is based on the abundance of water.

"Amazonia's abundant natural resources underpin water, food, energy, and health security for the economy and people of the region and far beyond", the report states.

"At the heart of this nexus of securities is water. So abundant in the region, but now under increasing threat as industrial pollution increases, and unprecedented droughts reveal a once unthinkable water vulnerability."

The forest maintains its own rainfall

Key to the problem is the role of the forest in recycling water deep into the interior of the South American continent, as rainfall onto the forest is transpired by trees back into the atmosphere, regenerating atmospheric humidity and clouds, and creating powerful thermal updraughts:

"The loss of ecosystem services through deforestation undermines the securities and particularly water security that is so pivotal. The forest recycles 20-25% of the rainfall it receives, and air travelling over
extensive forest cover may generate twice as much rainfall as air over deforested land."

As forest is cut down this process is disrupted - leaving both people and ecosystems at increasing risk.

Pollution - a growing problem

Another problem that comes with Amazonia's increasing industrialisation is pollution of both air and water, with toxic contaminants including mercury from gold-mining.

"Large-scale deforestation is predicted to reduce rainfall by up to 21% by 2050, although the science is still uncertain. Furthermore, deforestation is likely to affect water quality through increasing soil erosion and leaching of nutrients and heavy metals including mercury."

And most people depend on the rainforest and the rain it brings to keep their water clean:

"Water purification ecosystem services are important for the provision of clean drinking water. However, limited access to a proper water supply, treatment and basic sanitation infrastructure across Amazonia, particularly in rural areas, makes water security of Amazonian populations extremely vulnerable to pollution.

"This has knock on effects on food security (fisheries) and health security. In Ecuador 30,000 Amazonian citizens are seeking compensation through the courts at the billion US dollar scale over claims of toxic pollution by oil companies in the region."

Profits siphoned off

The huge wealth being generated from the forests comes with large-scale environmental and social costs. Local people do not benefit, and the profits from minerals, mining and agriculture are siphoned out of the region.

The large-scale economic development of the region causes deforestation. That in turn is threatening not only the wellbeing of the local people but the economic stability of the industries themselves.

Climate change is adding to both the uncertainty and the instability. Increasing temperatures, as much as 3.5°C in the near future, changing rainfall patterns and more intense and frequent extreme weather events will have further impacts on the health and well-being of the population.

Hydroelectricity at risk

Energy supply from hydro-electric dams will also decline, according to the report:  

"Hydropower generation, especially for run of river dams, will be more vulnerable in the dry season, challenging future energy security across the region, especially given plans to invest heavily in new Amazonian hydropower."

The biggest such example is the highly controversial Belo Monte dam in the Brazilian Amazon, which is projected to supply 40% of Brazil's additional electricity needs by 2019.

Belo Monte

 "will have a significantly lower power output than expected due to regional deforestation - up to 13% lower than under a fully-forested scenario, and up to 36% lower by 2050 if current deforestation rates continue."

Big bill coming

Among those welcoming the report is Manuel Pulgar, Peru's environment minister. He will play a leading part when the country's capital, Lima, hosts the 20th summit of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in December 2014.

He said:

 "Climate change is a global problem, but one that will multiply local and regional problems in unforeseeable ways. In Latin America, we have taken Amazonia and its seemingly limitless water and forests as a given. But recent unprecedented droughts have shown us just what happens when that water security falters ..."

According to the report, the impacts of environmental degradation that have so far been felt in other parts of the world are now likely to be felt in Amazonia, threatening economic development and security.

Governments in the region, it says, need to recognize that development cannot continue without recognising the damage caused to the water supply and the climate both globally and locally. Policy makers need scientists to monitor changes to conditions and the economic risks they pose.

Trillions of tons of water

These findings must be shared between academic institutions and governments so that they can decide how to remedy the problem. Annual reviews of dangerous hotspots are also needed, and cross-border groups of experts who could help both national and regional development plans to be worked out.

Carlos Klink, Brazil's national secretary for climate change and environmental quality, endorsed these findings.  

"We are understanding more and more how interdependent water, food, energy and health security are across our continent.

"There is also interdependence between the countries that share the Amazon, which recycles trillions of tons of water that all our people and economies rely on.

"The challenge that we are just beginning to recognise and act upon is one of transitioning to a more sustainable economy - one that values the role of a healthy Amazonia in underpinning long-term security and prosperity."