Building Lego-style synthetic BioBricks in a public laboratory

     As I posted previously about synthetic biology, I thought I would post about an article that WIRED published.

     Amateur scientists build Lego-style synthetic BioBricks in public lab
     Tuesday, September 25, 2012
     By Joel Winston

     While some may believe that science is better left to scientists, hundreds of amateur biologists around the world have been setting-up makeshift biology labs in their homes, garages, and community centers.   Read full article at www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-09/24/synthetic-biology .

Seeking a Holistic Assessment

My last post, Arsenic and Rice, summarized the recent controversy regarding arsenic levels in rice and linked to the primary sources.  I ended the post by commenting that it was my hope that would use this issue as impetus to "demand a more holistic assessment of agricultural production methods - an assessment that takes into account the full spectrum of considerations and not just product-specific economic justifications."  This post explains what I meant.

While much of the press this week has focused on the concerns that a consumer may have about arsenic residues in food, what intrigues me most about this story is how we got here.

The Arsenic Facts website produced by the rice industry correctly notes that some arsenic is naturally occurring in the air, soil, and water.  Consumer Reports responds, however, that the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry considers human use of arsenic-based products to be the largest source of arsenic contamination in the U.S. today.

The U.S. is the world’s leading user of arsenic, and since 1910 about 1.6 million tons have been used for agricultural and industrial purposes, about half of it only since the mid-1960s. Residues from the decades of use of lead-arsenate insecticides linger in agricultural soil today, even though their use was banned in the 1980s. Other arsenical ingredients in animal feed to prevent disease and promote growth are still permitted. Moreover, fertilizer made from poultry waste can contaminate crops with inorganic arsenic.

It appears that the south-central states are still dealing with the consequences of the toxic pesticides (some arsenical) applied to the soil in efforts to eradicate the boll weevil. This should be a reminder to us that what we do to our soil, and more generally to the environment, can and often does have an impact far into the future. What may be profitable or expedient in the short run may not be either when considered more broadly.

More recently, however, a less direct soil contaminant has been linked to the arsenic problem - poultry litter. And, this issue once again questions the true "cost" of producing cheap food.

It was only last year -  in June 2011,  that the FDA announced that drug manufacturer Pfizer would "voluntarily suspend" the sale of the arsenical animal drug 3-Nitro® (Roxarsone).  Roxarsone has been commonly used in poultry production for many years and is also approved for use in pigs. The suspension was based on FDA testing that found levels of inorganic arsenic in the livers of chickens who were given Roxarsone. The FDA prepared a Question and Answer webpage that explained the test results and reassured consumers about the safety of chicken products. The FDA defended its prior approval of Roxarsone in livestock production, stating that its tests had indicated that it would not be converted from an organic to inorganic (more dangerous) form of arsenic.  The FDA stated that while Roxarsone has been used most, three other arsenic drugs are approved for use -  nitarsone, arsanilic acid, and carbarsone.

However, a review of scientific literature indicates that others have been concerned about the use of arsenic-based animal drugs for years.  Their use has been banned in the European Union since the late 1990's.  It has been reported that Tyson Foods, stopped using arsenic based drugs in July 2004 after negative publicity about roxarsone's use.  Perdue says it doesn't use it any longer, and McDonald's says its suppliers don't either.  But what about the rest of the industry?  Why was FDA so late in acting;  why only a manufacturer's suspension; why allow other replacement arsenic-based drugs?

Arsenic: A Roadblock to Potential Animal Waste Management Solutions, published in 2005 documents some of the longstanding research identifying arsenic in poultry production as a problem -

Arsenic in [poultry] waste results from the use of arsenicals added to poultry feed for growth promotion and prevention of parasitic infections. The U.S. Geological Survey has calculated, based on arsenic concentrations measured in poultry waste, that between 250,000 and 350,000 kg arsenic is annually applied to land in the United States (Rutherford et al. 2003). Although roxarsone, the predominant arsenical added to poultry feed, is an organoarsenical, there is strong evidence that the drug is converted into inorganic arsenic within the chicken (Arai et al. 2003) and is also rapidly transformed into inorganic arsenic in wastes and soils (Garbarino et al. 2003). Elevations in soil arsenic levels have been reported in fields where poultry wastes have been applied (Gupta and Charles 1999). This form of arsenic is readily leachable and may therefore move into groundwater (Rutherford et al. 2003).

