In the developed world we’re accustomed to having the latest and greatest.  Whether it be the latest health care breakthroughs, the shiniest gizmos, or the most advanced communications tools we like to be cutting edge.  And, believe it or not, there are technologies more important than the latest coveted shiny thing from Apple.

For example, consider our food and fibre supply.  For almost two decades farmers in the “rich” world have had access to biotech soybeans, cotton and corn that have been engineered to yield more per acre and resist herbicides and pests.  Still, in twenty years the vast majority of biotech crops available to the public have remained virtually unchanged.  In a culture where more equals better, more crops per acre seems like smart business on the part of farmers.  But still, biotech crops are an eco hot button and the general public remains sceptical of their benefits.  Fair enough.  So let’s take a look at other genetically engineered crops developed for other markets – many of them in the developing world – and see what benefits those crops may have.

Golden Rice

In Southeast Asia a half-million children go blind every year from a simple lack of Vitamin A.  It may sound like a tragedy that would be easy to avoid, but for populations that lack financial resources and medical care the solution is a little more complex than simply reaching for a bottle of Flintstone Vitamins.

In 1999 Golden Rice – a biotech breakthrough – was developed.  Golden Rice is just like regular white rice except that a mere one half cup of Golden Rice can give a person 100% of the Vitamin A he needs in a day.  Sounds amazing, doesn’t it?  Well, it is and the folks who developed Golden Rice have been lobbying to get permission to run test trials of their rice in Asia so they can get it approved.  The Golden Rice Humanitarian Board was recently successful in gaining clearance to run field trials in the Philippines.  Hopefully this breakthrough crop can get approval there and in other Asian countries before more children lose their eyesight to vitamin deficiency.

Tough Rice – Wet or Dry

At the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines scientists are currently testing genetically modified rice strains under tightly controlled conditions to resist environmental conditions such as drought and exposure to salt water.  For most of the world’s human population rice is a staple crop, eaten every single day.  Severe drought can cut rice yields by 99% so the need is obvious.  In low-lying and coastal areas such as Bangladesh, exposure to salt water is also a factor affecting rice quality and yield.

Japanese scientists discovered genes (dubbed “SNORKEL1” and “SNORKEL2”) that causes rice plants to grow long, extended stems (like a “snorkel” –get it?) which allows the base of the rice plant to grow taller while keeping the top of the plant poking out of the water.  In many parts of Asia, the ability to grow extra-tall rice plants means that farmers can produce viable rice crops even in the face of severe flooding and monsoons.

Rice is not just the white stuff underneath your sweet n’ sour chicken.  In much of the world rice is life.  And there is research being done on much more than rice.  How about super anti-oxidant purple tomatoes, corn packed with extra vitamins, bananas loaded with essential nutrients and papayas that are resistant to devastating diseases?

These are just some of the great benefits that genetically engineered “frankenfoods” can bring to the table, but to bring those benefits to the dinner table they first have to be tested, trialed and approved by the countries they are to be grown in.  There are hurdles in getting new crop varieties approved.  You have to educate the public, the farmers, and the government officials who will ultimately decide if the crop is approved and even the greatest scientific discovery can take years if not decades to be regulated by a government.

Ultimately, the development of genetically engineered crop varieties is not the work of mad scientists or evil corporations.  The end goal for most people working on biotech plants is simply to build a better plant: a plant that can survive environmental hardships, resist disease, grow large or plentiful, provide greater nutrition and use less water and natural resources.

As far as science goes, the engineering of crops in its current form has only been around for a few decades.  We’re literally just seeing the beginning of the potential of what can be done to enhance crops in the developing world and in ours.

» The Golden Rice Humanitarian Board

Pragmatism - The philosophy of accepting ideas with practical results as true and rejecting impractical ideas.  In other words: “What works best?”

When it comes to green, Stewart Brand is certifiably as green as it gets.  We’re talking old school true-blue earth lovin’ hippie and counterculture thought leader in the 1960’s type of green.  Today he lives on a boat in California, but back in the days of peace and love Stewart Brand was the editor of a little publication called the Whole Earth Catalog.  The Whole Earth Catalog was originally an American counterculture magazine that was first published in the late 1960’s and advocated everything you would associate with the hippie lifestyle.   As a young man Stuart was all about communal living and rural back-to-the-earth concepts.  

Today, he is still eco-conscious but has focused his energies on solutions instead of ideals.  In Stuart Brand’s latest book Whole Earth Discipline - An Ecopragmatist Manifesto, this member of the old school green generation shifts from the do-it-yourself attitude of traditional eco-thought to a new concept: how can we “do it” together?

