I read this poem from Shel Silverstein's "Where the Sidewalk Ends" tonight, and thought I'd share it to hopefully spur some intelligent discussion on the relevance of polical debate to the everyday lives of real people. There is definitely good reason we live in a representative democracy. Most people just want to be left alone. Well, enjoy:
OUTSIDE OR UNDERNEATH?
Bob bought a hundred-dollar suit
But couldn't afford any underwear.
Says he, "If your outside looks real good
No one will know what's under there."
Jack bought some hundred-dollar shorts
But wore a suit with rips and tears.
Says he, "It won't matter what people see
As long as I know what's under there."
Tom bought a flute and a box of crayons,
Some bread and cheese and a golden pear.
And as for his suit or his underwear
He doesn't think about them much...or care.
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Politics and Civility
As much as I dislike blindly forwarded e-mails, especially political ones, I thank Tora for sending me a link to the recent Catholic Church ad. I was disappointed by the text before the link referencing "Dems." It almost made me delete the e-mail without even clicking the link. But I didn't, and what I experienced was both powerful and refreshing. (It can be found on youtube if you haven't seen it.)More than the specific issues that were raised in the ad, I was impressed by the tone of it. This is what I got out of the message:
"We won't tell you which person or party you should choose to represent you in government. However, here are the principle values we think you should base your decision on. We trust your intelligence and morality. Please, vote your values."
I wish more political discussions around this time were about issues and how they relate to our personal values than "what type of person someone must be if they support a different candidate than I do". Isn't life about exercising our agency? Aren't there multiple valid approaches to every problem depending on what order we place our values in?
I believe that two equally moral people may have the same set of core values, and yet depending on the order of importance they place them in, may come up with drastically different opinions on the morality of a particular policy.
In addition to that, I believe two equally intelligent and educated persons can have differing opinions about the best way to address an issue of importance based upon their individual expertise, culture, and life experiences.
For anyone who disagrees with this thinking, I would ask you:
"Why else would the leaders of government, religion, and business alike, consistently surround themselves with counselors and experts of all sorts?"
"Why else would a two-party dominated, democratic republic be the most successful governmental model in the world?"
For anyone who thinks that an incomplete subset of facts (and that is all any of us can hope to have at our disposal) will lead all intelligent, moral, passionate people to the same conclusion, do yourself a favor and read a book on the history and development of science before you further embarass yourself, and alienate your close friends.
When it comes to politics, above all, I call for civility.
Discuss...
~Ammon
"We won't tell you which person or party you should choose to represent you in government. However, here are the principle values we think you should base your decision on. We trust your intelligence and morality. Please, vote your values."
I wish more political discussions around this time were about issues and how they relate to our personal values than "what type of person someone must be if they support a different candidate than I do". Isn't life about exercising our agency? Aren't there multiple valid approaches to every problem depending on what order we place our values in?
I believe that two equally moral people may have the same set of core values, and yet depending on the order of importance they place them in, may come up with drastically different opinions on the morality of a particular policy.
In addition to that, I believe two equally intelligent and educated persons can have differing opinions about the best way to address an issue of importance based upon their individual expertise, culture, and life experiences.
For anyone who disagrees with this thinking, I would ask you:
"Why else would the leaders of government, religion, and business alike, consistently surround themselves with counselors and experts of all sorts?"
"Why else would a two-party dominated, democratic republic be the most successful governmental model in the world?"
For anyone who thinks that an incomplete subset of facts (and that is all any of us can hope to have at our disposal) will lead all intelligent, moral, passionate people to the same conclusion, do yourself a favor and read a book on the history and development of science before you further embarass yourself, and alienate your close friends.
When it comes to politics, above all, I call for civility.
Discuss...
~Ammon
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Genetically Modified Crops
I posted on a blog for one of my seminar classes on food justice. There is a really interesting article I read for another class about genetically modified food and would love you hear your thoughts.
Here is a link to the article in context and with references.
It is also illegally copied below.
Jonathan D. G. Jones
Abstract
This paper is intended to convey the message of the talk I gave at the Theo Murphy meeting at the Kavli Centre in July 2010. It, like the talk, is polemical, and conveys the exasperation felt by a practitioner of genetically modified (GM) plant science at its widespread misrepresentation. I argue that sustainable intensification of agriculture, using GM as well as other technologies, reduces its environmental impact by reducing pesticide applications and conserving soil carbon by enabling low till methods. Current technologies (primarily insect resistance and herbicide tolerance) have been beneficial. Moreover, the near-term pipeline of new GM methods and traits to enhance our diet, increase crop yields and reduce losses to disease is substantial. It would be perverse to spurn this approach at a time when we need every tool in the toolbox to ensure adequate food production in the short, medium and long term.
1. Introduction
Are genetically modified (GM) crop methods and agriculture relevant to the climate change and energy security agendas? I believe the answer is ‘Yes’ for a simple reason; we need to maximize crop yields, which GM can promote and protect. Numerous publications highlight what John Beddington has referred to as ‘the perfect storm’ facing food production. We need at least 50 per cent more food production by 2030, with little scope for additional cultivated land, with more expensive energy, with no more availability of water and the unpredictable consequences of climate change. Any farming strategy that lowers yield will require more land to produce the same amount of food, and the ploughing of uncultivated land for agriculture is one of the most environmentally damaging of human activities. The cost of energy directly impacts the cost of nitrogen fertilizer, without which yields would decline substantially. A recent Royal Society report (http://royalsociety.org/Reapingthebenefits/) addressed how science and technology could raise crop yields, and concluded that we need both improved farming methods, better resources for training and research in the food production sector, and to use all available tools to increase the yield potential of crop varieties.
To increase yields, plant breeders select recombinant genotypes with enhanced performance in agricultural conditions. Despite progressively more sophisticated methods to measure variation in useful traits, and the advent of molecular markers to assist selection of specific genes during breeding, yields in important crops such as wheat have hardly increased in the last 10 years. Further improvements in performance by breeding can be anticipated, but it is questionable whether this will enable sufficient increases in food production. In part, this lack of improvement reflects reduced investment by the private sector in improving crops such as wheat whose seed can be saved by farmers, reducing return on breeder investment. More investment has gone into crops such as maize whose seeds are sold as F1 hybrids that must be purchased each year.
GM provides an additional technology to improve crop performance and yields, and to protect those yields from pests and diseases. GM signifies ‘genetic modification’. Of course, this term is not scientific. Darwin used the phrase ‘descent with modification’ for the process that underpins evolution, and plant breeding has created crop plants that are highly modified and visually distinct from their wild ancestors. To reserve the term GM for plants into which an extra gene has been added using Agrobacterium is to distort the meaning of the word ‘modification’. It should be noted that most crop plants carry at least 1 gigabase of DNA sequence; to add 10 kilobase of sequence results in a plant that is 99.999 per cent identical to its antecedent. Nevertheless, I will adopt common parlance and refer to GM crops.
What GM crops exist and why have farmers been happy to plant them? Farmers need to control weeds, and since hand-weeding millions of hectares is impractical, chemical herbicides are widely used. However, both weeds and crops are plants, and chemicals are required that kill the weed but not the crop. Herbicide tolerance (HT) is a major GM trait, particularly tolerance to glyphosate, usually sold under the trade name RoundUp. Glyphosate inhibits the enzyme EPSP synthase that is required for aromatic amino acid biosynthesis. The RoundUp Ready (RR) gene encodes a form of EPSP synthase that can no longer be inhibited by glyphosate. Glyphosate is not reported to have mammalian toxicity, is rapidly inactivated upon contact with soil, and is less persistent and polluting than most other herbicides. The RR gene has been widely deployed in soybeans, maize, oil seed rape (canola) and cotton. Other HT genes confer resistance to glufosinate (made by Bayer), sulfonylureas (DuPont), imidazolinones (BASF) and dicamba (2,4-D). However, like any other antibiotic, overuse of one herbicide can result in selection of resistant weed variants. Extensive use of glyphosate in soybean since 1996 has led to the appearance of ten different weed species that can tolerate RoundUp; these have become widespread and problematic in some parts of the USA. The presence of additional HT traits should address this problem. Since weed control is so important for yields, it is essential that sustainable HT strategies for weed control are implemented, in which the type of herbicide applied to a particular field is regularly rotated to prevent build-up of resistance in weed populations.