Keeve E. Nachman, Jay P. Graham, Lance B. Price, and Ellen K. Silbergeld, Arsenic: A Roadblock to Potential Animal Waste Management Solutions, Environ Health Perspect. 2005 September; 113(9): 1123–1124.

USDA ARS funded studies have confirmed the problem. Arsenic in Field Runoff Linked to Poultry Litter  - "fields amended with poultry litter can accumulate significant levels of arsenic."

We have known for some time that plants can absorb arsenic from the soil and that rice is particularly susceptible. This is not a new issue.

Yet, we continue to have FDA approved arsenic-based animal drugs available for use in livestock production. Recognizing the problem, last June, Maryland became the first state to ban the use of arsenic in poultry feed. The law goes into effect January 1.

While Consumer Reports asks the FDA to set limits for arsenic levels in rice, I make an additional request and call upon Congress to revisit the animal drug approval process. While the FDA should undertake this reconsideration itself, it is likely that it does not have the resources, the political clout, or the requisite legal authority to undertake the kind of systemic approach that is needed to develop more sustainable production practices. We need to stop looking at ways to produce an individual crop or animal in the cheapest way possible and look holistically at our overall food system.

And, speaking of a holistic analysis, while Pfizer agreed to suspend the sale of Roxarsone in the U.S., it indicated that it would continue to manufacture and export Roxarsone overseas.  Do we really want to encourage arsenic contamination in other countries?  Particularly in a global marketplace, that doesn't seem to make much sense.

Arsenic and Rice

I offer a summary and some links on the issue of arsenic levels in rice -  my students in our Food Law & Policy course raised it in class this week, and the issue has been all over the news.

Consumer Reports issued a study, Arsenic in your food: Our findings show a real need for federal standards for this toxin (Nov. 2012).  The study reported "worrisome" levels of arsenic in rice and called upon FDA to take action through additional monitoring, testing, and the establishment of a limit on the amount permissible.

The FDA set up an arsenic in rice website with information for consumers on its monitoring activities and preliminary testing results. FDA also issued a press release stating their full data collection would be completed by the end of the by end of 2012, and that the FDA would be prioritizing "further assessment to provide scientific basis for additional recommendations."  FDA stated that '[b]ased on the currently available data and scientific literature the FDA does not have an adequate scientific basis to recommend changes by consumers regarding their consumption of rice and rice products."  They emphasized the healthy qualities of rice.  Nevertheless, they indicated that "the FDA data is consistent with results that Consumer Reports published. . ."

Part of the FDA analysis will include consideration that "[t]here are many different types of rice and rice products that are grown in different areas and under different conditions. Further analysis is needed to assess how these variations may affect the results."

Two of the trends described by the Consumer Reports study indicated that "[w]hite rice grown in Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, and Texas, which account for 76 percent of domestic rice, generally had higher levels of total arsenic and inorganic arsenic in our tests than rice samples from elsewhere." However, "[w]ithin any single brand of rice we tested, the average total and inorganic arsenic levels were always higher for brown rice than for white." The Consumer Reports website presents all of their testing data, by product. Some suggestions for minimizing exposure, including rinsing rice before cooking were offered.

This issue has many consumers alarmed.  Rice is a staple in many baby food products;  the increasing number of gluten intolerant people look to rice as an important grain crop; and brown rice, in particular, is considered a particularly healthy food. But, arsenic is a Group 1 carcinogen.

The issue has also sounded the alarm bells within the rice industry.  A robust website, Arsenic Facts with a variety of different types of information for consumers is available, affirming the safety of rice as an important part of our diet.  There are video clips from medical and health professionals, links to scientific tests, and information about naturally occurring arsenic at trace levels that are not dangerous.  Th site seeks to reassure nervous consumers and promises to work closely with FDA.

This is particularly a significant issue in Arkansas. According to the Arkansas Rice Federation, "[t]he annual Arkansas rice crop produces nearly 10 billion pounds of rice, generates more than $1 billion in economic activity and accounts for thousands of jobs, as well as providing habitat for wetlands-dependent wildlife species, such as ducks, geese, cranes and others." Arkansas Governor Beebe recently declared September to be Arkansas Rice Month.