Stewart’s new conclusion: “Cities are Green. Nuclear energy is Green. Genetic engineering is Green.”

Bold statements, and certainly out of sync with the typical thoughts of eco-idealists.  After all, treehuggers typically have dreams of self-sustaining organic rural communities off the grid. Nuclear powered cities and genetically engineered food are the opposite of that ideal, aren’t they?

Atomic Ideas

If you’re reading this on a computer screen anywhere on the continent of North America then chances are the electricity that powers the servers, infrastructure and your home or office computer were all generated using the most primal, basic and dirty technologies available: by burning coal.  Three decades ago the U.S. was poised to move into a new energy economy based on nuclear technology with 100 new nuclear power plants on the drawing board.  But eco-conscious Greens demonized nuclear power to the point that most of us think of nuclear power as a punch line on the Simpsons cartoon show.  The result was that the new plants were scrapped and coal consumption in the U.S. skyrocketed by 400,000,000 tons a year!

Brand asserts that most of our fears over nuclear power are due to misinformation and ignorance over new nuclear power technologies.  In comparing nuclear power that produces containable waste to other energy solutions nuclear power seems like an obvious and green solution that is certainly more sustainable than burning millions of tons of coal each day.

Communes and Cities

Back in the 1960’s and 70’s Stewart brand was a huge advocate of living in commune-style villages and experimented in commune living himself.  But today he says “Cities are Green.”, so what changed?

Well, few would argue that the formation of high-density residential and working systems result in logistical efficiencies in concerns such as land use, the shipment and delivery of goods and the centralisation of services.  Further to that Brand believes that the social implications of living in cities have a green take to the as well: less energy use, fewer children, and the liberation of women to name a few.  Brand believes in greening our cities by design and that we need to invest in making our high density living spaces sustainable. Sounds sensible to me.

Engineered Food and an Engineered World

There is a great quote from Stewart Brand from an interview in City Journal: “I daresay the environmental movement has done more harm with its opposition to genetic engineering than with any other thing we’ve been wrong about. We’ve starved people, hindered science, hurt the natural environment, and denied our own practitioners a crucial tool.”

The bottom line is genetically engineered crops - commonly referred to as GMOs – and the modern agriculture practices that often accompany them produce more food on fewer acres of land than non-engineered crops.  And the less land used the less deforestation that’s required to offset the requirements for farmland, not to mention less water and energy required to produce the crops season after season.

If an old school Green like Stewart Brand can break outside his box and think in terms of “what works” and “what’s practical” instead of adhering to Green Dogma, can you? 

Here are three questions for you:
1. Is there a better alternative out there to nuclear energy?
2. Can the Earth’s population sustain a massive drop in food supply if we switch back to 100% traditional agriculture?
3. Is it realistic or feasible for the entire population of the planet to redistribute into semi-rural communal eco-hamlets?

Did you answer “no” to all three questions as well?  Isn’t it funny how so many of us worry that there are no answers to global warming, the energy crisis or the population bomb when really the answers are simple and have been here all along.

» Penguin Books

Are you afraid of chemicals? I was browsing the Montreal Gazette recently and came across this article by freelance writer Joe Schwarcz entitled Why ‘chemical’ has become a dirty word. In it, he asserts that everything – even the very air we breathe – is made of chemicals, and he’s right!

I’m sure you’ve heard of the table of elements, or at least remember it distantly as a particularly unpleasant part of your high school education. Those elements represent the low-level “stuff” that everything in the known universe is made of. Combine those elements together in various arrangements – such as basic sugar: C6 H12O6 – and you get all of the “stuff” in our world. The air, water and even the complex chemistry of our bodies all require chemicals to exist.

So if chemicals are all around us, why is it that they scare us? My theory is that we pick-and-choose which chemicals to be afraid of based on our familiarity with them. Let’s take something that seems natural and healthful and can be found in many common pantries: vinegar. Personally, I love a splash of malt vinegar on thick-cut French fries and I like to use red wine or balsamic vinegar when making salad dressing.  But instead of thinking of vinegar as a food ingredient let’s regard it as a chemical for a moment. According to good ol’ Wikipedia vinegar is “an acidic liquid processed from the fermentation of ethanol in a process that yields its key ingredient acetic acid”. Most table vinegar, like the stuff I put on my fries, contain 4 to 8% acetic acid by volume.