The second widely adopted GM trait has been insect resistance via engineering plants to express the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) crystal protein. This class of protein is lethal to larvae of various insects where it impairs uptake of nutrients from the gut. It has no mammalian toxicity. Different Bt proteins from various Bt strains show different specificities; one acts against corn rootworm (a Coleopteran beetle larva). Bt genes have been commercially deployed in cotton (to reduce losses to boll weevil and related Lepidopteran larvae) and maize (to reduce losses to corn borer and corn rootworm). Bacteria expressing Bt crystal protein are applied by organic farmers to control insects.
GM crops have been rapidly adopted since 1996. In UK supermarkets, a GM tomato paste developed by Zeneca sold well during 1996–1999; the GM trait slowed fruit softening and resulted in a better and cheaper paste. In 2009, 14 million farmers worldwide grew GM crops on approximately 134 million hectares, with developing country GM crop area nearly matching that in industrial countries (primarily the USA) [1]. GM continues to be rapidly adopted. RR sugarbeet achieved a 95 per cent adoption in the USA and Canada in 2009, in only its third year, making it the fastest adopted biotech globally to-date. In 2009 ‘for the first time, more than three-quarters (77%) of the 90 million hectares of soybean grown globally were biotech; for cotton, almost half (49%) of the 33 million hectares were biotech; for maize, over a quarter (26%) of the 158 million hectares grown globally were biotech; and finally for canola, 21% of the 31 million hectares were biotech’ [1].
Section2. GM crop outcomes
What are the consequences of this widespread adoption? According to both individual farmers and surveys, a significant environmental benefit of HT technology is reduced tillage, enabling greater carbon sequestration in RR soy fields than in non-GM soy cultivation. Another valuable benefit is reduced applications of insecticides to Bt cotton and Bt maize.
The most comprehensive analyses of benefits have come from ISAAA [1] and from PG Economics [2]. Their conclusions are broadly supported by analyses from the Royal Society and from the US National Academy of Sciences. Rather than attempt to paraphrase, I will simply quote from the ISAAA and PG Economics analyses.
‘In 2009, 5.6 million small and marginal resource-poor farmers in India planted and benefited from 8.381 (approx. 8.4) million hectares of Bt cotton, equivalent to 87% of the 9.636 (approx. 9.6) million hectare national cotton crop’ [1].
‘The deployment of Bt cotton over the last eight years has resulted in India becoming the number one exporter of cotton globally as well as the second largest cotton producer in the world. Bt cotton has literally revolutionized cotton production in India. In the short span of seven years, 2002 to 2008, Bt cotton has generated economic benefits for farmers valued at US$5.1 billion, halved insecticide requirements, contributed to the doubling of yield and transformed India from a cotton importer to a major exporter. In 2008 alone, the benefits accruing from Bt cotton in India were an impressive US$1.8 billion’ [1].
‘Progress in the first decade includes a significant reduction in pesticides, saving on fossil fuels, and decreasing CO2 emissions through no/less ploughing, and conserving soil and moisture by optimizing the practice of no till through application of herbicide tolerance. The accumulative reduction in pesticides for the period 1996 to 2008 was estimated at 356 million kilograms (kgs) of active ingredient (a.i.), a saving of 8.4% in pesticides’ [1].
‘Of the economic gains of US$51.9 billion during the period 1996 to 2008, 49.6% were due to substantial yield gains, and 50.4% due to a reduction in production costs. In 2008, the total crop production gain globally for the 4 principal biotech crops (soybean, maize, cotton and canola) was 29.6 million metric tonnes, which would have required 10.5 million additional hectares had biotech crops not been deployed. The 29.6 million metric tonnes of increased crop production from biotech crops in 2008 comprised 17.1 million tonnes of maize, 10.1 million tonnes of soybean, 1.8 million tonnes of cotton lint and 0.6 million tonnes of canola. For the period 1996–2008 the production gain was 167.1 million tonnes, which (at 2008 average yields) would have required 62.6 million additional hectares had biotech crops not been deployed’ [1].
According to Brookes & Barfoot at PG Economics, ‘Biotech crops have contributed to significantly reducing the release of greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural practices. This results from less fuel use and additional soil carbon storage from reduced tillage with biotech crops. In 2008, this was equivalent to removing 15.6 billion kg of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or equal to removing 6.9 million cars from the road for one year’ [2]. ‘Of the total farm income benefit, 50.5% ($26.25 billion) has been due to yield gains, with the balance arising from reductions in the cost of production. Two thirds of the yield-gain derives from adoption of insect resistant crops and the balance from herbicide tolerant crops’ [2].
An underappreciated benefit of rootworm resistant maize is that a bigger (uneaten) root system captures water and nitrogen more efficiently, and Monsanto [3] have reported improved yield under water-limiting conditions of rootworm-resistant maize. Another benefit is that maize cobs derived from Bt maize often show reduced mycotoxin levels, because Fusarium and Aspergillus fungi that make these toxins often enter through holes made by caterpillars in the cob or stem [4]. Thus, Bt maize is often safer to eat.
Plant diseases lead to substantial losses, many of which can be reduced with GM crops. By developing papaya lines that express the coat protein from papaya ringspot virus (PRV), Gonsalves et al. essentially saved the Hawaiian papaya industry, which was close to being abandoned due to losses from PRV [5,6].
Section3. Concerns about GM crops
Why has the adoption of this approach to solving agricultural problems and increasing the performance of crop varieties proved so unpalatable to the public? It is worth considering separately (i) why have activist groups and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) targeted the technology so vigorously? (ii) Why have the public believed the NGO propaganda?
NGOs such as Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and the Soil Association are highly critical of multi-national corporations (MNCs) such as Monsanto acquiring excessive commercial control of the seed supply. There are legitimate concerns about monopoly control exercised by MNCs on any technology they dominate, but control of the food supply is a particularly sensitive issue, so NGO activism has touched a nerve. This anxiety has helped NGOs earn donations by campaigning against GM, encouraging continuation of their opposition. The Soil Association in particular advocates organic farming, and has stipulated that organic farmers cannot grow GM varieties; I regard its opposition to GM as ‘promoting its brand’. In the UK, it is unfortunate that the Thatcher government privatized the Plant Breeding Institute in 1988. If GM varieties had been brought forward in the UK by public sector researchers, perhaps GM would have been more acceptable to the public.
Campaigners against GM cite studies from Pusztai and others that purport to show a damaging effect of a GM diet on animal health [7]. The Royal Society assessment of Pusztai’s work concluded that his inferences regarding the safety of GM food were unwarranted. There are other claims of animal ill health or reduced fertility from eating GM soy [8], none of which have provided credible grounds for disquiet; these reports have never appeared in peer-reviewed scientific literature. GM food of various kinds has been in the human food chain for over 14 years without any evidence of or grounds to suspect harm.
The emergence of RoundUp resistant weeds reminds us that when we manage an agricultural system to reduce losses to weeds, pests and disease, we impose selection on the pest population to circumvent any management tool we impose. With hindsight, it would have been better to implement earlier a rotation of the HT weed management system [9]. Farmers preferred the RR system because RoundUp is relatively cheap, and because high-performing varieties resistant to other herbicides were not available when HT technology was first deployed.
Bt technology is extremely effective against Lepidopteran larvae. However, if farmers cease to apply any insecticides at all, other insects, such as mirid bugs, can become a problem. This has happened in China [10]. We do not yet have plants that are resistant to all their potential insect pests, though we are getting closer to that as new technology becomes available. Until that time, some insecticide use is unavoidable.
Concern has been expressed that GM varieties could ‘contaminate’ other varieties. If GM were not such a sensitive issue, this would matter no more than an admixture of some existing variety with another. No GM trait or variety is authorized for agriculture without rigorous assessment of its safety, so any such admixture is not of public health concern. The seed industry is already able to ensure that poisonous high erucic acid rapeseed is not mixed with rapeseed destined to produce oil for human consumption. However, for those with deeply held beliefs that GM is bad, such admixture is seen as violating their right to avoid the technology, which imposes difficulties. What degree of intolerance from such individuals is society prepared to accept, given the cost of imposing very high standards of ‘GM freedom’, and the lack of scientific evidence that such intolerance is scientifically justified?
