GM cottonseed could feed millions
By Will Dunham
November, 20 2006
Scientists have found a way to use the cotton plant, long a source of fiber for clothing but inedible* by humans, to feed potentially half a billion people a year. Texas A&M University plant biotechnologist Keerti Rathore and colleagues reported they have genetically altered the plant to reduce the levels of the toxic chemical gossypol in cottonseed, making it fit for human consumption.
“It actually tastes pretty good. It reminds me of chickpea. It’s a fairly good-tasting seed,” Rathore said in an interview.
… The new-and-improved cottonseed could be ground into a flour and made into bread and other foods.
Read the article here: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N20300910.htm
[* In fact we already make vegetable oil out of crushed cotton seed.]
Intelligence of dolphins cited in fight against hunt
by Rick Weiss
November 20, 2006
A coalition of marine scientists has launched a campaign to halt Japan’s annual “dolphin drive,” in which thousands of bottlenose dolphins are herded into shallow coves to be slaughtered with knives and clubs.
…This year 21,000 dolphins can be killed, Fukuda said, of which 15,000 or 16,000 have already been killed.
Read the article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111901250_2.html?referrer=email
The good behind the bad and the ugly cane toad
by Richard Macey
November 22, 2006
THERE may be a surprise silver lining to the cane toad’s relentless march across Australia.
Research suggests cane toads may be an ally in the war against another pest, the mosquito.
Rick Shine, from the University of Sydney’s School of Biological Science, has studied cane toads for more than five years as they approached, then occupied, Fogg Dam, in the Northern Territory.
… Professor Shine said yesterday there was evidence Australia’s native wildlife was evolving, or at least learning to cope with the invader. And the toad could even offer benefits for human health.
His team found that mosquito larvae laid in water containing toad tadpoles produced insects much smaller than normal. This was important because smaller mosquitoes were thought to be less able to spread disease.
Read the article here: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/the-good-behind-the-bad-and-the-ugly/2006/11/21/1163871403111.html
Nature and Religon
Michael Duffy interviews Walter Starck
November 27, 2006
Michael Duffy: In recent times, Counterpoint has talked about a number of environmental issues; mining, timber cutting in New Guinea, the proposed pulp mill in Tasmania. We’ve involved environmental activists in some of those discussions. You’ve heard from Greenpeace and the Tasmanian Greens. I suspect there’s a common theme linking all these campaigns and we’re joined now by a man who has some very interesting ideas on it…
Walter Starck: Thank you.
Michael Duffy: I know you like to distinguish between conservation and environmentalism. What’s the difference?
Walter Starck: Conservation is an earlier ethos which was aimed at trying to preserve and not overexploit the natural environment. But environmentalism is a more recent development and it has taken on many of the aspects of a religious crusade.
You can read the full transcript and/or listen to the interview here: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2006/1798342.htm
And finally…
What is the most green and ethical way to commit suicide?
By Ethan Greenheart
November 16, 2006
Dear Ethan, After careful consideration I have decided to end my life. Things haven’t been going very well for me lately, but more importantly I am keen to reduce my carbon impact on the planet. Like the average Briton I probably produce around 9.3 tonnes of carbon each year. I am 26 years old, and reckon I could live for another 60 years; if I end things now I will save a total of 558 tonnes of carbon, for which I believe future generations should be grateful. But I have a question: what is the most ethical way to commit suicide? I don’t want my self-destruction to be destructive to the planet!
Details here: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/2100/
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
‘Scientists have found a way to use the cotton plant, long a source of fiber for clothing but inedible* by humans, to feed potentially half a billion people a year.’ – Will Dunham
Whats wrong with traditional foodstuffs?…. Oh I get it….. rich developed nations can force poor third world farmers to grow a cash crop they want yet spin the story so that its ‘feeding’ the poor…no more setting aside valuable farm land for vegetables and other food stuffs……
Nah Pinxi. It’s just A Modest Proposal to feed the poor on stock rations…
Further back in history, Medieval rumour told of a plant that grew lambs with fleece finer than the finest wool – which could also be plucked and eaten. Now modern science is making an old fabulous belief a reality. A breakthrough with tremendous potential benefit for both people and conservation.
