What is the deal with GMOs?

These individuals are holding signs supporting
GMOs.  The one reads "I love Monsanto."
http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/p
ro.gmo.protest.1.jpg

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are plants and animals that have had their genetic makeup altered.  This is typically done by adding various genes, from bacteria, viruses, or other animals/plants.  Consumers have very strong opinions about these products.  Still, there is minimal evidence available,

regarding the effects GMOs.

 It is important to know whether these products are good or bad.  By this I mean understanding how they impact the environment, wildlife and humans.  However, much of the information found about GMOs tends to be opinionated or biased; it usually stems from personal feelings. 

I did find one article that provides a “level-headed assessment of the evidence.”  Furthermore, within this piece, there is information about the effects of genetic modifications on human health, the environment and economy.  Yet, after reading all of the material, it is still difficult to make a firm decision of whether GMOs are completely good or bad.

            Another article I read offered beneficial and unfavorable support from GMO studies.  One risk of these crops is the potential of cross-pollination with non-GM plants.  This is detrimental because some consumers (such as China or other large scale patrons) do not want certain genes within their products.  Wheat farmers are especially worrisome of the possibility of cross-pollination because wheat is now (and since 2005) a non-genetically modified crop.  If a wheat field becomes contaminated, there is a possibility for that farmer to lose profit.

On the other hand, the GM crops are beneficial due to their “biologically insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant” and nutritious characteristics.  

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/sunday-review/g
olden-rice-lifesaver.html?_r=0

Golden Rice is an instance in which the valuable properties of GMOs can be observed.  Scientists at the International Rice Institute say that their combination of rice, corn and bacteria is beneficial because it contains a large amount of Vitamin A.  This vitamin is essential for vision and has been deficient in the past among many third world countries.  Golden Rice is also considered advantageous because it is composed mostly of rice, which is consumed by at least half of the world’s population.



http://idahobusinessreview.com/files/2013/07/wheat-1300x867.jpg

About eighty percent of the world is currently using genetically modified organisms.  Many locations, such as Asia, Europe, the U.S., Honduras allow for food alterations.  Honduras is the only country of Central America using GMOs, mostly due to the food crisis.  The rest of the region continues to grow conventional crops.  In the area near Uganda, only four countries allow the use of genetically modified crops: Egypt, Sudan, Burkina and South Africa.  There are other countries that completely ban the changing of genes. 



http://www.vitacost.com/Images/Products/1000/Westsoy/Westsoy-
Organic-Unsweetened-Soy-Milk-Vanilla-074873970838.jpg

Overall, genetically modified organisms are either completely accepted or rejected.  I personally prefer the non-GM products.  This is because I believe that there are more cons than pros, such as the potential harmful effects within humans (allergens) and the environmental damage (the recent decline of milkweed and monarchs).

There is some good news.  Even though, GMO labeling is not required in the United States, there is a way to avoid altered food: buying organic.  According to the Organic Foods Production Act, certified organic foods are only allowed to be GMO-free.

One concern with determining GMO-free foods is confusing organic with natural foods.  If you prefer food which has not been altered, then it is best to stick with organic options. 

Blast Fishing

             Blast fishing is categorized into two main techniques of fishing, cyanide and dynamite fishing. Both of these techniques destroy the tropical aquatic ecosystems that are not easily renewable. Blast fishing destroys much of the coral reefs either by bleaching or by brute force. By destroying the habitat, it decreases the diversity of populations in the ecosystem. 98% of the Philippines’ reefs are being seriously threatened by human activity today, but blast fishing remains a top technique for fishing in the region.

Dynamite fishing, as shown in the picture to the right, can be a very dangerous fishing technique. It can cause many accidents including loss of limbs to the fisherman. Coral degradation through destructive fishing practices states that dynamite alone is not the only thing used in blast fishing. Fisherman also use homemade bombs, potassium nitrate, gasoline, fertilizer, and sugar. Fisherman will throw lit dynamite into the open waters where fish live. This shocks the fish to where they float making it easier for the fisherman to collect the stunned fish. Dynamite fishing is inexpensive and effective. The bombs cost on average 1-2 U.S. dollars and they receive between 15 and 40 dollars for the fish collected. Blast fishing can destroy 10-20 square meters and large craters. In the Philippines, blast fishing is a widely used fishing technique.