So vinegar is an acidic mixture. It’s great to use in small amounts as a condiment or in cooking and can be freely purchased at most any grocery store. Would you squirt it in your eyes? Would you bathe in it? Would you drink 4 gallons of it in one day? Of course not.  How about the environment, then? Would it be environmentally sound to dump trillions of gallons of vinegar into your local water supply?

The point is there’s nothing wrong with vinegar itself. It’s simply a liquid that contains acetic acid. It’s the APPLICATION of the chemical – in this case vinegar – that leads to our perception of whether or not it’s safe to use.

The same acetic acid that makes vinegar tangy is also an effective household cleaning agent and even an herbicide! (An herbicide is a chemical used to kill plants such as weeds.)

But enough about vinegar, let’s get back to that word: “chemical”.  Isolating chemicals and identifying new chemicals is big science and big business.  As I mentioned before I think the real problem many of us have with chemicals is our unfamiliarity with them and what little familiarity we do have is often in the misuse of those chemicals.

We already talked about vinegar so let’s look at another item you likely have in your kitchen: oil. Common cooking oil has a million uses in the kitchen. Waste oil can be used to fuel cars and even be recycled into soap! However, cooking oil can also be dangerous. After all, in ancient time they used to pour boiling oil down castle walls to deep-fry intruders. Even humble cooking oil can be used as a weapon.

And I bring up using chemicals as weapons for a good reason and as a bridge to another example that might be in your kitchen right now.  The use of Agent Orange during the Vietnam War is a well-known case pointed to by many who fear the use of pesticides and herbicides on farm crops. For the benefit of those unfamiliar with the use of Agent Orange I’ll summarize it for you quickly. Back in the 1960’s and 1970’s the U.S. Military used herbicides as weapons. They sprayed tons of contaminated herbicides on Vietnamese crops and jungle which led to widespread environmental damage as well as birth defects and health problems that continue in the region to this day.

So because of this horrible application of herbicides as a weapon, does that mean all herbicides are bad? Remember that table vinegar can be used as an herbicide, and cooking oil can be a weapon.

The safe, intelligent use of chemicals as food ingredients, herbicides and cleaners is nothing to be afraid of.  Think of that the next time you read about a bylaw banning pesticides in your city or when you consider whether or not to pay extra for organic produce at the grocery store.

Remember there are no dangerous chemicals, only dangerous or inappropriate uses of them by human beings.

» Montreal Gazette

“Pests” and “Weeds” are really just names we give to animals and plants that don’t suit our purposes. The worms in you composter aren’t pests but the caterpillars chowing down on your strawberries are.

I was puzzled at a recent article in the Huffington Post that seemed almost... well, gleeful over an increasing threat of a pest known as a bollworm. Apparently the author thinks the proliferation of bollworms is a great way to ‘stick it’ to ‘evil corporations’ like Monsanto.

But let’s back up for a moment. Here is a short history of modern agriculture. As humans there are certain crops we like to farm. You know, things that are useful to us like corn and wheat and cotton and whatnot. I doubt there is a single dandelion farm on earth. The problem for us is that sometimes mother nature doesn’t want to go along with our plans. Events like plant diseases, pest infestations and droughts can have a severe impact on whether any useful crops can be grown at all. So over the last few decades special seeds and chemicals have been developed to protect our crops from these threats.

Whew! Keeping up with me so far? Let’s soldier on...

The problem is, as with the pink bollworm, that by developing a type of special genetically-modified cotton that kills pink bollworms we have pushed the bollworms to develop a resistance to the GMO cotton. These “super bollworms” can chomp on all the cotton plants they like until a new type of cotton with improved protection is developed.

And according to the HuffPost article this is somehow a good thing. I don’t see how. Farmers will lose out financially through destroyed crops and at the end of the day we’ll have less cotton and cotton will be more expensive to purchase as a result.

So could this have been avoided? Sure, I suppose we could have never used the technology and allowed ‘natural’ cotton crops to be devastated by bollworms year after year. Overall we’d have no cotton and lots of poor farmers. But I guess we would have helped support the global bollworm population... is that supposed to be a good thing?

Another take on this is to think of the farms of the world as living systems – like the human body. Year after year various forms of influenza spiral around the globe and every year new vaccines are developed to combat the spread. The result is that every year lives are saved but every year new vaccines must be developed for the next round of influenza. Well, it’s a similar cycle for the crops that farmers grow. Season after season they grow crops and each year there are different threats that can harm the crops. Farmers combat these threats in whatever way they can and then the next year the whole thing starts again.

Some might argue that we should simply let nature take its course. That’s a nice idea in principle but it’s hardly realistic or practical. These big agricultural systems exist to feed the demand of our big global population, with the side benefit of driving economies all along the way.