This issue will be playing out over the next months as FDA continues its analysis and consumers continue to raise questions.  In addition, however, it is also my hope that we use this issue to demand a more holistic assessment of agricultural production methods - an assessment that takes into account the full spectrum of considerations and not just product-specific economic justifications.  I personally prefer short blog posts, so I will leave that as my teaser for my next post -  when I consider the red flags that were ignored regarding the use of arsenic-based pesticides and growth promotants, when scientists were aware of a potential problem.

Intellectual property and agriculture: A showdown over Monsanto in Brazil

A truck is loaded with soybeans near Rondonópolis, Brazil, presumably for export to China. Source: The New York Times.

---

Marcelo D. Varella, Intellectual Property and Agriculture: The Case on Soybeans and Monsanto:

This article analyzes different strategies of an agricultural company (Monsanto) to enforce intellectual property rights on soybeans in South America, especially in Brazil, during the last ten years. A recent court decision ordered Monsanto to pay up to $3 billion in compensatory damages. This is probably one of the most important cases on agricultural intellectual property. On one hand, there is complex company strategy to create intellectual property rights through patents, plant variety protections, import market controls, and thousands of direct agreements with actors throughout the production chain, as well extensions of those rights through different lawsuits. This makes for a very interesting case study on intellectual property rights and on control of emerging markets. The strategy was complemented by the acquisition of major seed companies and through agreements with different agents of the soy production chain, such as seeders, traders, importers, exporters, farm cooperatives, and individual farmers. On the other hand, farmers responded by filing multiple lawsuits. After ten years in litigation, farmers succeeded in recovering retroactively the entire amount in dispute, plus significant amounts of interest. The matter is of particular economic and technical importance. It is economically important because of the amount of money evolved. It is technically important because it reveals important intellectual property techniques that can be used to dominate key markets.

Editor's note: I have very modestly edited Marcelo Varella's abstract.

Publication Opportunities

The Kentucky Journal of Equine, Agriculture and Natural Resources Law (KJEANRL), a multi-disciplinary journal of law, science, and policy is published twice annually by the University of Kentucky College of Law.  The Journal is edited entirely by students of the College of Law. A
forum for articles by practitioners, academicians, policy-makers, and other professionals throughout the United States and abroad, the Journal welcomes original manuscripts focusing on the legal, policy,
and ethical issues related to the environment, natural resources, land use, and energy. Shorter discussion pieces, descriptions of creative solutions to persistent problems, and commentary on policy and politics are also suitable for publication in the Journal. Each issue also includes notes written by Journal staff members. KJEANRL was named one of the Top 100 Law Journals of 2010 by Washington & Lee University School of Law.  Authors who wish to submit an article to be considered for publication can submit it through the ExpressO system or by emailing the article
to kjeanrl@gmail.com.



The Journal of Food Law & Policy at the University of Arkansas School of Law is the only student-edited U.S. law journal focused exclusively on food law issues. It was initiated in response to the emerging interest in food law and policy issues, with its inaugural issue published in 2005.  It is now well established in the academic community, having published articles by many leaders in food law scholarship. The Journal features articles on a wide range of current issues including all aspects of food  production, labeling, advertising, and sale, as well as the critical issues involving food safety. It includes regular food law updates from the United States, the European Union, and Canada. The Journal is published twice a year and is edited by some of the top law students at the University of Arkansas School of Law.  Authors who wish to submit an article to be considered for publication can submit it through the ExpressO system or by emailing the article foodlaw@uark.edu.

Food versus Energy (Part II): The view from Colorado

Gunnison River, where water is diverted via tunnel to
irrigate the Uncompahgre Valley, Colorado

I wrote this post a few weeks ago about the conflicts between ag interests and natural gas extraction in Australia.  The New York Times reports today on similar conflicts in the United States.  Kirk Johnson's story focuses on the competition for water between farmers on the one hand and oil and gas interests on the other.  His dateline is Greeley, Colorado, and the headline is "For Farms in the West, Oil Wells are Thirsty Rivals."

