Jump to content
Jambands.ca

EnviroPig debate this Thursday at U of G


timouse

Recommended Posts

[rant] Pigs raised in commercial hog barns produce a lot of poop. Their poop contains, among other things, lots of phosphorous. Pig farmers know this, and the real solution is to keep fewer pigs, and have less manure to deal with.

The genetic engineers took a stab at the problem, and developed EnviroPig , who has an engineered enzyme added to their saliva that helps them digest more phosphorous from grain. So now we can go on keeping massive numbers of pigs in windowless barns and keep making cheap bacon. [/rant]

Please consider attending if you are in the Toronto/Guelph area. Lucy Sharrat from CBAN is going to be speaking at this event.

***Please Forward Widely***

The University of Guelph student group the Critical Knowledge Collective is hosting a debate on the genetically engineered Enviropig (a University of Guleph joint project with OMAFRA and Ontario Pork) on Thursday the 7th of October 2010 in Peter Clark Hall (University Centre basement) at 7pm.

We are organizing this debate as an opportunity for students to educate themselves on Enviropig from the perspectives of the project’s supporters and opponents. We invite all students, media personnel, social movement organizations and community members to join us in advancing a public discussion on animal biotechnology.

Participants include: the University of Guelph, the National Farmers Union, the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network and Ontario Pork (unconfirmed).

The format for the debate is as follows: each representative will speak for ten minutes to state their case. Representatives will then be given five minutes each to respond before we open to 40 minutes of questions from the floor. Each representative will be given a final three to five minutes to wrap up. The moderator will be a student representative from the university student group the Critical Knowledge Collective.

Please see the following websites for more information on the Enviropig project:

Prof Moccia speaks to CNN on EP: http://www.uoguelph.ca/news/2010/09/enviropig_featu.html

CBAN on EP: http://www.cban.ca/Resources/Topics/Enviropig/Enviropig-Background

Sincerely, CKC

Lucy Sharratt, Coordinator

Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN)

Collaborative Campaigning for Food Sovereignty and Environmental Justice

431 Gilmour Street, Second Floor

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K2P 0R5

Phone: 613 241 2267 ext.6

Fax: 613 241 2506

coordinator@cban.ca

www.cban.ca

Bill C-474 is concrete action! Take Action this fall http://www.cban.ca/474

Subscribe to the CBAN News and Action Listserve http://www.cban.ca/About/CBAN-e-News

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I went to the U of G on Thursday night to hear a debate featuring one of the inventors of the enviropig squaring of against the Ontario NFU chapter president Sean McGivern, and the head researcher for the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, Lucy Sharrat. The enviropig researcher, Dr. Cecil Forsberg, was joined by Richard Moccia, who is the current vice president of research for the “Agri-food and Partnerships†portfolio. Ontario Pork was invited to participate in the debate, and did not appear, strange considering that Ontario Pork has been the major funder of the enviropig program.

Professor Moccia spoke for the university, with Dr. Forsberg only adding technical detail specific to Enviropig. Moccia explained that the university had applied for and received Environment Canada's approval to commercialize enviropig, and that their application to Health Canada is currently under review.

Moccia, with occasional help from Forsberg, explained the premise behind enviropig. As an aquatic systems biologist, Professor Moccia understands the damage done by phosphorous loading in surface water. That was the angle that the university seems to be coming from, that this innovation will reduce phosphorous loading in surface water. That's the happy side of Enviropig. The down side? This reduction in phosphorous output is achieved by splicing in a bacterial gene fragment that triggers the pig to produce phytase, a digestive enzyme that allows the pig to metabolize previously indigestible phosphorous in feed. This tendency is helped along by the further splicing of a mouse derived “promoter gene†that accentuates the phytase production trait. This modification gave the pig a “fitness trait for diet usually encountered†(read – corn and soybeans, produced in excess by cash croppers across Canada).

So then the “against†team got to speak. First up was Sean McGivern, organic farmer from Grey County and Ontario chapter president of the National Farmer's Union. He talked about the thirty hogs and six sows that he raised on his farm, and how as part of a mixed system, pig manure was part of his compost mix, which in turn fed the crops. Sean made the very good point that small scale livestock production did not need enviropig, but that it was developed to suit the needs of large agribusiness giants. Lucy Sharrat pointed out that initial discussions between the University and Ontario Pork, the rationale for this genetic modification was to allow the pork industry to continue current practice and at the same time be in (tightening wrt phosphorous) regulatory compliance.

When presented with this, Professor Moccia agreed that the enviropig was not the answer to industrial farming's woes, but simply a tool that hog producers could use to reduce phosphorous loading in their effluent. Lucy Sharrat countered this with a discussion of the current solution to this problem – a phytase supplement that, when fed to hogs, reduces phosphorous in their poop by between 20 to 50% depending on what part of their growth cycle they are in. By comparison, the enviropig with its' own phytase production shows a reduction of “up to 60 to 70%,†again depending on life cycle.