Could GM crops ‘escape’ and become a problem in the environment? In most agricultural landscapes, cultivated plants dominate, and it is no surprise that spillages of seed sometimes occur on roadsides, resulting in isolated populations of crop plants along the highway. If the crops are mostly GM, the spillages will often be GM too. However, because cultivated varieties do not compete well without fertilizer, weed control and crop protection chemicals, no such ‘escapes’ have resulted in persistent problems.
Although particular activist groups energetically campaign against GM crops, it should be noted that some campaigners with strong Green credentials are in favour of the technology. Notably, Stewart Brand, founder of the Whole Earth Catalog, in his recent book has argued that to save the planet we need GM crops for food security, and nuclear power to address pending energy shortfalls [11].
Section4. GM traits recently deployed or likely to be deployed in the next five years
Although most GM crop varieties to date carry HT or Bt genes, some new traits are close to deployment. This account is not exhaustive; there are simply too many traits ‘in the pipeline’ for all to be highlighted, but a selected few are mentioned below. Information about pending GM releases is available in the ISAAA documentation and at websites of the major companies, particularly Monsanto.
Seeds store phosphate in the form of inositol 6 phosphate (phytic acid). When eaten by domestic animals such as pigs and chickens, phytic acid passes through the gut unprocessed and the resulting PO4-rich effluent promotes water eutrophication. China has approved deployment of maize that expresses the enzyme phytase in the seed, which breaks down phytic acid; after hydrolysis of phytic acid by phytase during digestion, the phosphorus is available to the animal and does not pollute watercourses [12].
China has also approved Bt rice that carries elevated resistance to rice stem borers, which cause 10–15% yield losses [1].
Monsanto released in 2010 a so-called ‘SmartStax’ maize line that carries eight different transgenes, two of which confer herbicide resistance (to glyphosate and glufosinate) and six of which are Bt genes targeted against either corn borer or root worm.
Two different genes have been developed by Monsanto and commercial partners to confer enhanced drought tolerance in maize, one of which (CspB from Bacillus) may enter commerce as soon as 2012 [13,14]. These genes are also being made available to the WEMA (water efficient maize for Africa) consortium.
Genes that offer direct consumer benefit are also becoming available. Soybean and other oilseeds accumulate significant levels of linolenic acid. To make margarine, the double bonds in these 18-carbon molecules must be hydrogenated using hydrogen and a catalyst; the resulting chemicals include partially hydrogenated ‘trans-fatty acids’ that have not previously been part of the human diet. Soy oil with reduced levels of linolenic acid produces less trans-fatty acids upon hydrogenation. Monsanto has also developed a soybean line that accumulates elevated levels of stearidonic acid in the seed; this 18:4, ω-3 fatty acid is more stable than fish oil, but is converted in the bodies of humans and domestic animals to eicosapentanoic acid or docosahexaenoic acid, long chain polyunsaturated ω-3 fatty acids that promote circulatory health.
Despite virulent opposition from NGOs, Golden Rice lines with elevated levels of beta carotene should finally become available in 2012 that can reduce the incidence of blindness and death in children resulting from inadequate levels of vitamin A [15]. Vitamin A deficiency is a serious nutritional problem, causing multiple adverse health outcomes.
In India, aubergine (also known as eggplant or brinjal) is subject to severe losses from caterpillars; insecticides are widely applied to reduce these losses. Bt brinjal resists the caterpillars and reduces the need for insecticide applications. In 2010, permission for Bt brinjal was first approved and then withdrawn, but I expect Bt brinjal to be deployed in the next 5 years.
Section5. Longer term challenges, opportunities and GM solutions
Again, this account cannot be exhaustive; I draw primarily from my own field of expertise of plant disease and disease resistance. It illustrates the fact that there are many small solutions (often from the public sector) to many small problems available or pending, but none of them will be deployed if the cost of regulation remains excessive.
A major disease of tomato in southern Florida is bacterial spot caused by Xanthomonas sp. The pepper Bs2 gene confers durable resistance to Xanthomonas; GM tomatoes carrying pepper Bs2 are resistant in the field to this disease [16], and efforts are underway to introduce this pepper gene into public tomato varieties for Florida. Late blight caused by Phytophthora infestans is a very destructive disease of potato and tomato, resulting in $6.7 billion in annual losses worldwide [17]. Several resistance genes have been cloned from wild potato relatives that confer resistance to potato late blight [18–20]. Transgenic lines show resistance in the field, though it is unlikely that any one blight resistance gene will be durable, and appropriate and varying combinations of resistance genes need to be defined. A major disease of solanaceous and other crops in the humid subtropics is bacterial wilt caused by Ralstonia solanacearum. An arabidopsis receptor protein, EFR, activates defence upon recognition of bacterial Ef-Tu. This recognition capacity is absent from tomato and other solanaceae. When arabidopsis EFR is introduced into tomato, the resulting lines show greatly enhanced resistance to bacterial diseases, including R. solanacearum [21].
Two particularly devastating diseases await durable resistance solutions. Black Sigatoka of banana caused by Mycosphaerella fijiensis constitutes a serious constraint on banana production; essentially all bananas consumed in the West derive from one variety (Cavendish) that is extremely susceptible. No proven GM solutions are currently available, but several promising approaches are currently being tested. A new strain of wheat stem rust caused by Puccinia graminis, Ug99, appeared in Africa 12 years ago. There is immense diversity in wild grasses for resistance to this strain [22,23], but introduction of these resistance genes by breeding into productive varieties is immensely time consuming and fraught with difficulty. An alternative is to directly clone these R genes from these wild relatives and introduce them into cultivated wheat using GM methods.
Tomatoes have been engineered to accumulate high levels of the antioxidants anthocyanin (‘the purple tomato’) and flavonols. Incorporation of purple tomato material into the diet of cancer-prone rats extends their lifespan [24]. This technology could be rapidly deployed, but consumer acceptance will limit when it appears on supermarket shelves.
Nitrogen fertilizer is made by the energy-intensive Haber process. Not all applied fertilizer is taken up by crops, resulting in leaching of nitrate into water-courses and the risk of eutrophication. It would be desirable to elevate the efficiency of uptake by crops and an alanine aminotransferase gene shows promise for conferring improved nitrogen use efficiency [25]. Longer term, it would be highly desirable for the capacity to establish a symbiosis with nitrogen-fixing Rhizobium bacteria to be extended from leguminous plants to others [26].
Other solutions to problems require more research before they can be deployed, but will necessarily involve use of GM methods for their application. Plants have been engineered for more efficient photosynthesis [27,28], but crops with enhanced photosynthesis derived from these technologies have yet to be demonstrated in the field.
Section6. Conclusion and overview
GM is a method to introduce new genes that can improve crop performance. In the last 14 years, both GM HT and insect resistance have been enthusiastically adopted by farmers in the USA, Argentina, Brazil, India and China. The outcomes have broadly been positive; easier weed control, better insect control with reduced insecticide applications, increased carbon sequestration by low till agriculture, and increased farm incomes. However, activists in Europe have greatly retarded adoption of GM, and the public has been misled by unwarranted criticisms of the technology from its opponents. This is unhelpful at a time when we need to use all available technology to secure food supplies over the next 20–40 years.
Europeans should consider the following questions about GM. First, why is so little consideration given to the costs of not using GM? For example, in the UK alone, farmers spend approximately £50 million per year to control late blight, and a 10 year delay in solving the problem thus costs £500 million. The major beneficiaries from any such delay are the fungicide manufacturers such as Bayer and Syngenta, and the major losers are consumers. Second, European politicians generally support the desirability of strengthening the European bioeconomy, but how are we to compete successfully with the USA when our regulatory burden is so much more severe? Companies such as Monsanto are the major beneficiaries from excessive and expensive regulation; it increases the barriers to entry from competitors, and maintains their monopoly position. Third, EU taxpayers spend considerable sums both nationally and Europe-wide on plant science and technology that could result via GM in EU crops with better performance and reduced environmental impact. However, excessive regulation is preventing EU taxpayers from benefitting from their own investment—why? Finally, EU regulations on import of GM crops are influencing policies in developing countries and retarding the deployment of solutions to problems of food availability and quality. How can the harm that results from these European anti-GM prejudices be justified?
Here is a link to the article in context and with references.
It is also illegally copied below.
