Category Archives: Commentary

Opposing GMOs

Posted on by

This is our third successive commentary on GMOs, and we usually don’t obsess about any one subject. However, the Denver Post had an editorial that I just couldn’t pass it up. The editorial cleverly begins with the question, “If we could go back in time and avert the Irish potato famine, in which a million people died, who would possibly oppose it. The same blight remains destructive of potato crops today, but a GMO potato has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration that will resist it.

Perhaps even more interesting is that the Campbell Soup Company has announced three fourths of their products contain GMOs and that they will begin labeling their products as such in 12 to 18 months. “The company is betting on the good sense of consumers and their trust in scientific consensus. Let’s hope its faith is warranted.” Campbell supports a mandatory federal requirement for GMO labeling in order to avoid an impossible patchwork of state laws with different requirements. The Post is hopeful that the Campbell decision will “…demystify GMOs and lead to greater public understanding of their potential to battle malnutrition and reduce the use of pesticides.”

I can’t think of a better way to end this post other than to quote final sentences of the editorial. “The anti-GMO movement, fueled by the organic food industry and anti-corporate activists, has maintained for years that all it wants is to provide the public with more information. Campbell Soup is about to call their bluff.”

Okay, I can’t stop myself from adding a bit more. I’ve been a lifetime consumer of Campbell soups, but I now intend to look at their products first while food shopping. They deserve the first look for their approach to resolving a contentious issue. I’m certain they came to the announced approach after carefully considering impact on their bottom line. I intend to do my tiny bit to reward their decision.

GMO Labeling Update

Posted on by

The “Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015” has been reintroduced by Representative Mike Pompeo (R-KS) that would prevent individual states from requiring GMO foods from being labeled. Pompeo explained, “GMOs are safe and have a number of important benefits for people and our planet.” “The bill would also tighten the standards companies must use to designate their food as GMO-free: Crops must not be planted with bioengineered seeds, and animals must not be fed bioengineered food.”

The evidence that GMO foods are safe continues to increase. The Journal of Animal Science describes a study that examined billions of animals fed with non-GMOs and compared the results to animals fed at least 90 percent GMOs. “The study found GMOs completely safe and nutritionally equivalent to non-GMOs.”

The safety of GMO foods is being reinforced by continuing studies, but some GMO advocates worry about unintended consequences of Pompeo’s bill. It would give the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authority to establish national standards and regulations for GMOs and give the Department of Agriculture full discretion over how to implement the law. That would give anti-GMO activists in the government the power to impose restrictions and unjustified regulatory hurdles.

Happy to Be a GMO

Posted on by

We’ve posted about GMO foods on this site, but some of the most interesting genetic engineering is happening in medicine. I’ve just found this story from last fall:

Gene silencing: The first Huntington’s Disease patients have been successfully dosed with gene silencing drugs targeting the HD gene. These brave volunteers are the first HD patients to ever be treated with drugs designed to attack HD at its root cause. hdbuzz

Scientists are changing genes – or, at least, gene expression – inside living human beings.

Huntington’s is caused by a mutated version of a gene that was inherited. You, I and everyone has two copies of the HD gene, one from mom and one from dad. If one of these copies has a repetitive bit of code near one it changes the way this gene does its job. Science doesn’t yet understand the details, but this fairly simple variation causes a horrible disease.

‘Gene silencing’ drugs, also known as ‘antisense’ drugs, are designed to reduce production of a chosen protein by attaching to the mRNA ‘message molecule’ that’s made whenever a gene is activated. medicalxpress

There’s a drug, pumped directly into the brain’s fluids, that targets the mutant gene and curtails production of a damaging protein. After trials on mice the technique has been used on human volunteers with early symptoms in a test of safety. There have been no complications over several months, but subjects will be evaluated in 2016. If the drug is deemed safe, trials of its effectiveness will proceed. A terrible disease could be cured.

You may ask,
What’s this got to do with Golden Rice or Arctic Apples?

It reinforces my opinion that knee-jerk reactions make no sense on either side. I doubt the Frankenfolk rendered disease free (if the drug pans out) will mind becoming GMOs.

Techniques vary, risks-to-benefits must be evaluated, and you may feel differently about genetic changes that effect only one organism or can be passed on to offspring. But GMOs are a growing part of our lives and seem to be responsibly researched. I wish the Huntington’s researchers luck and am still looking forward to my first Arctic Apple.

http://en.hdbuzz.net/204
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-10-patients-dosed-gene-silencing-drug.html
and other outlets

Iranian Hostage Crisis

Posted on by

A review of a book about the crisis precedes this posting, and there are some recent developments. A New York Times article describes how Americans taken hostage at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979 have been granted compensation. A recent spending bill gives each of the 53 hostages or their estates up to $4.4 million, although there are still apparently some legal hurdles to be overcome. Legal claims had previously been blocked in the courts, but a decision to force a Paris-based bank BNP Paribas to pay a $9 billion penalty for sanction violations suddenly made money available for the hostages and other victims of state-sponsored terrorism. “Congress was also motivated by many members anger over the Iran nuclear accord.”