                Cyanide fishing destroys thousands of hectares of essential coral reef habitats each year. Cyanide fishing is the process of crushing a cyanide tablet into a squirt bottle and squirting the solution into the water surrounding a fish. The fish becomes stunned from the poison to make it easier to capture. This allows the fish to be sold on the market alive. The market for live fish trade is booming, making hundreds of million each year. 50-60% of the trade fish from the Philippines and Indonesia are captured by cyanide fishing. Also 25% of aquarium fish are caught by cyanide and also 44% of tropical fish used for human consumption tested positive for cyanide.

                Fishing with cyanide may be great for the market but it is not good for the ecosystem. 330,000 pounds of cyanide are put into the Philippine reefs every year. This technique bleaches the corals and also effects other organisms in the environment. The recovery of corals from blast fishing is several hundred years, making this technique unsustainable.  There are laws against cyanide fishing but 14% of reefs continue to be destroyed each year in the Philippines.

Ways to prevent cyanide fishing include teaching the fisherman alternative methods of fishing and enforcing the laws more strictly,  promoting coral reef habitats by tourism, and also not buying tropical aquatic fish that have been caught by cyanide. Not ordering live tropical fish from restaurants helps lower the demand for cyanide fishing. Cyanide can be tested in fish but it is not tested often. Testing more frequently would help to catch the fisherman using this technique and fine them so they are less likely to use cyanide fishing again. To help preserve the reefs and ecosystem diversity, set up private areas where fish farms and coral can grow without the immediate danger of blast fishing.

The Plight of the Monarch Butterfly

A monarch butterfly feeding milkweed at one of the 7,450 Monarch Watch way

stations spread along migratory routes.

The monarch migration is the largest insect migration in the world.  Every year, millions of monarch butterflies travel up to 2,500 miles to the Oyael fir forests in central Mexico to overwinter.  This year is different: monarch populations have plummeted.  Monarch butterfly colonies in Mexico are now covering only .67 hectares of forest, and the population is down by almost 44% from last year’s record low of 1.19 hectares.  There are approximately 50 million butterflies per hectare, so this year Mexico could be down to about 30 million total butterflies. The monarch population has been declining for the past 15 years, by as much as 81% between 1999 and 2010, and a recent study indicates that the long-term survival of the species may be in doubt. 

The total annual area occupied by overwintering monarch butterflies from 1994 through 2014 has declined significantly. The all-time smallest area was reported during the 2013–2014 overwintering season.

Life History

      The monarchs begin their migration in Canada and the Pacific Northwest, where they feed on milkweed until metamorphosing into adults.  The migration involves a unique genetic directional imprint that is still not understood by scientists.  At the Rocky Mountains, the monarchs divide into eastern and western migratory populations.  The eastern group overwinters in Mexico, while the western group overwinters in California.  In March, before beginning their journey back, the males die.  The females travel north, each only living for a couple hundred miles, and their final task is to lay their eggs on milkweed.  The trip back north involves four generations of adult butterflies; each feeds on flowers throughout their trip before breeding and dying.  The monarch that returns to California or Mexico the following year is actually five generations removed from their last ancestor that wintered there.    

Why are the monarchs disappearing?

There are three major factors involved in the butterfly decline: severe weather, deforestation in Mexico, and most importantly, the growth of herbicide-based agriculture, which destroys milkweed. 

Milkweed is the only food of the monarch caterpillar, so if milkweed disappears, then it only makes sense that the monarchs will too.  According to the director of Monarch Watch, an organization that monitors U.S. populations, we’ve lost approximately 100 million acres of monarch habitat due to corn and soybean fields since 2000, while millions more are being lost to development.  These fields of crops are genetically modified to resist herbicides.  When the fields are sprayed with herbicides, the milkweed present in the fields is killed.  It’s been estimated that 60% of milkweed has been eliminated from the grassland ecosystem.  Herbicides also kill wildflowers, the monarchs’ source of nectar.  The nectar is essential to build up fat that the monarchs need for their migration. 