Jonathan D. G. Jones
Abstract
This paper is intended to convey the message of the talk I gave at the Theo Murphy meeting at the Kavli Centre in July 2010. It, like the talk, is polemical, and conveys the exasperation felt by a practitioner of genetically modified (GM) plant science at its widespread misrepresentation. I argue that sustainable intensification of agriculture, using GM as well as other technologies, reduces its environmental impact by reducing pesticide applications and conserving soil carbon by enabling low till methods. Current technologies (primarily insect resistance and herbicide tolerance) have been beneficial. Moreover, the near-term pipeline of new GM methods and traits to enhance our diet, increase crop yields and reduce losses to disease is substantial. It would be perverse to spurn this approach at a time when we need every tool in the toolbox to ensure adequate food production in the short, medium and long term.
1. Introduction
Are genetically modified (GM) crop methods and agriculture relevant to the climate change and energy security agendas? I believe the answer is ‘Yes’ for a simple reason; we need to maximize crop yields, which GM can promote and protect. Numerous publications highlight what John Beddington has referred to as ‘the perfect storm’ facing food production. We need at least 50 per cent more food production by 2030, with little scope for additional cultivated land, with more expensive energy, with no more availability of water and the unpredictable consequences of climate change. Any farming strategy that lowers yield will require more land to produce the same amount of food, and the ploughing of uncultivated land for agriculture is one of the most environmentally damaging of human activities. The cost of energy directly impacts the cost of nitrogen fertilizer, without which yields would decline substantially. A recent Royal Society report (http://royalsociety.org/Reapingthebenefits/) addressed how science and technology could raise crop yields, and concluded that we need both improved farming methods, better resources for training and research in the food production sector, and to use all available tools to increase the yield potential of crop varieties.
To increase yields, plant breeders select recombinant genotypes with enhanced performance in agricultural conditions. Despite progressively more sophisticated methods to measure variation in useful traits, and the advent of molecular markers to assist selection of specific genes during breeding, yields in important crops such as wheat have hardly increased in the last 10 years. Further improvements in performance by breeding can be anticipated, but it is questionable whether this will enable sufficient increases in food production. In part, this lack of improvement reflects reduced investment by the private sector in improving crops such as wheat whose seed can be saved by farmers, reducing return on breeder investment. More investment has gone into crops such as maize whose seeds are sold as F1 hybrids that must be purchased each year.
GM provides an additional technology to improve crop performance and yields, and to protect those yields from pests and diseases. GM signifies ‘genetic modification’. Of course, this term is not scientific. Darwin used the phrase ‘descent with modification’ for the process that underpins evolution, and plant breeding has created crop plants that are highly modified and visually distinct from their wild ancestors. To reserve the term GM for plants into which an extra gene has been added using Agrobacterium is to distort the meaning of the word ‘modification’. It should be noted that most crop plants carry at least 1 gigabase of DNA sequence; to add 10 kilobase of sequence results in a plant that is 99.999 per cent identical to its antecedent. Nevertheless, I will adopt common parlance and refer to GM crops.
What GM crops exist and why have farmers been happy to plant them? Farmers need to control weeds, and since hand-weeding millions of hectares is impractical, chemical herbicides are widely used. However, both weeds and crops are plants, and chemicals are required that kill the weed but not the crop. Herbicide tolerance (HT) is a major GM trait, particularly tolerance to glyphosate, usually sold under the trade name RoundUp. Glyphosate inhibits the enzyme EPSP synthase that is required for aromatic amino acid biosynthesis. The RoundUp Ready (RR) gene encodes a form of EPSP synthase that can no longer be inhibited by glyphosate. Glyphosate is not reported to have mammalian toxicity, is rapidly inactivated upon contact with soil, and is less persistent and polluting than most other herbicides. The RR gene has been widely deployed in soybeans, maize, oil seed rape (canola) and cotton. Other HT genes confer resistance to glufosinate (made by Bayer), sulfonylureas (DuPont), imidazolinones (BASF) and dicamba (2,4-D). However, like any other antibiotic, overuse of one herbicide can result in selection of resistant weed variants. Extensive use of glyphosate in soybean since 1996 has led to the appearance of ten different weed species that can tolerate RoundUp; these have become widespread and problematic in some parts of the USA. The presence of additional HT traits should address this problem. Since weed control is so important for yields, it is essential that sustainable HT strategies for weed control are implemented, in which the type of herbicide applied to a particular field is regularly rotated to prevent build-up of resistance in weed populations.
The second widely adopted GM trait has been insect resistance via engineering plants to express the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) crystal protein. This class of protein is lethal to larvae of various insects where it impairs uptake of nutrients from the gut. It has no mammalian toxicity. Different Bt proteins from various Bt strains show different specificities; one acts against corn rootworm (a Coleopteran beetle larva). Bt genes have been commercially deployed in cotton (to reduce losses to boll weevil and related Lepidopteran larvae) and maize (to reduce losses to corn borer and corn rootworm). Bacteria expressing Bt crystal protein are applied by organic farmers to control insects.
GM crops have been rapidly adopted since 1996. In UK supermarkets, a GM tomato paste developed by Zeneca sold well during 1996–1999; the GM trait slowed fruit softening and resulted in a better and cheaper paste. In 2009, 14 million farmers worldwide grew GM crops on approximately 134 million hectares, with developing country GM crop area nearly matching that in industrial countries (primarily the USA) [1]. GM continues to be rapidly adopted. RR sugarbeet achieved a 95 per cent adoption in the USA and Canada in 2009, in only its third year, making it the fastest adopted biotech globally to-date. In 2009 ‘for the first time, more than three-quarters (77%) of the 90 million hectares of soybean grown globally were biotech; for cotton, almost half (49%) of the 33 million hectares were biotech; for maize, over a quarter (26%) of the 158 million hectares grown globally were biotech; and finally for canola, 21% of the 31 million hectares were biotech’ [1].
Section2. GM crop outcomes
What are the consequences of this widespread adoption? According to both individual farmers and surveys, a significant environmental benefit of HT technology is reduced tillage, enabling greater carbon sequestration in RR soy fields than in non-GM soy cultivation. Another valuable benefit is reduced applications of insecticides to Bt cotton and Bt maize.
The most comprehensive analyses of benefits have come from ISAAA [1] and from PG Economics [2]. Their conclusions are broadly supported by analyses from the Royal Society and from the US National Academy of Sciences. Rather than attempt to paraphrase, I will simply quote from the ISAAA and PG Economics analyses.
‘In 2009, 5.6 million small and marginal resource-poor farmers in India planted and benefited from 8.381 (approx. 8.4) million hectares of Bt cotton, equivalent to 87% of the 9.636 (approx. 9.6) million hectare national cotton crop’ [1].
‘The deployment of Bt cotton over the last eight years has resulted in India becoming the number one exporter of cotton globally as well as the second largest cotton producer in the world. Bt cotton has literally revolutionized cotton production in India. In the short span of seven years, 2002 to 2008, Bt cotton has generated economic benefits for farmers valued at US$5.1 billion, halved insecticide requirements, contributed to the doubling of yield and transformed India from a cotton importer to a major exporter. In 2008 alone, the benefits accruing from Bt cotton in India were an impressive US$1.8 billion’ [1].
‘Progress in the first decade includes a significant reduction in pesticides, saving on fossil fuels, and decreasing CO2 emissions through no/less ploughing, and conserving soil and moisture by optimizing the practice of no till through application of herbicide tolerance. The accumulative reduction in pesticides for the period 1996 to 2008 was estimated at 356 million kilograms (kgs) of active ingredient (a.i.), a saving of 8.4% in pesticides’ [1].
‘Of the economic gains of US$51.9 billion during the period 1996 to 2008, 49.6% were due to substantial yield gains, and 50.4% due to a reduction in production costs. In 2008, the total crop production gain globally for the 4 principal biotech crops (soybean, maize, cotton and canola) was 29.6 million metric tonnes, which would have required 10.5 million additional hectares had biotech crops not been deployed. The 29.6 million metric tonnes of increased crop production from biotech crops in 2008 comprised 17.1 million tonnes of maize, 10.1 million tonnes of soybean, 1.8 million tonnes of cotton lint and 0.6 million tonnes of canola. For the period 1996–2008 the production gain was 167.1 million tonnes, which (at 2008 average yields) would have required 62.6 million additional hectares had biotech crops not been deployed’ [1].
