Posted on

Fake News: CRISPR-Cas9

Here in Europe attempts are being made to get around GMO legislation by redefining what genetic engineering is.  In particular, even after the EU Court of Justice ruled that such attempts are illegal, the same arguments are being tried here in the Netherlands.

GMO ‘light’

It’s completely absurd to say this is somehow a different kind of genetic engineering.  The only ‘light’ thing about this technique is the cost and simplicity.  It used to be there was considerable cost and research behind each new genetically engineered variety, but this method can cost as little as US$75 and is much faster and easier to execute.  That means more corporate profits, but all of the other issues surrounding GMOs remain.

It’s absolutely silly to say that since this method only ‘turns off’ small parts of the genome, that this is somehow fundamentally different.

‘The question is: do you want potatoes that need to be sprayed 15 times or do you want potatoes that can do without this amount of spraying because of this technology?’

This is a ridiculous question, completely rhetorical and grounded in fake news.

For one thing, in Europe the chemicals you might spray a potato with are being phased out.  There isn’t a question of spraying a potato 15 times anymore.

There are also traditional breeding efforts underway, including F1 hybrids and organic breeding, which all show promise.

While it might seem very exciting to use genetic engineering to modify potatoes to resist blight, this has also been described as ‘gene mining’.  That is you take all the currently known genes that resist blight and put them into a single potato, something that would be very difficult with traditional breeding.  The problem with this is you can also overlook other gene ‘markers’ (combinations of genes that also resist blight), and once blight has evolved it will overcome even this resistance.  This is the same mentality behind spraying crops with chemicals, thinking even after the chemicals stop working, it will always be possible to develop new and stronger chemicals.

In fact with all GMO varieties to date promising to resist diseases or pests and reduce the need for chemicals, they have all failed in their promises.  The diseases or pests simply develop resistance, and the need for chemicals returns.  There’s no reason to think GMO potatoes will be any different.  In the case of for example bt based GMOs, these crops have seriously interfered with organic efforts.  There’s no reason to think GM potatoes won’t also interfere with organic efforts in a similar way.

A better approach is a combination of stopping with the use of chemicals, traditional breeding, permaculture techniques and improving the environment through reducing greenhouse gases and other environmental pollutants.  This will reduce the disease pressure in agriculture, and allow the potato genome to evolve and create it’s own resistance to potato blight.  In the longer term this will be a sustainable process.

Competing with Centuries of Evolution

All GMO techniques are competing with centuries of evolution.  While you might be able to find some short term quick fixes with GMOs, there’s not likely to be any major breakthroughs with genetic engineering.  It’s not likely to speed evolution.

Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) are Too Strong

Especially over the last few decades, IPR have become too strong.  These have mostly been implemented in undemocratic ways, with very unpopular trade agreements or rules put into place by international institutions inaccessible through democratic principles.

There are direct rights like patents, and indirect rights like what the Convention on Biological Diversity convey.

The economic driving power behind GMOs is too strong, and severely limits any sort of reasonable public debate.

Everyone would benefit if this sort of science existed in the public domain, and independent (amateur) scientists also had an opportunity to demonstrate what they can offer.

Nothing for the Consumer

Things like improving yields, or resistance to pests, are fine for farmers and corporate interests.  No agricultural GMO has ever been marketed according to consumer demand.  Nothing.  If science has nothing but fake news to address consumer demand with, they should accept there is nothing to put on the market.

Lack of Functioning Democracy

I guess there are problems with democracy almost everywhere, but since this post was specifically intended to address the situation in The Netherlands, let me say something about democracy here.

There is a serious deficiency of free expression here.  I understand this is a problem for many people, but it’s particularly acute for people with a foreign background or those unable to communicate fully and fluently in Dutch.  While there have been some very public examples of this recently, there’s very little acceptance this is a common problem, also in smaller less dramatic ways.

A government can simply not say there is a public consultation on an issue like this, if there is no truly democratic forum in which to express and freely discuss opinions.

Posted on

EU Air Quality Standards — Another Disaster

I received a notification for the EU Commission that they are preparing a public consultation relating to the EU air quality directives.  I decided to follow some of the links provided, and respond to the consultation, and I was really stunned by a lot of what I found.  These directives are a perfect example of science gone wrong.

I think like nearly everyone else on the planet, I like my clean air.  Remember the war on drugs?  At the time, if you were against the war on drugs, that meant you were FOR drugs, right?  This is a little bit of the same scenario.  If you are against bad science and poorly crafted directives, you must be FOR dirty air, right?