 In addition to herbicides and genetically modified crops, severe weather plays a role in the declining monarch populations.  The cold spring in 2013 held up the migration last year, which affected the monarchs breeding schedule.  Also, in 2002, the overwintering grounds in Mexico had the worst storm ever recorded.  It was estimated that approximately 75% of the monarch population was killed that year due to freezing rain and snow. In Texas, in 2012, there was a major drought.  Texas is along the path of migration, and the monarchs need to feed on nectar during their journey.  The drought caused an insufficient supply of nectar due to the death of wildflowers, and an insufficient supply of nectar can’t support the monarchs while they over winter.

Deforestation and illegal logging in the monarchs overwintering site in Mexico was a major threat to the Monarch, and aided in their decline.  The logging leads to a deterioration of the forest.  In 2007 the Mexican government began to enforce the laws and provide economic alternatives to communities.    

Other threats to the monarch include the misguided attempt at planting the wrong variety of milkweed, which could assist in the decline of monarchs.  People are planting a species of tropical milkweed, which doesn’t die during the winter.  This would allow the monarch to have year-around food and have no need for migration.  Also, the monarchs are susceptible to a deadly parasite, Ophryocystis elektroscirra, due to staying in one place for many generations.  This disease spreads when the infected butterflies drop spores on milkweed plants, which are eaten by caterpillars. 

Conservation Efforts: A Brighter Future?

A major project was taken on by Monarch Watch in hopes to increase the monarchs’ numbers.  Nearly 7,450 “way stations,” milkweed-rich areas, have been planted along migration routes on the East and West Coasts to increase feeding and breeding spots. At the University of Minnesota, a coalition of nonprofits and government agencies called Monarch Joint Venture is funding research and conservation efforts.  Other ideas are on the table, such as to push for federal legislation to stop state highway departments from mowing roadsides and to plant wildflowers and milkweed in those areas.

Although the butterflies in Mexico are the same species as the butterflies in California, California has seen an increase in wintering butterflies over the past five years.  According to experts, this increase is a result of conservation efforts.  With conservation efforts in place, there is hope for the monarch.          

Are Pesticides the Primary Contributor to the Decline of Honeybees?

http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/selhome/gbu/apis.html

The danger of losing one of the world’s most efficient pollinators is imminent- honeybees, (Apis mellifera), are on the decline in many parts of the world.

During the winter of 2006-2007, unusually high losses of 30-90% of bee hives were reported by bee farmers.  Farmers noted that the worker bee population had vanished, leaving the queen and young behind.  Oddly, the missing bees are never found dead around the hive- they disappear.  Without the worker bees in a colony, the hive eventually dies.  This sequence of events is known as colony collapse disorder (CCD).

CCD is now described as “a serious problem threatening the health of bees and the economic stability of commercial beekeeping and pollination operations”.  Bees are integral to sustaining the world’s food supply as one-third of the food we eat is directly or indirectly affected by pollination.  It is estimated that bee pollination is responsible for more than $15 billion in increased crop value each year. 

With bees on the decline, several studies over the past eight years have been trying to determine the cause of CCD.  The New York Times reports on a USDA publication which describes CCD as having several factors to the decline of honeybees.  A complex set of stressors and pathogens are thought to contribute to CCD, which are described in the following figure.  Pesticides, especially the insecticide class of neonicotinoids, are thought to be a primary driver for CCD.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22335520

 

 

Neonicotinoids are systemic insecticides, as they are taken up by the plant’s vascular system and distributed throughout the plant.  Generally, neonicotinoids are applied to the seeds of crops, but crops can also receive spray applications.  Pests ingest the toxin as they consume parts of the plant, and die as the central nervous system is affected, causing paralysis and death.  Although bees are not the target pest, the pollen and nectar of the plants contain the insecticide, which is then transported to the rest of the hive, which may induce CCD.  Other effects may include disruptions in bee mobility, navigation, feeding behavior, foraging activity, memory and learning, and overall hive activity. 