According to Brookes & Barfoot at PG Economics, ‘Biotech crops have contributed to significantly reducing the release of greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural practices. This results from less fuel use and additional soil carbon storage from reduced tillage with biotech crops. In 2008, this was equivalent to removing 15.6 billion kg of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or equal to removing 6.9 million cars from the road for one year’ [2]. ‘Of the total farm income benefit, 50.5% ($26.25 billion) has been due to yield gains, with the balance arising from reductions in the cost of production. Two thirds of the yield-gain derives from adoption of insect resistant crops and the balance from herbicide tolerant crops’ [2].
An underappreciated benefit of rootworm resistant maize is that a bigger (uneaten) root system captures water and nitrogen more efficiently, and Monsanto [3] have reported improved yield under water-limiting conditions of rootworm-resistant maize. Another benefit is that maize cobs derived from Bt maize often show reduced mycotoxin levels, because Fusarium and Aspergillus fungi that make these toxins often enter through holes made by caterpillars in the cob or stem [4]. Thus, Bt maize is often safer to eat.
Plant diseases lead to substantial losses, many of which can be reduced with GM crops. By developing papaya lines that express the coat protein from papaya ringspot virus (PRV), Gonsalves et al. essentially saved the Hawaiian papaya industry, which was close to being abandoned due to losses from PRV [5,6].
Section3. Concerns about GM crops
Why has the adoption of this approach to solving agricultural problems and increasing the performance of crop varieties proved so unpalatable to the public? It is worth considering separately (i) why have activist groups and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) targeted the technology so vigorously? (ii) Why have the public believed the NGO propaganda?
NGOs such as Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and the Soil Association are highly critical of multi-national corporations (MNCs) such as Monsanto acquiring excessive commercial control of the seed supply. There are legitimate concerns about monopoly control exercised by MNCs on any technology they dominate, but control of the food supply is a particularly sensitive issue, so NGO activism has touched a nerve. This anxiety has helped NGOs earn donations by campaigning against GM, encouraging continuation of their opposition. The Soil Association in particular advocates organic farming, and has stipulated that organic farmers cannot grow GM varieties; I regard its opposition to GM as ‘promoting its brand’. In the UK, it is unfortunate that the Thatcher government privatized the Plant Breeding Institute in 1988. If GM varieties had been brought forward in the UK by public sector researchers, perhaps GM would have been more acceptable to the public.
Campaigners against GM cite studies from Pusztai and others that purport to show a damaging effect of a GM diet on animal health [7]. The Royal Society assessment of Pusztai’s work concluded that his inferences regarding the safety of GM food were unwarranted. There are other claims of animal ill health or reduced fertility from eating GM soy [8], none of which have provided credible grounds for disquiet; these reports have never appeared in peer-reviewed scientific literature. GM food of various kinds has been in the human food chain for over 14 years without any evidence of or grounds to suspect harm.
The emergence of RoundUp resistant weeds reminds us that when we manage an agricultural system to reduce losses to weeds, pests and disease, we impose selection on the pest population to circumvent any management tool we impose. With hindsight, it would have been better to implement earlier a rotation of the HT weed management system [9]. Farmers preferred the RR system because RoundUp is relatively cheap, and because high-performing varieties resistant to other herbicides were not available when HT technology was first deployed.
Bt technology is extremely effective against Lepidopteran larvae. However, if farmers cease to apply any insecticides at all, other insects, such as mirid bugs, can become a problem. This has happened in China [10]. We do not yet have plants that are resistant to all their potential insect pests, though we are getting closer to that as new technology becomes available. Until that time, some insecticide use is unavoidable.
Concern has been expressed that GM varieties could ‘contaminate’ other varieties. If GM were not such a sensitive issue, this would matter no more than an admixture of some existing variety with another. No GM trait or variety is authorized for agriculture without rigorous assessment of its safety, so any such admixture is not of public health concern. The seed industry is already able to ensure that poisonous high erucic acid rapeseed is not mixed with rapeseed destined to produce oil for human consumption. However, for those with deeply held beliefs that GM is bad, such admixture is seen as violating their right to avoid the technology, which imposes difficulties. What degree of intolerance from such individuals is society prepared to accept, given the cost of imposing very high standards of ‘GM freedom’, and the lack of scientific evidence that such intolerance is scientifically justified?
Could GM crops ‘escape’ and become a problem in the environment? In most agricultural landscapes, cultivated plants dominate, and it is no surprise that spillages of seed sometimes occur on roadsides, resulting in isolated populations of crop plants along the highway. If the crops are mostly GM, the spillages will often be GM too. However, because cultivated varieties do not compete well without fertilizer, weed control and crop protection chemicals, no such ‘escapes’ have resulted in persistent problems.
Although particular activist groups energetically campaign against GM crops, it should be noted that some campaigners with strong Green credentials are in favour of the technology. Notably, Stewart Brand, founder of the Whole Earth Catalog, in his recent book has argued that to save the planet we need GM crops for food security, and nuclear power to address pending energy shortfalls [11].
Section4. GM traits recently deployed or likely to be deployed in the next five years
Although most GM crop varieties to date carry HT or Bt genes, some new traits are close to deployment. This account is not exhaustive; there are simply too many traits ‘in the pipeline’ for all to be highlighted, but a selected few are mentioned below. Information about pending GM releases is available in the ISAAA documentation and at websites of the major companies, particularly Monsanto.
Seeds store phosphate in the form of inositol 6 phosphate (phytic acid). When eaten by domestic animals such as pigs and chickens, phytic acid passes through the gut unprocessed and the resulting PO4-rich effluent promotes water eutrophication. China has approved deployment of maize that expresses the enzyme phytase in the seed, which breaks down phytic acid; after hydrolysis of phytic acid by phytase during digestion, the phosphorus is available to the animal and does not pollute watercourses [12].
China has also approved Bt rice that carries elevated resistance to rice stem borers, which cause 10–15% yield losses [1].
Monsanto released in 2010 a so-called ‘SmartStax’ maize line that carries eight different transgenes, two of which confer herbicide resistance (to glyphosate and glufosinate) and six of which are Bt genes targeted against either corn borer or root worm.
Two different genes have been developed by Monsanto and commercial partners to confer enhanced drought tolerance in maize, one of which (CspB from Bacillus) may enter commerce as soon as 2012 [13,14]. These genes are also being made available to the WEMA (water efficient maize for Africa) consortium.
Genes that offer direct consumer benefit are also becoming available. Soybean and other oilseeds accumulate significant levels of linolenic acid. To make margarine, the double bonds in these 18-carbon molecules must be hydrogenated using hydrogen and a catalyst; the resulting chemicals include partially hydrogenated ‘trans-fatty acids’ that have not previously been part of the human diet. Soy oil with reduced levels of linolenic acid produces less trans-fatty acids upon hydrogenation. Monsanto has also developed a soybean line that accumulates elevated levels of stearidonic acid in the seed; this 18:4, ω-3 fatty acid is more stable than fish oil, but is converted in the bodies of humans and domestic animals to eicosapentanoic acid or docosahexaenoic acid, long chain polyunsaturated ω-3 fatty acids that promote circulatory health.
Despite virulent opposition from NGOs, Golden Rice lines with elevated levels of beta carotene should finally become available in 2012 that can reduce the incidence of blindness and death in children resulting from inadequate levels of vitamin A [15]. Vitamin A deficiency is a serious nutritional problem, causing multiple adverse health outcomes.
In India, aubergine (also known as eggplant or brinjal) is subject to severe losses from caterpillars; insecticides are widely applied to reduce these losses. Bt brinjal resists the caterpillars and reduces the need for insecticide applications. In 2010, permission for Bt brinjal was first approved and then withdrawn, but I expect Bt brinjal to be deployed in the next 5 years.
Section5. Longer term challenges, opportunities and GM solutions
Again, this account cannot be exhaustive; I draw primarily from my own field of expertise of plant disease and disease resistance. It illustrates the fact that there are many small solutions (often from the public sector) to many small problems available or pending, but none of them will be deployed if the cost of regulation remains excessive.