The solid fraction of cotton seed contains gossypol, which is poisonous to humans and some animals. For that reason, if it’s not fed to animals, it’s a waste product.
Since cotton seed otherwise has valuable nutritional and processing characteristics, it would be an excellent addition to the human diet.
Contrary to what Lamna nasus says, it’s unlikely that non-gossypol cotton will be released to developing nations any time soon. This is despite persistent reports of sheep falling ill and dying after grazing in cotton fields–something that gossypol-free cotton could help prevent.
What is far more likely is quick approval in the US and other countries of the developed world.
As for third-worlders being “forced” to adopt GM cotton, Lamna has obviously forgotten that Bt cotton was “commercialized” in India when a seed developer, hailed by many Indian farmers as a modern “Robin Hood,” smuggled Bt cotton seed from a field trial and began black-marketing it. The seed smuggler was eventually caught and prosecuted, but voluntary adoption by farmers was so enthusiastic and widespread that it was impossible to contain.
Doesn’t sound like farmers being “forced.” There are reports that the same thing has already occurred with GM brinjals (eggplant) and chickpeas.
In Brazil, back when growing GM soy was illegal, farmers who planted smuggled GM seed drove government inspectors from their fields with guns and dogs, and in one instance the inspectors took refuge in a police station. Doesn’t sound like Brazilian farmers were “forced,” either.
Plant Foods Hum Nutr. 1996 Jan;49(1):1-11. Links Cottonseed protein: what does the future hold?
* Alford BB, * Liepa GU, * Vanbeber AD.
Texas Woman’s University, Denton, Texas, USA.
Cottonseed protein has the potential to increase the world’s food supply while decreasing the incidence of malnutrition among the world’s hungry. Nutritionally, cottonseed flour compares favorably to other animal and vegetable protein sources, as it is low in fat and contains a substantial amount of high biological value protein. Animal studies, as well as human research, using gossypol-free glandless cottonseed flour have shown that cottonseed protein promotes growth, increased weight gain, and a positive nitrogen balance. Cottonseed protein food products have been shown to be a healthy addition to the diets of children, college-age women, and the elderly. With its light color and bland flavor, cottonseed has many uses in the food processing arena. Baked goods, snack foods and candy, as well as pet and livestock feed are just a few successful products developed utilizing cottonseed protein.
PMID: 9139299 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]
I read Pinxi’s comment as irony and responded in kind.
As a primary producer, this development looks like a winner. Two cash crops, fibre and food, from one planting, creating diversified income, greater productivity from the same land, and with the new crop having no established markets to upset. Yep, a swag of nice economic and conservation boxes to tick here.
I was intrigued by Shiller’s account of how Bt cotton was ‘commercialised’ in India by a smuggler (read free trader) supplying an enthusiasitc market – which could not then be contained by the authorities.
“Nah Pinxi” & Pinxi’s irony!? I hadn’t said anything above, for once, but perhaps people are hearing my voice inside their heads now? Poor things, I know how it feels.
But alrighty then, perhaps it’s not a modest proposal to feed the poor. Perhaps its a commercially driven political manouveur.
“Potentially, if all of the cottonseed today which is produced can be utilized for human nutrition directly, it can meet the protein requirements of 500 million people on an annual basis,” Rathore said.
The US is the largest grower and exporter of cotton. The US grows cotton at a net COST, ie tax payers fund the industry which keeps a small number of yanks in business, meanwhile a much larger number of poor African cotton farmers can’t even compete with the heavily subsidised US crop and so lack sufficient entitlements to acquire basic necessities eg food. This US situation *might* be under threat as the US farm bill is up for review so it’s in the industry’s interest to develop new markets & arguments for its crop. Then again it might just be some objective Texan scientists doing their job (in a field that survives on subsidisies).