Johnson reports that oil and gas interests in Colorado are paying record high prices for excess water that they buy or lease from cities.  While farmers have tended to pay between $30 and $100 for an acre foot of water (about 326,000 gallons), depending on scarcity, oil and gas companies are now paying as much as $1K to $2K for that amount of treated water purchased from cities.  Farmers say they can't match those bids.  Peter Anderson, a corn and alfalfa farmer in eastern Colorado, casts farmers as the underdogs based on the value of the commodity delivered:

Water from the Gunnison River
irrigating a farm near Montrose, Colorado

It's not a level playing field.  ... I don't think in reality that the farmer can compete with the oil and gas companies for that water.  Their return is a hell of a lot better than ours.  

But as water-intensive as fracking is, the controversial process is consuming far less water than farmers are right now in Colorado.  Oil and gas companies estimate their 2012 water use at 6.5 billion gallons--or about a tenth of one percent of the state's total water use.  That figure is disputed by Western Resource Advocates, an environmental advocacy group that puts the figure at perhaps twice that much.  But even 13 million gallons is a drop in the proverbial bucket compared to the whopping 85.5% of Colorado's water use that goes for irrigation and agriculture.

Oil and gas may be David to ag's Goliath when it comes to water use, but tension between these sectors is likely to increase, particularly during times of drought and as the gas industry's needs grow--growth projected to be 16% over the next three years.

A spokesperson for agricultural interests articulated the conflict as one between food and energy.  For example, Johnson quotes Ben Rainbolt, executive director of the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union:

We're not going to be able to raise the food we need.  How are we going to produce this with less?

A spokesperson for the Colorado Oil and Gas Association puts a different spin on it, calling energy the "foundation of all we do," including agriculture.

But isn't this really a "chicken and egg" situation?  That is, food is energy--the first form of energy--and without it, people can't engage in energy production or energy consumption for other purposes.  

I note that Colorado law requires court approval of these bulk water purchases, so it will be interesting to see if and how legal norms around such approval evolve as oil and gas industry demands for water grow.

Cross-posted to Legal Ruralism.

Food Crises and Technological Phobia

D. Kershen, Food Crises and Technological Phobia (original post on BioFortified.org) is available at
http://www.biofortified.org/2012/09/food-crises-and-technological-phobia/ . 

     Excerpt:  "I do not write to enter the debate focused on fuel standards, markets and commodity speculators.  I acknowledge that other factors also contribute to food crises, particularly in developing nations -- e.g., underfunded agricultural research and extension, inadequate infrastructure, and insecure land tenure.  However, I write to highlight another often overlooked factor in the on-going food versus fuel debate:  technological phobia that has either exacerbated the food versus fuel dilemma or doomed public policy that may have avoided a food versus fuel dilemma from arising."

Consequences

I was discouraged to read about an increasing trend in my home state of Minnesota.  Minnesota Farm Drain Tiling: Better Crops, But at What Cost? by Dennis Lien and Dave Orrick, Pioneer Press (August 31, 2012).

Farmers, largely in response to high land values and high prices for corn and soybean commodity crops, are installing drainage tiles at record rates.

From southeastern Minnesota's porous karst to the fertile Red River Valley, machines and workers have been surveying the land with GPS technology, digging trench lines, unrolling flexible plastic drainage tubing and burying it -- all to maximize tillable acreage and to make farming operations more productive and profitable.

Farming has already been profitable in recent years in Minnesota, and many farmers have the money to, as they say, plow back into the land. Investments in the farming operation present tax advantages and serve to increase the acreage under production and the productivity of that land.

There are, however, serious adverse consequences.

Water that once stayed on land during wet periods now increasingly filters into underground tile and then courses into ditches, streams and rivers. There, critics contend, more runoff contributes to higher flows that lead to more frequent and severe flooding, erosion of stream banks and dirtier water.  In some places, grassy areas that once harbored wildlife are being plowed under and tiled to plant corn and soybeans.

The article discussed the hidden public cost as cities and residents all down the Mississippi and Minnesota Rivers battle flooding and related clean up costs. Minnesota alone will need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in coming years to get lakes and rivers to meet the minimum Clean Water Act water-quality standards. The article notes that "[s]ediment from riverbanks and farm fields and agricultural pollutants are among the biggest problems."

Little is known about how much tiling is being done. Tom Kalahar, conservation technician for the Renville County Soil and Water Conservation District reports that "[i]t's one of the best-kept secrets in the world. There is very little data being gathered. It's the hidden infrastructure that the public doesn't have a clue about. No government agency wants to regulate tiling because (regulation) is politically unpopular with the ag community."