A major disease of tomato in southern Florida is bacterial spot caused by Xanthomonas sp. The pepper Bs2 gene confers durable resistance to Xanthomonas; GM tomatoes carrying pepper Bs2 are resistant in the field to this disease [16], and efforts are underway to introduce this pepper gene into public tomato varieties for Florida. Late blight caused by Phytophthora infestans is a very destructive disease of potato and tomato, resulting in $6.7 billion in annual losses worldwide [17]. Several resistance genes have been cloned from wild potato relatives that confer resistance to potato late blight [18–20]. Transgenic lines show resistance in the field, though it is unlikely that any one blight resistance gene will be durable, and appropriate and varying combinations of resistance genes need to be defined. A major disease of solanaceous and other crops in the humid subtropics is bacterial wilt caused by Ralstonia solanacearum. An arabidopsis receptor protein, EFR, activates defence upon recognition of bacterial Ef-Tu. This recognition capacity is absent from tomato and other solanaceae. When arabidopsis EFR is introduced into tomato, the resulting lines show greatly enhanced resistance to bacterial diseases, including R. solanacearum [21].
Two particularly devastating diseases await durable resistance solutions. Black Sigatoka of banana caused by Mycosphaerella fijiensis constitutes a serious constraint on banana production; essentially all bananas consumed in the West derive from one variety (Cavendish) that is extremely susceptible. No proven GM solutions are currently available, but several promising approaches are currently being tested. A new strain of wheat stem rust caused by Puccinia graminis, Ug99, appeared in Africa 12 years ago. There is immense diversity in wild grasses for resistance to this strain [22,23], but introduction of these resistance genes by breeding into productive varieties is immensely time consuming and fraught with difficulty. An alternative is to directly clone these R genes from these wild relatives and introduce them into cultivated wheat using GM methods.
Tomatoes have been engineered to accumulate high levels of the antioxidants anthocyanin (‘the purple tomato’) and flavonols. Incorporation of purple tomato material into the diet of cancer-prone rats extends their lifespan [24]. This technology could be rapidly deployed, but consumer acceptance will limit when it appears on supermarket shelves.
Nitrogen fertilizer is made by the energy-intensive Haber process. Not all applied fertilizer is taken up by crops, resulting in leaching of nitrate into water-courses and the risk of eutrophication. It would be desirable to elevate the efficiency of uptake by crops and an alanine aminotransferase gene shows promise for conferring improved nitrogen use efficiency [25]. Longer term, it would be highly desirable for the capacity to establish a symbiosis with nitrogen-fixing Rhizobium bacteria to be extended from leguminous plants to others [26].
Other solutions to problems require more research before they can be deployed, but will necessarily involve use of GM methods for their application. Plants have been engineered for more efficient photosynthesis [27,28], but crops with enhanced photosynthesis derived from these technologies have yet to be demonstrated in the field.
Section6. Conclusion and overview
GM is a method to introduce new genes that can improve crop performance. In the last 14 years, both GM HT and insect resistance have been enthusiastically adopted by farmers in the USA, Argentina, Brazil, India and China. The outcomes have broadly been positive; easier weed control, better insect control with reduced insecticide applications, increased carbon sequestration by low till agriculture, and increased farm incomes. However, activists in Europe have greatly retarded adoption of GM, and the public has been misled by unwarranted criticisms of the technology from its opponents. This is unhelpful at a time when we need to use all available technology to secure food supplies over the next 20–40 years.
Europeans should consider the following questions about GM. First, why is so little consideration given to the costs of not using GM? For example, in the UK alone, farmers spend approximately £50 million per year to control late blight, and a 10 year delay in solving the problem thus costs £500 million. The major beneficiaries from any such delay are the fungicide manufacturers such as Bayer and Syngenta, and the major losers are consumers. Second, European politicians generally support the desirability of strengthening the European bioeconomy, but how are we to compete successfully with the USA when our regulatory burden is so much more severe? Companies such as Monsanto are the major beneficiaries from excessive and expensive regulation; it increases the barriers to entry from competitors, and maintains their monopoly position. Third, EU taxpayers spend considerable sums both nationally and Europe-wide on plant science and technology that could result via GM in EU crops with better performance and reduced environmental impact. However, excessive regulation is preventing EU taxpayers from benefitting from their own investment—why? Finally, EU regulations on import of GM crops are influencing policies in developing countries and retarding the deployment of solutions to problems of food availability and quality. How can the harm that results from these European anti-GM prejudices be justified?
Monday, January 31, 2011
Family History, I am reading it
So I started reading grandma Elaine's autobiography (transcribed and with notes by her husband Hollis Hullinger.) I decided to do this after a lesson about the Sabbath day andappropriate Sunday activities. It is hilarious and means so much more because you know who she is talking about some of the time. I'm only on fifth grade, but have come across plenty of silly stories about her an her family and even the time she first learned to stuff her shirt! (she was only in the third grade, so she wasn't stuffing a bra yet.) Anyway, I highly recommend it and ask if anyone has memoirs or biographies of other family members to let me know. I've also read grandpa Crapo's at some point, but I seem to have misplaced it and all other ones I had.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Doctrine vs. Policy vs. Tradition
Two nights ago, Michelle and I were in Institute and were discussing Mosiah 9-16 and got on the discussion of the wicked traditions of the fathers of the Lamanites. Which led to a discussion of how there are a lot of church "traditions" that didn't have any foundation in doctrine and we need to be careful not to confuse the two, although many times they don't cause any contention.
I brought up the complication of church policies, which are not technically doctrine, because they aren't necessarily world wide, nor are simply traditions, because they do come as instruction from our church leaders and are to be followed. They also are much more likely to change over time.
A couple church policies that first came to mind are: 1) Blacks not receiving the priesthood. It wasn't ever a doctrine, but a church policy. 2) Missionaries outside the polynesian islands are not to wear lava lavas, but they can in the islands, as well as wearing sandals. 3) Temple workers are not to have beards. 4) Priesthood holders wearing white shirts while passing the sacrament. 5) Taking the sacrament with the right hand.
So not doing these things doesn't invalidate them (when related to an ordinance). And blacks that received the priesthood before them not receiving the priesthood became policy were not stripped of their priesthood.
So your thoughts on the importance of doctrine vs. policy vs. tradition, or just thoughts on the whole deal please! And if I made any mistakes, please correct me!
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Church article on Muhammad
The following is an e-mail from Christian Johnson. I thought it could use some more visibility.
Family and Loved ones,
I think you all will really like this talk. One thought I had while reading it was that we as Latter day Saints have no reason to hide or protect ourselves from other religion’s views. If we reach out to others, I believe the spirit will help us discern truth wherever it may be. We can be resonators of truth wherever we go. This is the way in which the Lord’s work touches others, it builds off of the gospel truths that individuals already have. President Hunter said, “We seek to enlarge the circle of love and understanding among all the peoples of the earth. Thus we strive to establish peace and happiness, not only within Christianity but among all mankind.”
I really like this statement. “As early as 1855, at a time when Christian literature generally ridiculed Muhammad as the Antichrist and the archenemy of Western civilization, Elders George A. Smith (1817–75) and Parley P. Pratt (1807–57) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles delivered lengthy sermons demonstrating an accurate and balanced understanding of Islamic history and speaking highly of Muhammad’s leadership. Elder Smith observed that Muhammad was “descended from Abraham and was no doubt raised up by God on purpose” to preach against idolatry. He sympathized with the plight of Muslims, who, like Latter-day Saints, found it difficult “to get an honest history” written about them. Speaking next, Elder Pratt went on to express his admiration for Muhammad’s teachings, asserting that “upon the whole, … [Muslims] have better morals and better institutions than many Christian nations.””
Joseph Smith said, “The Prophet Joseph Smith, in one of his most eloquent pronouncements on tolerance and compassion, encouraged the Saints to expand their vision of the human family, to view people of other faiths and cultures as our Heavenly Father does and not according to the “narrow, contracted notions of men.” He taught that the Father will take complex personal, political, and social circumstances into account at the last day and render final judgment based on a divine, merciful perspective that surpasses our limited human understanding:”
http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=bbaba1615ac0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD
Have a wonderful day everyone.
Love,
Christian
Family and Loved ones,
I think you all will really like this talk. One thought I had while reading it was that we as Latter day Saints have no reason to hide or protect ourselves from other religion’s views. If we reach out to others, I believe the spirit will help us discern truth wherever it may be. We can be resonators of truth wherever we go. This is the way in which the Lord’s work touches others, it builds off of the gospel truths that individuals already have. President Hunter said, “We seek to enlarge the circle of love and understanding among all the peoples of the earth. Thus we strive to establish peace and happiness, not only within Christianity but among all mankind.”