These air quality directives originate from the 1970s, and have been influenced by various international agreements and periodic reviews, but not a lot of science.  The way they function now is the EU requests a list of standards from the WHO, who in turn respond with a list of various pollutants and their corresponding limits.  These limits come with very little justification, and the WHO themselves have no meaningful transparency.  These limits come more or less directly from what has been used in the US over the last half century or so.

The EU then convenes a number of ‘expert panels’, which try to apply some science and justification to these limits, but in reality have no choice but to accept them.

Is it no surprise that these directives then in turn support very specific technologies and industries?

PM2.5

This is the so-called ‘fine’ particulate matter, very small nano-particles 2.5nm in size.  These are not to be confused with ‘coarse’ particles, PM10, 10nm in size.  These particles are all so small they can’t be seen with the human eye, and have proved very difficult to detect and measure.  In fact, we have only been aware of their existence for about 20 years, and only had good methods for measuring them for about 5 years.

There is good science to suggest these are very dangerous, and there is considered to be no safe limit of exposure.  They can cause a variety of health and environmental problems.

There are a lot of sources of these particles, including for example rubber tires driven on asphalt, and almost all sources of combustion.  In fact there are so many sources of these particles, they now realize they are present in combination with almost all other air pollutants.  This also draws into question almost every scientific study on air pollution done before 2013, since they didn’t know these particles existed and couldn’t measure them, they weren’t taken into account.  This had the effect of making all other air pollutants seem more serious than they really were.

About the only place you won’t find large numbers of these particles is the exhaust of diesel engines, because the technology of filtering these particles is considered very good, and modern cars are fitted with these filters.

Alphabet Soup with Nitrogen

Nitrogen is a very mobile element.  What I mean by that is there are a number of compounds containing nitrogen in the environment, these interact with one another, and move around.  For example, in terms of air quality, nitrogen oxide (NO) is often identified as a culprit.  In more general term, NOx is often used, because in fact NO, NO2 and NO3 are all common components of air pollution.  Often associated with this type of pollution is ozone (O3), because rather than forming NO4, you usually end up with NO + O3.

Nitrogen is part of ammonia (NH3), which is naturally occurring.   Animal and human manures are high in nitrogen.  Agricultural fertilizers are high in nitrogen.  The nutrient solutions used by industrial mega-greenhouse operations are a major source of nitrogen based air pollution here in the Netherlands.  All of these sources of nitrogen play a role in nitrogen based air pollution.  In fact, only about 15% of airborne nitrogen comes from vehicle exhaust.

Poor air quality in cities is often associated with nitrogen, because you have for example sewage treatment as a major source, as well as sometimes nearby agriculture, together with vehicle exhaust.  Plants and other vegetation which might potentially remove some of the nitrogen from the air, are often in short supply in cities.

What are the consequences of this type of pollution?  Nitrogen has definitively been identified as a trigger for childhood asthma, but the mechanism for this is poorly understood.  All other studies that have previously identified nitrogen as a danger to human health have been discredited, due to not taking into account PM2.5 (see above).  There are many scientists who do not believe nitrogen is a threat to human health.

In case you might be tempted to think I hate children, let me assure you I care about childhood asthma.  I think this link could shed light on the consequences for others as well, and I hope there is more research on this.  I do think more research is warranted before we commit so many resources to nitrogen based urban air pollution.  I also think research has to consider all sources of nitrogen air pollution, and not just diesel engines.

Effects on Plants

This being a blog primarily about agriculture issues, I have to say something about their conclusions about the effect of nitrogen based air pollution on plants.  I must admit, I laughed really hard when I read this.

This is from the position paper on NO2, dated 1999, on the EU Commission website:

2.3  Effects on vegetation by nitrogen oxides

Nitrogen oxides are absorbed by vegetation in the same way as CO2 through stomata. Nitrogen oxides are dissolved in the stomata cavity water and form nitrite and nitrate, which in turn are reduced to NH3 and eventually incorporated into organic compounds. (e. g. Wellburn, A.R., Wilson, J., Aldrige, P.H. 1980). If too much NO2 is absorbed over time, acute damage may occur in form of necrosis. Biological membranes (e. g. Mudd et al. 1984) and chloroplasts (Wellburn et al. 1972, Lopata & Ulrich, 1975) are assumed to be damaged. Acute effects occur at very high concentrations, which are seldom observed in ambient air, except near very large point sources (Stonybrook Lab., 1994). There is a range of long term exposure effects (Guderian and Tingey, 1987). Up to a certain level, no effects are observed. Above this, NO2 may stimulate growth. However, higher doses will decrease growth in relation to controls.  There is at present a dispute over which nitrogen oxides are the most toxic. Further knowledge is necessary to assess the situation.

This paper then went on to say this science justifies the safe levels of exposure for plants as established by the WHO.