It’s a decade away, but in the wider scheme, what advantage would this bring? A more versatile crop, I can see the benefit of that twin-purpose but who would benefit? Would it actually lead to a locally produced cheaper food source? If it got wide acceptance and then fibre use prices went up (global markets) would people relying on cottonseed as a food source suddenly go hungry? Would US cottonseed exports be dumped so its beneficiaries are no closer to being self-sufficient and still aren’t earning entitlements, ie still have no livelihood?
If it can cheaply replace the ubiquitous use of soy in baked and processed goods then perhaps its most likely market is in the US so the obese can keep gorging on ‘new’ products (“soy free – keep your thyroid happy”).
‘Nutritionally, cottonseed flour compares favorably to other animal and vegetable protein sources”
Which is another way of saying it contains nutrition like most other foodstuffs… they must have been reading the Maccas guide to a nutritious diet…
‘Baked goods, snack foods and candy’
That explains the ‘increased weight gain’ then…..
‘food processing arena’ – Ahh yes, the dark art by which manufacturers sell the public less nutritious food containing cheaper ingredients at a higher margin….
This miracle crop story is exactly what the GM publicity machine says about every new food product they have ever developed…. African sweet potato anyone?…..
‘Lamna has obviously forgotten that Bt cotton was “commercialized” in India when a seed developer, hailed by many Indian farmers as a modern “Robin Hood,” smuggled Bt cotton seed from a field trial and began black-marketing it.’ – Schiller
Interesting that Thurkettle should raise the issue of memory loss…..
‘Bt Cotton had found many takers among farmers in Punjab when it was introduced. Though the Punjab Agriculture University was against the sowing of Bt Cotton seeds, several farmers smuggled Bt Cotton seeds from Gujarat hoping better results. The yield was, however, lower than claimed.’
– By Chanchal Pal Chauhan, Tuesday, April 15, 2003
checkbiotech.org
‘The GEAC denial to commercialize Bt cotton in the northern states comes after the massive failure of Bt cotton in the southern states of India. The GEAC, in spite of being aware of ecological hazards and GM corporations’ false claims of reduced pesticide use and higher yields, had given permission to Monsanto Mahyco to commercialize Bt cotton in the southern states on March 26, 2002, and asked for a year’s additional trials in the north.
Though the official version about the Bt trials by Punjab Agricultural University is not available, independent studies by a citizen group found that the Punjab farmers have rejected the first ever genetically modified commercial cotton hybrid seed, Bt cotton, due to its poor harvest.
Malwa, a cotton- rich area in southern Punjab, is highly dependent on this cash crop, but successive failures have left farmers in the lurch. Bt cotton had found many takers among farmers in Punjab when it was introduced. Though the Punjab Agriculture University was against the sowing of Bt cotton seeds, several farmers smuggled Bt cotton seeds from Gujarat hoping for better results. The yield was, however, lower than claimed. The Daula village sarpanch Mr. Darshan Singh said, “ … We had to spray chemicals 4–5 times on Bt cotton. The crops were attacked by various pests, specially the American Bollworm. The Bt cotton yield was lower than that of the local varieties, which are more profitable….
Bt cotton was sold with the claim that it would give 15 quintals [1 quintal = 100 kgs] of yield per acre. However yields have been as low as 20 kgs in one acre. On average, yields of Bt cotton are 1.2 quintals per acre in Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh; nowhere did Bt cotton yield exceed 4 quintals/acre at the end of the harvest.
In Madhya Pradesh, in Badwani, Khargaon, Dhar and Khandwa districts, almost half the 42 farmers visited reported that their crop had failed.