I really like this statement. “As early as 1855, at a time when Christian literature generally ridiculed Muhammad as the Antichrist and the archenemy of Western civilization, Elders George A. Smith (1817–75) and Parley P. Pratt (1807–57) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles delivered lengthy sermons demonstrating an accurate and balanced understanding of Islamic history and speaking highly of Muhammad’s leadership. Elder Smith observed that Muhammad was “descended from Abraham and was no doubt raised up by God on purpose” to preach against idolatry. He sympathized with the plight of Muslims, who, like Latter-day Saints, found it difficult “to get an honest history” written about them. Speaking next, Elder Pratt went on to express his admiration for Muhammad’s teachings, asserting that “upon the whole, … [Muslims] have better morals and better institutions than many Christian nations.””
Joseph Smith said, “The Prophet Joseph Smith, in one of his most eloquent pronouncements on tolerance and compassion, encouraged the Saints to expand their vision of the human family, to view people of other faiths and cultures as our Heavenly Father does and not according to the “narrow, contracted notions of men.” He taught that the Father will take complex personal, political, and social circumstances into account at the last day and render final judgment based on a divine, merciful perspective that surpasses our limited human understanding:”
http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=bbaba1615ac0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD
Have a wonderful day everyone.
Love,
Christian
Monday, August 16, 2010
Ecclesiastes
I know I've read Ecclesiastes before, but I guess this is the first time I am really paying attention to it. I am wondering if anyone else has found it to be as bizarre as I do. It seems nearly as useless as the Song of Solomon. Every few chapters there will be a one-verse sort of truism, but nothing that hasn't already been said in Proverbs. Mostly it just seems like endless repetitions of "All is vanity. Nothing matters. Women are pretty much evil. Wisdom is great! Except that it doesn't matter because whether you are punished or rewarded is absolutely random and nothing you do makes any difference because all is vanity. It's better to be dead than alive."
Please, if anyone sees this book differently, let me know how, because it's sort of depressing me every time I have my scripture study for the last week. And if you do agree, let me know so I don't have to feel so alone. :)
Monday, July 5, 2010
Independence Day
This last weekend I have come to the conclusion that I much prefer people referring to the 4th of July by its real name, Independence Day. There is a reason we are celebrating and lighting off fireworks. It is because the forefathers of our nation declared their independence from Great Britain in a move to establish a land of freedom. To me, it is along the same lines as calling Christmas X-mas. It takes the reason out of the title. So all in favor of making a more concentrated effort to call the 4th of July Independence Day signify with an Aye.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
The Great Health Care Debate
I know you guys will get the hang of this sooner or later. Until then, I will shamelessly transfer mass distributed e-mails to postings on this blog. I received a forward from Mom which included a clipping from the The Spokesman-Review March 28, 2010 page 85 entitled Health Law's Heavy Impact by Paul Guppy. The article begins with a classic Speaker Pelosi quote, "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it..." It then goes on to list some penalties and taxes that can alleged be expected from the Obama Health Care Bill in the coming years. Included with the clipping was the following text of unknown authorship:
Under the new health care bill - did you know that all real estate transactions are now subject to a 3.8% Sales Tax? The bulk of these new taxes don’t kick in until 2013 (presumably after Obama’s re-election). You can thank Nancy, Harry and Barack and your local Democrat Congressman for this one. If you sell your $400,000 home, there will be a $15,200 tax. This bill is set to screw the retiring generation who often downsize their homes. Is this “Hope & Change” great or what? We can vote the bums out in November and demand that they eliminate the bill or at the very least defund it. Then in 2012 repeal it.
Here, then, is Micaela's response to the e-mail:
This is not actually correct. According to snopes, this piece of the bill only affects you if: you sell your home for a PROFIT above the capital gains threshold of $250K per individual or $500K per couple...then you pay the additional 3.8% on any gain over this threshold.
For example, if a couple filing jointly earns over $250K per year (or an individual earning more than $125K) sells their a $2 million home and makes a $750,000 profit, they would be responsible for paying the 3.8% tax on the $250,000 over the capital gains threshold of $500,000, for a total of $9500.
Snopes states that the median sales price of existing single-family homes in the U.S. was $170,700 in March of 2010, and that roughly 1.5% of all U.S. households earn above $250,000. You may or may not agree with the new tax, but we should at least be clear about who it applies to; certainly no one I know.
Liz then responded with this comment:
Thanks Micaela for finding out the detail. When I read it I wondered, because if it had been a straight forward 3.8% tax it seems like we would have heard about it before now.
As for me, I am more interested in the broader debate on the issue of mandated health insurance than on the specifics of how portions of the bill will be funded. Near the end of the clipped article Paul Guppy writes "...Washington has joined 12 other states in a lawsuit challenging the federal government's power to force state residents to buy a product - insurance - from private companies."
This is the point on which I am personally conflicted. What is the ethical ramification of this law? Is it just to require private citizens to purchase health insurance? How is this any different from the requirement to purchase auto insurance? What else should the federal government mandate for the greater good of its citizens? Why should I, through the federal government, be involved in the process by which my neighbor pays his doctor for medical care? Is this a legitimate restriction of their liberty?
Here are my thoughts on the subject. The purpose of laws is to prevent innocent people from being harmed by the actions or inactions of others. However, all laws must be weighed against the extent to which they remove a person's liberty. In the case of auto insurance, the law only requires that a driver be insured against the damage they might do to another's property with their car while driving on public streets. This is a very specific circumstance. Most people who have insurance will pay for additional coverage, such as for their own property, but the law does not require that. The only way I can see justifying a mandate on personal health insurance is if you also require that I pay for your health care in the event that you do not. But this opens a whole other debate which I don't have the energy for right now.
~A
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Babies
Ok. Here is a test to see who is paying attention. We had our 17 week ultrasound today and it looks like we are having a boy. Any name suggestions?
~A
~A
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
State Cold Wars
Since Arizona's recent passing of their infamous immigration law there have been quite alot of unexpected responses. In my own state of Colorado there are at least 2 organizations I have heard of who have tried to ban their members from travelling to Arizona in protest of the law. Who are these radical groups? The City of Boulder, and Denver Public Schools. ??? Arizona beware...your tourism dollars are at risk!
At any rate, I'm not posting this simply to air my incredulity at the actions of a few of my fellow Coloradans. Mom sent around a forward attributed to Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen which I traced to an online journal. I wanted to post our conversation and get all of your feedback. So, here it is:
_
_
Mom:
I looked at Snopes and found no rebuttal of this information. <>
Ammon:
Here is the original article on TucsonCitizen.com: http://tucsoncitizen.com/the-cholla-jumps/2010/05/01/state-senator-sylvia-allen-responds-to-sb1070/. I always like to read the comments of readers to get some more varied opinions on articles.
Mom:
Thanks, Ammon. It was interesting to read the comments of others. What do you think about her message?
Ammon:
I do wish she would have been a little more specific about what the law said. It seemed like most of the article was taken up in why a law was needed and the objections of the opposition rather than what the law is trying to do and why that will solve the problems they are facing. There seemed to be somewhat of a disconnect between what she was saying about illegal crossings hurting those living on the borders and what the law would actually do (empowering law enforcement to verify legal status during routine traffic stops?) It seemed to me that if some rancher was having thousands of people move through his land every day that law enforcement could go to his ranch and verify this and do something about those people as they are entering, or follow them and see where they are getting help to transition into society. Also the same thing where ranchers are saying there are military operations, or clear and regular drug activity, that could be verified and those people could be treated like any other criminal organization rather than well meaning immigrants who sees no other way to improve their life.
_
_
So, anyone else want to chime in? Jay, are you perhaps more tuned into the border issues that the rest of us?
~A
At any rate, I'm not posting this simply to air my incredulity at the actions of a few of my fellow Coloradans. Mom sent around a forward attributed to Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen which I traced to an online journal. I wanted to post our conversation and get all of your feedback. So, here it is:
_
_
Mom:
I looked at Snopes and found no rebuttal of this information. <
Ammon:
Here is the original article on TucsonCitizen.com: http://tucsoncitizen.com/the-cholla-jumps/2010/05/01/state-senator-sylvia-allen-responds-to-sb1070/. I always like to read the comments of readers to get some more varied opinions on articles.
Mom:
Thanks, Ammon. It was interesting to read the comments of others. What do you think about her message?