If you’re a gardener, you’ll almost certainly recognize the mechanism of foliar feeding, and here it is in case you need a cited source to it.  I have posted about this before.

So basically, nitrogen fertilizes your plants.  Too much fertilizer kills your plants.  Furthermore, the science of the effects of air pollution on plants stops at the leaves of the plants.  The amount of fertilizer the plants may receive from other sources, for example what is applied by a farmer, is beyond the remit of this paper.

Other Consequences of NOx

Some of the papers on the EU Commission website mention other considerations.  For example, nitric acid is a compound that might be produced, and this in turn can be a threat to historical monuments in the form of acid rain.  I have to admit, this is beyond the scope of what I’ve already researched.

I also want to emphasize that I do recognize nitrogen as a serious environmental pollution, but I don’t think anything can be accomplished by looking at air quality out of context.  All sources of nitrogen have to be considered together, and effects on all parts of the environment have to be considered.

General Thoughts

Since we are in the process of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and phasing out fossil fuels, you have to wonder why the EU Commission is suddenly paying so much attention to air quality.  It seems the situation will be very different in 10 or 20 years time, and fossil fuel emissions will certainly decrease on their own.

In addition, as we consider ways to remove CO2 and other greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, agriculture will be key to these efforts.  It’s not likely the world will be able to remove and sequester CO2, without regenerative agriculture.  The consequence of regenerative agriculture is a buildup of nutrient rich topsoil, which is composed of nitrogen (N) and carbon (C).  We will sequester both greenhouse gases and air pollution at the same time in this way.

When as a gardener you make compost, you’re participating in this system of regenerative agriculture.  You mix the browns with the greens…

Posted on

Climate Change — Greatest Risk

This post is part of the series EU Agriculture 2020.

No more important issue exists concerning agriculture around the world.  I’ve had discussions with people in many different places over the last few months, from mountain tops in Italy to the US pacific northwest.  Climate change is destroying fragile local ecosystems, causing widespread drought, flooding, forest fires and many other natural disasters.  It’s changing growing regions, for example allowing rice to be grown further north, or wine to be produced in Holland.  It’s causing widespread devastation to crops like coffee.  It’s requiring seeds and plant varieties be adapted to new climates and diseases, almost faster than it’s humanly possible to do the breeding work.

It’s inconceivable that Europe is still pursuing biofuels, or that we are still producing electricity from coal.

It’s time to stop conflating air pollution with greenhouse gases, the latter being far more important.  Of course air pollution is important too, but climate change must have priority.  It’s time to stop talking, and time for action.  We know what we need to do.

As well as a threat to agriculture, agriculture is also a major cause of climate change.  Healthy crops, grown sustainably, builds topsoil, which is the most effective way to sequester greenhouse gases.  Wasteful agriculture like crops for biofuels, animal feeds, bioplastics and other non-human foods, are not only wasteful in fossil fuel, pesticide and chemical fertilizer use, but they also generally degrade the topsoil, releasing stored greenhouse gases.

Sustainable agriculture also reduces air pollution.  Nitrogen based air pollution is removed from the air at the same time as carbon based greenhouse gases, and these are combined to form healthy topsoil.  If you’re a gardener, you’ll certainly understand this is how compost is formed, combining the greens (N) with the browns (C).  Of course we have to deal with the sources of pollution too, but sustainable agriculture is the solution to healing the planet.

Unsustainable agriculture causes air pollution!  Mega-greenhouses in The Netherlands discharge nutrient solutions that are very damaging to the environment.  These discharges contain a lot of nitrogen, a great deal of which ends up in the air as pollution.  Factory farm feed lots are also a major source of air pollution.

It’s time to make a complete shift to sustainable agriculture.  Sustainable agriculture is not a threat to food security, food security is threatened by unsustainable agriculture.  It’s simply false to suggest we are living in a world of scarce food, or that we need more food to feed a growing world population.  We already produce roughly twice as much food as we need to feed the world.  We need to produce food smarter, with less impact on the planet, less emphasis on meat, and make more efficient use of what we have.

This is the most important thing to do, starting now.

Posted on

Apparent Solution for Glyphosate in Europe

I’ve posted about this before.  We all hate RoundUp and it’s active ingredient glyphosate.  At the same time, it’s important not to let Monsanto and Bayer take this product off the market, for the purpose of replacing it with more expensive and possibly more dangerous patented products.

I’m not directly involved in the discussions or negotiations, and I haven’t seen any texts or summaries of proposed legislation.  All I know is what I read on the Internet.