Khargaon farmers faced total crop failure. In the other districts, only one expected a yield of 12.5 quintals. The average yield expected by the others was 4.01 quintals, as compared to the 15 quintals promised by Monsanto Mahyco…
Research conducted during the past few years at four domestic academic institutions shows that Bt cotton is effective in controlling the primary pest of cotton—bollworm (Helicoverpa armigera Hbner)—especially in the seedling stage of cotton. However, laboratory experiments and field research also demonstrate that there are adverse environmental impacts associated with the cultivation of Bt cotton.
1. In Chinese studies there are no significant impacts on predatory natural enemies associated with Bt cotton. However, there are associated adverse impacts on parasitic natural enemies of cotton bollworm. Consequently, the populations of parasitic natural enemies in Bt cotton fields are significantly reduced.
2. Bt cotton is not effective in controlling many secondary pests, especially sucking pests. Field experiments showed that the populations of secondary pests such as cotton aphids, cotton spider mites, thrips, lygus bugs, cotton whitefly, cotton leaf hopper and beet armyworm increased in Bt cotton fields after the target pest, bollworm, had been controlled. Some pests replaced bollworm as primary pests and damaged cotton growth. _
Some pests replaced bollworm as primary pests and damaged cotton growth.
3. The diversity indices of the insect community, the pest sub community and the pests’ natural enemies sub community, as well as the evenness index of Bt cotton fields, are all lower than those in conventional cotton fields. However, the pest-dominant concentration in Bt cotton fields is higher than in the conventional cotton fields. Therefore, the possibility of outbreaks of certain pests in Bt cotton is much higher.
4. Both laboratory tests and field monitoring have verified that cotton bollworm can develop resistance to Bt cotton. Laboratory tests for selection of Bt resistant bollworm indicated that susceptibility of bollworm to Bt cotton fell to 30% after 17 generations under continuous selection with a diet of Bt cotton leaves.
The resistance index of the bollworm increased 1000 times when the selection was continued to the 40th generation.
Based on these results, the scientists concluded that Bt cotton would probably lose its resistance to bollworm in fields after the Bt cotton has been planted for 8–10 years continuously.
5. Bt cotton demonstrates excellent resistance to the second generation bollworm and chemical control is not generally needed for the seedling period of Bt cotton.
6. However, the resistance of Bt cotton to bollworm decreases over time, and control is not complete in the third and fourth generations. The fact that farmers must use chemicals 2–3 times to control bollworm, particularly from mid July to the end of August, has been commonly recognized in China, but there are not yet effective measures to postpone resistance development or to resolve the resistance problem. A high dose of the Bt toxin protein is considered difficult to obtain, and the refuge mechanism is not easily implemented. _”
– Failure of GMOs in India by Dr V. Shiva and A. H. Jafri. 2004
Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology.
Update from Punjab Agricultural University –
‘Dr S.S.Gill, Director Extension Education, Punjab Agricultural University, today said Bt cotton was not a zero spray crop. The sucking pests, jassids and white fly, which are major pests on non-Bt cotton, damage the Bt cotton hybrids equally. In addition to these, thrips and aphids may also damage the St and non-Bt cotton crop.
All the six Bt cotton hybrids are as susceptible to the foliage-feeding pests like tobacco caterpillar, leaf folder, black and green semi-loopers as non-Bt cotton. Dr Gill said farmers should consider that Bt cotton also requires sprays. He advised them to follow the MU recommendations to save their crop from the attack of these harmful pests.’
– Ludhiana Trubune, 6th July 2005
Oh dear, Pinxi. I genuinely read your post as a light-hearted sent-up, so I responded in kind. But I wasn’t just being ironic. I was also taking the Mickey out of conspiracy theorists. Google “A Modest Proposal”, one of the blackest satires in English literature.
It’s the implications of the new GM cotton that are particularly important. Anti-GM luddites often cite:
1. GM crops only involve 20+ year-old technology that uses a hit-and-miss approach to sequence insertion, with transgene expression that can’t be controlled properly.