There are 37 of the original 52 hostages still alive who will be eligible for full payments. “Spouses and children are authorized to receive a lump payment of as much as $600,000.” An additional $2.8 billion will aid victims of the September 11, 2001 attack and their family members.

Beyond the current information of the compensation for hostages there is information in the review of the book about the crisis that haunts me. Iran is dominated by radical mullahs with no interest in the future of the world. They believe millions who die in a holy war will be ushered into paradise. Nuclear deterrence means nothing to them, because a nuclear holocaust “merely” results in more martyrs. The good news is that Iran released the hostages the day Ronald Reagan was sworn in as President. They were worried about what actions he might take, with indicates they were more pragmatic than their strict religious beliefs indicated.

Electric Cars Spur Demand for Coal Power

Posted on by

The Washington Post published an interesting article about Rotterdam, Netherlands needing to build three new coal-fired power plants to recharge the electric vehicles as gasoline and diesel powered vehicles are being banned. The electric cars bought with generous tax incentives “…jostle for space at charging stations.” The article mentions that one recharge takes as much electricity as used by the average refrigerator in a month and a half. Coal provided 29 percent of the country’s electricity in 2014, and forecasts are that number won’t change by 2030. Efforts to ban coal generators have fallen to the cheap price of coal.

It costs about $20 to recharge a Tesla for a 250 mile range, which is cheaper than the cost of refueling with hydrocarbons. The Union of Concerned Scientists calculated that a gasoline powered car in Colorado that gets 34 miles to the gallon or more would be better for emissions than the average electric car. In New York, where hydroelectric is a major source of electricity, the gasoline powered car would have to get 112 miles per gallon to be equal.

The Union of Concerned Scientists issued a rebuttal article stating that their calculations show that driving an electric vehicle anywhere in the U.S. is a better choice. It states that over two-thirds of Americans “…live in areas where an average EV (electric vehicle) is better than the most efficient hybrid gasoline vehicle on the market. Based on today’s sales, the average EV in the U.S. has emissions equivalent to a gasoline car getting 68 MPG.”

It is interesting to see this issue being debated. It sometimes seems the people driving electric vehicles might not realize the electricity has to come from somewhere. For the people in the alternative energy conscious people of Rotterdam, about a third of that comes from coal now and into the foreseeable future.

Drop the Battle Lines and Solve Problems

Posted on by

RF_alum and I often bemoan the difficulty of extracting facts from contentious debates. From the Rocky Flats Plant to GMOs, ideologues are ready to abandon facts in their battle with long-standing opponents.

I’m an engineer but that doesn’t make me an expert in anything outside my field. I can’t read and evaluate primary sources from scientific journals – where I expect facts to arise. I don’t have the background, and life is short.

Like most people, I look for sources that seem trustworthy. I try to avoid ideologues, or at least listen to all sides, and use several fact-checkers. But I despair when our national dialogue is dominated by Red Team/Blue Team talking heads who just want to count coup.

What if the rhetoric changed?
What if the people you and I look to for leadership decided to solve problems and not just score points?

I ran into two hopeful interviews recently (links are at the bottom), where proposed changes in rhetoric could allow us to actually solve problems. In both these cases, partisans on all sides would have to open their hearts and minds to new ideas.

Climate Change
Republican Bob Inglis served six terms in the House, representing the very conservative 4th district of South Carolina.

I was my first six years in Congress saying that climate change was hooey, Al Gore’s imagination… All I knew was he was for it, and therefore, I was against it.

Based on viewing some of the evidence (on trips most of us can’t take) he says to fellow conservatives, be

…climate realists and energy optimists. We should be realistic about the science. And then let’s also be energy optimists, realize the power of free enterprise to fix this problem. If we would just put the cost on the fuels, then the free enterprise system would sort this out. And also, at the same time, we should eliminate all subsidies for all fuels. Then the innovation that would come from the free enterprise system would be exciting.

Inglis appeals to me. Leftist ideologues are dour, misanthropic killjoys. I don’t want to live in their world. But I do want to deal with climate change. It’s a slow-motion problem that will eat away at quality of life – for old farts like me, but especially for future generations.

Inglis wants to break away from the current rhetoric, which has backed too many of us into a corner. Continue reading →