Sticking with cotton and bollworms, let’s look at two scenarios.

Scenario One – We ‘let nature take its course’

The farmer in India gives up and decides to stop fighting the pests that attack his crop year after year. He decides to grow non-GMO cotton and as a result his farm is devastated. (That’s right. His cotton will not magically evolve and develop some kind of special defence on its own- and certainly not in one season. It will be wiped out.) The Indian farmer, his family, and the families of all the other devastated farmers starve to death. In China, thousands of workers are laid-off as garment factories close.

On the other side of the world puzzled shoppers stop pushing their carts through Wal-Mart to gawk at the empty racks of clothes, with the few available items priced at 10 times their previous cost.

Scenario Two – We fight

The Indian farmer decides enough is enough. He uses the latest technology to combat the pests that destroy his cotton crops. He has a record harvest and he and all of the other Indian farmers can provide for their families. Tons of cotton is shipped to China where new factories open every month to produce new cotton garments.

And on the other side of the world it is life as usual.

Are my two scenarios ridiculous? They’re dramatic but certainly within the realm of possibility. It is in our very nature as human beings to survive and provide for ourselves.  We develop medicines to treat diseases that afflict our bodies. If those treatments become ineffective we develop new ones.  This bollworm situation is no different.

Seed companies already have an alternative cotton ready to go and are working on new innovations all the time. Do they profit from all this work? Sure they do - it’s a free market. But if they don’t work to prevent these pests then who will?

» Huffington Post

While writing my first foray into the blogo-sphere for Ecollo, I had the opportunity to explore the world of genome mapping and the significant impact it could have on the agricultural community and food production. See How Genome Sequencing Helps Food Production. Truthfully, genetic sequencing was an area I didn’t know that much about and was skeptical about its benefits prior to that first assignment. But the more I read about it, the more I began to realize that this type of research also has tremendous potential for applications beyond higher yields in our fields.

Like all of the contributors to this site, I am passionate about the environment and am always looking for ways to do my part. I realize that my impact is just one small piece of the giant planet puzzle and that we will need to use all available tools if we are going to solve the problems we have created. If leveraging biotechnology and similar research into supporting our efforts for a cleaner and greener planet is possible, then I am all for it. Using genetic sequencing, we have the opportunity to make changes that will contribute to our effort by changing the impact we have on our environment.

Before I get into some examples of how this research could benefit the environment, you might be wondering what I am talking about when I refer to genome or genetic sequencing. Far from an expert on the subject, I turned to my favourite search engine for a definition and an idea of the scientific process behind mapping an organism’s genome.

As we know, all living matter is made up of millions of cells that are directed to perform various tasks by their genetic makeup or DNA. Each strand of DNA strand is made up of millions of its four component parts, called nucleotides. The order of these nucleotides determines the genetic sequence of the organism’s DNA. Identifying the order of an organism’s genome sequence can tell us details about how the animal or plant grows, defends itself from disease and produces identifying characteristics and behaviors of that plant or animal. Understanding these details can allow scientists to help species express more desirable traits while limiting ones that are not as beneficial to development of the plant or animal. As I have discovered through a bit of exploration into the matter, there is a lot of work being done in Canada and around the world to catalogue the genomes of species so that we can use this knowledge to benefit both the agricultural sector and our environment.

One of the largest challenges we face when dealing with our current climate crisis is the development of new clean and safe energy sources. Microbial genomic research will increase the efficiency with which plant matter from sugar cane, sunflowers, wheat and corn can be fermented into ethanol for a more planet friendly fuel. Current processes result in a lot of waste with comparatively little product. This investigation will allow us to use plants more efficiently and increase their economic value. The waste products from the biofuel and plastic production process can be used as adhesives and resins. Very little needs to be wasted. By increasing productivity and minimizing waste, we can ensure that we have enough of these plant products for food production as well as developing energy resources, which is the central argument in the food versus fuel debate.

While scientists strive to make changes in the way we develop new energy sources, they are also looking at how we will be able to deal with the waste that is being created from our current energy sources. Understanding which genomes control carbon dioxide absorption in various plant species could help us deal with the enormous challenges we face in meeting the carbon emissions reduction targets. Since we are dependent on current energy sources for the time being, other genome research is investigating how the current processes can be made more efficient and environmentally sensitive. By understanding the bioprocesses and bacteria in the oil sands and coal beds, scientists will improve their knowledge of how methane is produced in these processes and their ability to identify the enzymes that control the natural cracking of hydrocarbons into methane and carbon dioxide, two of the major contributors responsible for our changing climate.