2. GM crops only involve the insertion of genes from other species.
The GM cotton uses cosuppression or RNAi (see this years Nobel winner) to switch off endogenous genes. What the cotton demonstrates nicely is the controlled expression of the transgene which, unlike almost all currently available commercial GM varieties, is only expressed where it is needed (in the seed) and nowhere else. Most future GMOs will use this technology, which means using the plant’s own promoter sequences, rather than viral ones.
Secondly, the way RNAi works involves no foreign genes. Basically, by putting two copies, one of which is inverted, of a section of the plant’s gene you want to switch off, you trick the plant into thinking its own gene is actually a viral gene. The plants own defense mechanisms then switch it off.
There’s plenty plants out there that are eaten, but still contain toxic compounds. This technology allows these plants to be eaten safely, with no deleterious effects.
Lamna nasus, Bt cotton IS old technology. New varieties with pyramided multiple resistance genes are in the pipeline. I imagine you would support them, as they overcome the deficiencies you mention.
Why will GM crops never be meet the claims for feeding the world’s poor?
Because the globalised biotech industry wants to sell to large customers, it is not interested in selling to individual peasant farmers… because its not cost effective….
This also works for large food manufacturers and supermarkets who also do not want to deal with individual peasant farmers… because its not cost effective…
They want to deal with large suppliers so they can use their buying power to negotiate modern ultra efficient ‘Just In Time’ supply systems… because its more cost effective…
In order to satisfy the manufacturers and supermarkets demands for cheap product and JIT systems the farmers need to keep costs to a minimum; they do this by having huge mono cropping intensive agriculture farms (created by taking over small, inefficient peasant farms) and paying poverty level wages to the peasants to work as itinerant work gangs, the farmers do not want a large number of regular employees .. because its not cost effective…
The problem is that if the farmer doesn’t need any labour for the day then peasant doesn’t get paid..
If the farmer doesn’t need any labour for a week then the peasant starves….
Nothing personal…
Its not deliberate…
Its just modern technology and free market forces…
Its got to be cost effective….
Helen, yes I’m big on send-ups, but I think you confused me with Lamna. You addressed me twice before I’d actually written anything.
You are correct Pinxi. My apologies. Lamna’s post looked so funny to me, and so like your style, that I overlooked the name.
‘There’s plenty plants out there that are eaten, but still contain toxic compounds. This technology allows these plants to be eaten safely, with no deleterious effects.’ – ~Nexus 6
Really? Those toxic substances are the plants natural resistance to pests…
So the GM industry modifies the plant to switch off the plant’s own pest defense systems and patents it..
Then the GM industry mofifies the plants to switch on resistance to pests and patents it..
The GM industry also patents the pesticides that
kill natural predators of the pest species..
The GM industry also encourages the intensive monoculture farming that encorages viral and fungal crop problems and patents the chemicals used to treat them..
You’ll excuse me if I don’t applaud….
Lamna, did you even bother to read the original article? Your conspiracy theories are becoming quite tiresome and show your ignorance about both GM technology and the makeup of the biotech industry in general.
The gene is switched off ONLY in the seed, where it isn’t needed to prevent pest attack. The toxin is produced in all other plant tissues as normal. With natural breeding, the toxin is switched off in all tissues, and the plant is useless for agriculture. The university scientists kept the plant’s defence systems intact, which is EXACTLEY the opposite of what you’re foolishly claiming.
Lamna – with cotton though it’s a major difficult issue. Cotton in Australia gets utterly everything as experience has shown. Early stages – mirids, aphids, tip-worm – later Helicoverpa (Heliothis – bollworms), mites, aphids. A veritable feast for insects.
Sources – local weeds, woodlands, and ephermeral daisy populations in central Australia.
Local Australian cotton breeders played around with traits such as frego bract, okra leaf, tannins, gossypols. (heresy for the Mississippi Deltapine good ol’ boys with their big fleshy leaves). Siokra was a major successful Australian development as a variety.