What I read is being discussed is a proposal made by France, and backed by Italy.  This would apparently extend the glyphosate license for 5-7 years, with some important restrictions.  First of all the retail sale to home gardeners would be stopped, and use by non-professionals would be forbidden.  Secondly, use by farmers would only be allowed if no organic alternatives exist.

Again, based only on what I read on the Internet, these seem like positive developments, and I would support them.

Posted on

The Glyphosate Debate — EU Politics at it’s Peak

EU Commission

The Commission has been debating the extension of the licensing for herbicide glyphosate, the active ingredient in Round Up.  There is a lot of pressure both for renewing it, as well as not.  As a sort of compromise, the Commission has proposed renewing it for 10 years instead of the usual 15.

In a surprise last minute move, the Commission decided to put the matter to a vote of the EU member states, with the default action being no renewal at all, unless a qualified majority votes in favor of extension.  This seemed to reflect some irritation at member states like France and Germany which campaigned hard for a system of qualified voting based on their large populations, only to opt out of issues like this entirely, effectively using their qualified status to silently sink a large number of measures.  The EU Commission would like the qualified status to not be taken into account when no vote is cast, and this is all apparently to make a point on this issue.

Until now, they have received a response from 8 out of 28 member states, but decline to say which ones.

The Fake ECI

I’ve posted before about the European Citizens’ Initiative that was staged on this issue.  It’s just not possible to gather 1,000,000 signatures in Europe without any reports of public events mentioned on the Internet, besides two in Brussels put on by Greenpeace.  Also articles I posted about it got little attention from the Internet, suggesting that even if people were signing the initiative, no one was really interested enough in it to research it on the Internet.  It’s just 1.3M signatures that appeared out of nowhere.  Activists organizations are touting heavily the merits of this fake ECI.

Monsanto, Bayer and Syngenta

Monsanto and Bayer, who are in the process of merging, have remained largely silent on the issue.  While they both have seed varieties that are Round Up Ready, and apparently dependent on Round Up, they both would seem to benefit far more by having a patented product removed from the market, allowing more room for patented alternatives.  Syngenta has even gone so far as to announce it has an patentable alternative in the pipeline.

The Activists

While it’s no secret activist organizations often act according to business interests, it seems a little incredible they are openly towing the line of the pesticide companies.  In fact they seem to be doing everything possible to boost corporate profits.

While the pesticide companies remain silent, the activists speak on their behalf.  The activists seem to care less about the impact this would have on small farmers and their communities.

The Farmers

The farmers are lobbying very hard to keep glyphosate on the market, because it’s a tool many of them depend on, and they are simply screwed if they are forced onto another more expensive patented product.

Restrictions

Again and again the subject of restrictions come up.  Glyphosate would be a much less contaminating substance if it was only used on farms, and in a way that minimized unnecessary contamination.  For example forbid it’s use by private parties and in public spaces, and establish clear rules when it can be used on a farm.

Even though this comes up again and again, there’s been no action from the Commission on this idea.

France

France is the only member state to publicly announce they have responded to the Commission on the issue.  The response however is far from clear.

The Macron government says they reject the 10 year renewal proposal as put forth by the Commission.  At the same time they say they will ask the Commission to put forth another plan for phasing out the herbicide.  They maintain that for now farmers need to keep using the product.

Macron suggested that he thought it might be good if glyphosate remained on the market for the rest of his term in office, about 5 years.  Another government spokesperson suggested 7 years might be better.  Macron himself firmly denies any time limit has been given.

This seems to be intended to keep all parties a little bit happy, and undermine the EU commissions effort to base the decision on a qualified majority.  The farmers support this position, because they say before they had nothing.

Germany and The Netherlands

Both these countries recently had elections, and are in the process of forming coalition governments.  Here in the Netherlands there doesn’t seem to be any light at the end of the tunnel, and it looks to be very difficult in Germany as well.

As far as I know nothing has been said about this in the Netherlands, and I don’t expect any issue to be taken on this.  As far as I know, we don’t even have an acting agriculture minister, because the last one quit in the middle of the eggs being contaminated by Fipronil scandal.

In Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel has said if it were up to her party, she would like to renew glyphosate and help the farmers.  She is however in the process of forming a coalition, and it depends on the other parties too.  By custom, when there is no agreement, there is no position taken, and it seems likely Germany won’t take a position.

The UK

The UK seems likely to support a renewal of the glyphosate license, but does this matter?  Are they even still a voting member of the EU, or will they choose to vote under the circumstances?  How does this fit in with the EU Commission requirement of a qualified majority?

The Vote

The vote on this issue was due at the beginning of October, but the Commission now says it will be considerably after that.  The deadline is the end of the year when the current glyphosate license ends.  Are we looking at another short term renewal?  This would certainly be the European way.