Microbial genomic research is also investigating an increase in the efficiency of environmental remediation and the development of environmental monitoring techniques that will detect pollutants. Organisms in bioreactor waste processing are also being sequenced so that scientists can increase the organism’s ability to deal with our waste.

Beyond plants and microorganisms, the genomes of insects and animals are being sequenced. Understanding the genomes of pests can allow farmers to place directed insecticides that target pest species and don’t harm the useful insects. While I couldn’t find any direct evidence to suggest that there is research currently being with endangered species, I feel that this is where genetic research could have one of the most significant benefits. Many endangered species are facing new and evolving diseases that are threatening the efforts of individuals trying to re-establish populations around the world. An example of this is the Elephant endotheliotropic herpes virus that is killing elephants in both zoos and their natural habitats. There is currently no cure for this disease although animals can be carriers of it and not show any symptoms. By isolating the genomes that influence this resistance to the disease, scientists may be able to access knowledge that will help save one of the world’s most recognizable and charismatic species.

I recognize that with any research in the field of genetics there is always going to be an element of controversy. I am also not saying that genome sequencing is going to be the best fix for the problems that we have created in our environment. I do believe however, that with careful use of the technologies and knowledge available to us, that they can become part of a large toolkit of resources that can help our environment for the better.

» SciBlogs

For Vikings, pork was preferred over beef or any other type of meat.  And today you can buy bacon-flavored vegan soy products and even bacon flavor shakers to make everything taste like bacon.  The point is: Vikings like it, Vegans like it, and the rest of us like it so much we’d make everything taste like it if we could – I’m talking about pigs.

In the wild pigs would forage for stuff to eat on the forest floor and – much like us humans – they eat just about anything.  Domesticated pigs are fed nutritious feed so they grow nice and big.  They’re fed things like corn, barley, soybeans and other stuff.  Problem is that, much like us humans, usually what comes out the other end of pigs doesn’t exactly smell like roses.

Pig poop and swine farts are no laughing matter.  The flatulent feces of a conventional Yorkshire pig doesn’t just smell bad.  This poop is packed with high concentrations of phosphorus, which can cause problems for soil and waterways.

Given that there are about a billion live pigs in the world right now - half a billion in China alone – as you can imagine this is a big problem.  Yes – for some people becoming vegan or vegetarian is an option.  But for some folks pork may be one of the few sources of high-quality protein available to them.  And you can’t ignore the fact that a lot of people have a strong personal preference to eat meat products.

Luckily, about a decade ago some smart scientists at the University of Guelph in Canada developed a new genetically enhanced pig called (dun-dun-dun-duuuun) the Enviropig!  No, this pig doesn’t have super powers and can’t climb walls.  What it does do is produce a special enzyme in its saliva (the drool in its mouth) that makes it much easier for the pig to fully digest food such as cereals which are a core staple in a pig’s diet.  Since the pig can better digest its food significantly less phosphorous ends up in its manure, which is not only much better for the environment in general but it makes the manure much more useful as a fertilizer for growing crops.

You can kind of think of it in terms of how some people don’t tolerate dairy products or beans that well.  In some cases you can take an enzyme tablet that helps your body break down the food.  In the case of Enviropigs they have been genetically engineered to be able to better digest their food on their own without the need for dietary supplements.

Upon reading this you likely fall into one of two camps:
1) This is disgusting! I’m never gonna eat any frankenstein pork!  I’m calling the governor!
2) Woohoo!  Pass the pork chops please.  After all, they're eco-friendly.

Right now Enviropigs are still in the testing and approval stages.  For years now these pigs have been the subject of numerous tests to determine if they are safe for human consumption as well as other issues such as animal welfare, nutrition and if there are any differences between the make-up of a transgenic pig versus a ‘regular’ pig.  So meat from Enviropigs is not is our food supply yet, but there has been nothing so far to indicate that these little piggies won’t be approved to go to market at some point in the near future.

Human beings have been raising domestic pigs for centuries.  We’ve bred them in all sorts of shapes and sizes to suit our specifications and they’ve come a long way genetically from their wild ancestors.  Now modern science is stepping in with a genetic change that could significantly lessen the environmental impact of the Earth’s billion pigs.  It’ll be interesting to see what other types of environmentally beneficial innovations will be coming our way in the coming years.  Better pig poop may not be as sexy as a new electric car engine, but it’s still an important part of becoming a more environmentally friendly society.

» Vancouver Sun