So eventually they got Bacillus thuringiensis toxin into the cotton plant which has good action against most lepidopterous pests such as Helicoverpa. 10-15 sprays per season down to 1-2. This is remarkable stuff.
And the entomologists were concerned about theoretical possibility at least of BT resistance were advocating the planting of refugia crops of non-BT cotton. I believe this happened but not sure of the present day situation in Australia.
Given most of us like to wear cotton garments -BT cotton surely has to be a good thing somehow? Or take pesticides. Or take organic cotton and have it eaten out by bugs !
Yes in order to grow Bt cotton a refuge is required under the licencing agreement. This extends the life of the product several fold by ensuring cross breeding with heliothis not exposed to Bt.
The Bt toxin has no effect on beneficial insects and has certainly reduced the amount and frequency of chemical application.
I’m not sure how this discussion ended up about Bt, as the edible seed may also be obtained from otherwise unaltered cotton.
Cotton seed has however been in the human food chain as a cooking oil, in margarine and as a feedstock for cattle so it has never been a wasted product.
Next, you will try to tell me how we can all eat wood. BS blog!
rojo, seed processors remove gossypol from cottonseed oil in the refining process. However, the toxic compound is difficult to extract from the solid parts of the seed, which contain potentially useful protein. Cottonmeal is the “wasted” product, so to speak.
Yes Lamus Indian farmers are exceptionally stupid, getting record yields, using less synthetic chemicals,exporting more cotton and continually planting more GM cotton even though Vandana Shiva keeps on telling people that its failing:
Reuters carried this in August 2006
INTERVIEW – India’s use of GM cotton seen doubling in 2007
By Biman Mukherji
MUMBAI (Reuters) – India’s cultivation of genetically modified cotton is expected to double over the next year as farmers opt for more disease-resistant seeds amid a rise in the country’s total cotton production.
Out of a total area of 8.8 million hectares under the crop in the year to the end of Sept. 2006, 1.3 million were planted with transgenic Bt cotton.
“The coming season, it should be around 3.2 million hectares,” said K.F. Jhunjhunwala, president of the East India Cotton Association, referring to the area used for Bt output in the next crop year to Sept. 2007.
He said the total area under cotton cultivation was likely to remain around 9 million hectares. “Over a period of time, Bt cotton may touch 70-75 percent of the production,”
http://www.biospectrumindia.com/content/CoverStory/10607144.asp
A Good Year Again for BioAgri
With over 81 percent growth, BioAgri industry is the fastest growing sector:
The BioAgri sector in 2005-06 has registered 81 percent growth over that in the previous year to record Rs 598 crore in revenues. The sector’s performance has been driven by Bt Cotton. The Bt Cotton seeds business alone has generated Rs 495 crore in revenues registering close to 115 percent growth compared to that the previous year. In fact, Rasi Seeds, the second company in India to make commercially available Bt cotton, became the largest seller of Bt Cotton seeds. It clocked Rs 309.5 crore in revenues, registering over 250 percent growth. Rasi Seeds in 2004-05 reported total Bt cotton seeds sales of Rs 86.9 crore. Mahyco was the second largest contributor with Rs 117.6 crore in sales. Nuziveedu Seeds and Ankur Seeds were the other two companies that were permitted to sell Bt Cotton, with Nuziveedu Seeds ending the year at Rs 62.52 crore.. ..
Of course rapeseed used to have toxins such as erucic acid in it till non-GM Canadian breeders bred out the toxins and we have canola for food. The chicken and steers fed toxin free cottonseed will grow better to giving more food.
Gavin,
Your notion of “eating wood” is actually interesting. Making what would otherwise be cellulose digestible could allow vast quantities of what is now farmland return to wilderness.
Out of the mouths of babes!
Schiller: This babe spent quite a lot of time working in the agri biz and food industry including research and knows a good bite when he sees one.