Ammon:
I do wish she would have been a little more specific about what the law said. It seemed like most of the article was taken up in why a law was needed and the objections of the opposition rather than what the law is trying to do and why that will solve the problems they are facing. There seemed to be somewhat of a disconnect between what she was saying about illegal crossings hurting those living on the borders and what the law would actually do (empowering law enforcement to verify legal status during routine traffic stops?) It seemed to me that if some rancher was having thousands of people move through his land every day that law enforcement could go to his ranch and verify this and do something about those people as they are entering, or follow them and see where they are getting help to transition into society. Also the same thing where ranchers are saying there are military operations, or clear and regular drug activity, that could be verified and those people could be treated like any other criminal organization rather than well meaning immigrants who sees no other way to improve their life.
_
_
So, anyone else want to chime in? Jay, are you perhaps more tuned into the border issues that the rest of us?
~A
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Domestic Terror
I heard a snippet of comment today on the radio. I think it was from an FBI guy and it was relating to the second amendment and the legal purchasing of guns, probably motivated by the recent bombing attempt in Times Square. The basic gist was that he thought that any person on a terrorist watch list, or the like, ought to be prohibited from legally purchasing firearms. I am really not sure how I feel about the issue...
Currently, the second amendment guarantees the right to purchase arms for anyone who has not been convicted of a crime, or something like that. When I first heard the comment I was inclined to agree with him, but then I got to thinking about the intent behind the amendment, and wasn't sure we ought spread such a wide net. There is no constitutional definition of a suspected terrorist. I suppose that if the government were to go corrupt to a point that good people were motivated to rise up against it, those people would be considered terrorists by that government. So how do you word a law that will protect the rights of good, moral people trying to defend their moral existence, and still prevent evil people from obtaining weapons?
I do not believe that our representative government is broken. I don't think that anyone who were to engage in violent acts against our current government system would be justified in doing so, but as a student of history I can conceive of such a time. Our forefathers lived through such a time, and gave us the second amendment so that hopefully we would never again fall into such a state. I think that needs to be seriously considered before any changes be made to our laws. On the other hand, I'm all for making it difficult for people to hurt us.
Any thoughts on how to resolve the two sides?
~A
Currently, the second amendment guarantees the right to purchase arms for anyone who has not been convicted of a crime, or something like that. When I first heard the comment I was inclined to agree with him, but then I got to thinking about the intent behind the amendment, and wasn't sure we ought spread such a wide net. There is no constitutional definition of a suspected terrorist. I suppose that if the government were to go corrupt to a point that good people were motivated to rise up against it, those people would be considered terrorists by that government. So how do you word a law that will protect the rights of good, moral people trying to defend their moral existence, and still prevent evil people from obtaining weapons?
I do not believe that our representative government is broken. I don't think that anyone who were to engage in violent acts against our current government system would be justified in doing so, but as a student of history I can conceive of such a time. Our forefathers lived through such a time, and gave us the second amendment so that hopefully we would never again fall into such a state. I think that needs to be seriously considered before any changes be made to our laws. On the other hand, I'm all for making it difficult for people to hurt us.
Any thoughts on how to resolve the two sides?
~A
Monday, April 19, 2010
Beauty
After this last General Conference, I was talking to Michelle on the topic of beauty. And especially what we would teach our children about it. Instead of beauty being dependent on what we put on our body, our body itself is beautiful. Not in what we show off, but intrinsically. And even more than make up, or flattering clothes, as we keep out bodies fit and active, clean and organized, we shall be comely. God has made each and every one of us, and God doesn't make mistakes. Just think of Mahana. What a difference was made in simply cleaning up, taking care of her self made. It also definitely helps that someone else saw her beauty too. Another important part of raising up children with a healthy self image.
I know that clean hair, clean face, regular showers and deodorant, a clean hair cut, well groomed face (with or without facial hair), a body that is kept in shape by regular activity and good eating habits, will do more to bring out our beauty than anything we put on our body, or how much we show it off.
Monday, March 29, 2010
One thought I've had recently that has reoccured in some things I've seen/read (books, movies, media, etc) is one of the main themes of Atlas Shrugged. Its the concept that another's need obligates your action. Another way to put it is that the actions of others can be your fault if you could act to stop it, but don't. One example is if someone puts a gun to your best friend's head and says, "If you don't give me your money, I will pull the trigger." And if you don't, the previous stated logic implies that you are responsible for your friend's death. Another situation: If you are driving along and there is a homeless man on the side of the road with no food and you drive by and don't give them food or money to get food, it is your fault that they are starving. This is a lie of Satan that keeps people debilitated with undeserved guilt and enables those who would exploit the kindness of others. A.k.a. Moochers. This can be extended further to real life situations. Right now there is a national healthcare bill being greatly discussed. One of the main tenants of the bill is that everyone has the right to health care. This implies that someone who can is OBLIGATED to provide it for them. And if they don't, they hold the guilt of the sick person on their shoulders. This is a lie and violates one of the most basic human rights to self-determination of actions. The choice of inaction should never be illegal where no compact for action has been voluntarily entered into.
This does not mean that we should not voluntarily help those in need. But voluntary choice is necessary, and compulsion is wrong. That is all.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
A Quick Political Thought
The American system of Government which not only allows for discent, but really relies on it, is the thing that makes this nation great. If something is a good idea, it can be heard and tried. If it is a bad idea, those who oppose can voice that and bring about change. I read a New York Times article recently about various states passing various laws which challenge, or even blatantly oppose various Federal regualtions, (undoubtedly leading to years of litigation and millions of dollars spent{wasted?}). It was very interesting. Strong, independant states make this the greatest nation in the world. Maybe not the most efficient...but there is always a price to pay for greatness.
I would much rather see our Civil Wars carried out in the courtroom than on the battlefield.
~A
I would much rather see our Civil Wars carried out in the courtroom than on the battlefield.
~A
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Proud to be an American???
So, I recently received this picture in an e-mail, and thought it was worth posting. After looking at something like this, do you respond, "That's right, we are #1!" or do you think, "This is so true, and I am devastated to be living in such a nation of egotistically ethnocentric ignoramuses"?
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Post One
So, this is the first post.
I was listening to the radio today and heard an interesting discussion about college funds. The basic opinion was that saving for your children's education should not be done until you have fully funded your own retirement account. The rationalle being that there are many ways to pay for college (part time/summer jobs, scholarships, grants, student loans, etc.), and only one way to pay for retirement (you put money in a savings account).
In particular, it was advised to avoid special government college savings accounts (529 plans) especially when your kids are young. If you put tons of money in and don't end up needing it because your child is a good student and earned a full ride scholarship, you will have to pay penalties to use that money for something else.
I just checked out some info on savingforcollege.com and they say that if a beneficiary dies, or gets a scholarship that you can file for an exception and avoid the penalty, but that there are still tax issues involved, because non-qualified distributions will be counted as taxable income in the year they are used. So I suppose that if you took $50,000 not needed for school and used it as a downpayment on a house, that would increase your taxable income by $50,000, thrusting you into a higher tax bracket for that year instead of spreading it out over several years at a lower tax rate.
Anyway, I thought it was an interesting discussion, and would like to hear other thoughts on the subject. Addy is only 3, so my practical experience is very shallow compared to many of you.
~A
I was listening to the radio today and heard an interesting discussion about college funds. The basic opinion was that saving for your children's education should not be done until you have fully funded your own retirement account. The rationalle being that there are many ways to pay for college (part time/summer jobs, scholarships, grants, student loans, etc.), and only one way to pay for retirement (you put money in a savings account).
In particular, it was advised to avoid special government college savings accounts (529 plans) especially when your kids are young. If you put tons of money in and don't end up needing it because your child is a good student and earned a full ride scholarship, you will have to pay penalties to use that money for something else.
I just checked out some info on savingforcollege.com and they say that if a beneficiary dies, or gets a scholarship that you can file for an exception and avoid the penalty, but that there are still tax issues involved, because non-qualified distributions will be counted as taxable income in the year they are used. So I suppose that if you took $50,000 not needed for school and used it as a downpayment on a house, that would increase your taxable income by $50,000, thrusting you into a higher tax bracket for that year instead of spreading it out over several years at a lower tax rate.
Anyway, I thought it was an interesting discussion, and would like to hear other thoughts on the subject. Addy is only 3, so my practical experience is very shallow compared to many of you.
~A
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)