 

Discussions of placing a ban on neonicotinoids are not uncommon.  A recent report stated that the European Union (EU) has discussed placing a ban on these insecticides in hopes of boosting bee populations.  Although a majority of the EU (15 countries) voted for banning the insecticides, 8 countries voted against the ban and 4 countries abstained, because of the lacking scientific data.

John Atkins, Chief Operating Officer of Syngenta, the world’s foremost producer of neonicotinoids agrees that more scientific data is needed before a ban on neonicotinoids is instated. He states, “…a ban on neonicotinoids would simply close the door to understanding the problem’ [of bee populations declining]’’.  Syngenta also states on its page concerning decreasing bee populations, “Neonicotinoids are some of the most effective forms of crop protection technology available and have been used safely across millions of hectares of European crops. Many years of independent monitoring prove that when used properly – as they consistently are – neonicotinoids do not damage the health of bee populations”.  A YouTube video by Syngenta outlining the benefits of neonicotinoid use and potential problems with a ban is located here.

 

On the contrary, several studies indicate that the effect of neonicotinoids on bees is devastating in more ways than one.  In addition to possible CCD effects, a French study noted that exposure makes it harder for bees to return to their hive as the neonicotinoids cause confusion.  A British study found that bees do not collect enough food to sustain their hive, therefore compromising the health of the colony.  Another study linked neonicotinoid exposure to depressed immune system function.  With a depressed immune system, honeybees are more susceptible to viral and bacterial attack.

Not only do neonicotinoid exposure affect bee health, but a myriad of other pesticides do as well, according to this EcoNews article.  The study’s findings supplement the USDA’s report on several factors affecting bee populations.  In addition to the USDA’s findings, the researchers found 35 different pesticides in pollen with samples averaging 9 different pesticides ranging from neonicotinoids, pyrethroids, carbamates, organophosphates, and more.  The study suggests that neonicotinoids are not just to blame- there are other chemicals present that may cause just as much harm to bee populations. 

 

Over the years, studies have confirmed that there are several factors that contribute to CCD.  Pesticides like neonicotinoids are currently to blame for the rapid decrease in bee populations among the other causes of CCD.  Is the banning of neonicotinoids or other pesticides the best option to save the honeybee?  Or will CCD eliminate our crucial pollinators by increasing the incidence of biological elements beyond human control?

 

Fukushima and the Danger it Doesn’t Present to the U.S.

Even if you’ve lived under a rock for the last few years, it’s unlikely that you haven’t heard of the 2011 Fukushima Nuclear Plant Disaster, when an earthquake and tsunami duo caused the three main reactors in the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant to meltdown within three days. It’s also no secret that Japan is still trying to control and clean up the mess three years later—but with debris, temporary unstable water storage, and patchwork leaks, they’re having a difficult go of it. And if you’ve been on the internet, you’ve seen at least one social media post predicting the end of our days because of the radiation leaks into the Pacific Ocean.

So, if there’s radiation headed our way by ocean current, doesn’t this mean we’re doomed?!

The answer is a pleasant, “No, we’re not doomed…we’re not really even affected.” It’s true that since the meltdown, amounts of radiation contaminated water have been leaking into the ocean, but, despite what fear-mongers would have you believe, in such a vast solute as the Pacific radiation is diluted to an insignificant amount by the time it reaches our coasts. Admittedly the levels are traceable, but scientists such as Nicholas Fisher and other local West Coast governments assure that the concentrations are so low we’re exposed to higher concentrations from naturally occurring sources, like bananas.

Other biologists, including Steven Manley, are quelling the people’s fears by starting Kelp Watch 2014. In the next year, biologists up and down the West Coast will be sampling coastline kelp for radiation deposits, since they’re sponge like and soak up particles in their environment. Manley admits, that it’s “mostly because the public is freaked out by all this talk of radioactivity” and if they could “see the numbers and a commentary as to what they mean, hopefully that’ll put them at ease.” Do he and his colleagues expect to find anything significant? No, but they’re hoping the bare facts will control the doomsday beliefs.

Marine scientists, including Fisher, have already calculated the exposure rate on the coast, saying it’s roughly a tenth of our average daily dose here in the U.S. Where the worry lies, in the end, is in Japan where all the radiation is at its highest levels and undiluted by the sea.