By this point it seemed clear that Ontario Pork is trying to help reduce the cost of hog feeding by eliminating the need for a phytase supplement and marginally decreasing the cost of feed. They achieve this by partially funding research at Guelph. Professor Moccia stated that the university's position on these sorts of matters is that they are working on behalf of the funders of research to solve problems that the funders present them with.

Academic institutions seem to be functioning as research and development labs for industry. A “client/service provider†mentality seems to be driving this sort of research, and there is, particularly in this case, no chance for the public to have their say on whether this is a door that we as a society want to open – would you eat transgenetic bacon? A couple of years ago due to a logistical mix-up, several enviropigs were sent to slaughter along with other pigs. When the error was discovered, the whole load of meat was condemned and destroyed as unfit as it was impossible to know what cuts were from what animal.

I'm having a Mr. Burns and Blinky moment.

Lucy Sharrat and CBAN are formally asking the University to withdraw their application to Health Canada to approve Enviropig as a “novel food†(really, what the f**k is a novel food anyway?) and not to re-submit until there has been a wider discussion about the impact of GM meat in the food system.

The "debate" wrapped up with mot audience members feeling as though the anti-enviropig side won. the well dressed gentleman next to me asked me what i thought of the evening's presentation. i explained that i had come to hear someone explain why the world needed enviropig, and that i felt let down. He looked thoughtfully at me and then told me that he was one of the professors in charge of the enviropig program, and told me that there are hundreds of millions of pigs in china, and that if this innovation could reduce phoshorous loading in chinese rivers, then they have made a difference. when i asked him whether keeping fewer pigs was a solution, he asserted that this would drive the price of food up and cause all manner of trouble.

hmmmm....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And now that's what they throw back at people like Ignatieff (not that I'm a big fan or anything, but still). Politicians seem increasingly electable because they come off like someone the average voter would like to go have a beer with.

I'm glad I'm not being a meat-eater for personal reasons, because with shit like this going on all the time, it looks pretty irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

very interesting review, timouse! thanks for taking the time to write it all up and providing us with what was said. :)

i wish other ethical debates we have here were as objectively well informed as you have done here. thanks.

i know that universities are always looking for avenues to create revenue streams. was there anything said as to how much UG might expect to make from this? it's a very interesting debate and interesting context as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the university seemed to present itself as not being about the money, which makes me suspicios that it's they stand to make a lot of money. i guess that u of g would get a cut every time an enviropig was, well, cut up.

phishtaper, do you work for the university? and how is it that we haven't met yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

According to the vet that runs the Enviropig program, China is their target market, billions of pigs per year x a tiny reduction in the phosphorous content of each poop = measurable impact (maybe). Looks like China is not so keen on GM food.

original story.

In China, No Meeting of the Minds on GM Crops

by Li Jiao on 15 October 2010, 11:05 AM | Permanent Link | 11 Comments

Email Print | More

Previous Article Next Article

WUHAN, CHINA—If anyone is under the impression that the Chinese public is ready to embrace genetically modified (GM) crops, they are mistaken. At a hastily arranged session at a symposium here earlier this week, members of the general public berated and quizzed scientists on concerns ranging from the legitimate to the bizarre.

The Chinese government is pushing hard on GM. Last year, China launched a $3.5 billion R&D effort on GM crops, and in 2008 Premier Wen Jiabao declared, "To solve the food problem, we have to rely on big science and technology measures, rely on biotechnology, rely on GM." Buoyed by high-level support, the agriculture ministry last November issued safety certificates to two rice varieties bearing a protein from Bacillus thuringiensis that's toxic to insect pests.

But the Chinese public is pushing back. A group of protestors descended on the "Communication and Dialogue of Agribiotech Symposium" at Huazhong Agricultural University on 11 October, prompting organizers to set up a side session that afternoon between members of the general public and scientists.

It soon became evident that scientists face an enormous task in communicating accurate information about GM crops. "If I eat GM rice, wings will grow in my body, correct?" asked an elementary school student. An adult then posed an only slightly less farfetched question, expressing his fear—fed by sensational articles in Chinese newspapers—that GM rice will suppress sperm levels and lead to "subjugation and genocide" in China. "We only want to live healthily, why must you harm us?" he asked.

Experts sought to reassure the audience that consumption of GM crops has been linked neither to growth of human wings nor to suppressed sperm levels. But they also acknowledged that there are legitimate questions about the long-term safety of GM foods, both to human health and the environment, that are the subject of ongoing research. "I cannot say that GM food is totally safe," says Zhu Zhen of the Institute of Genetics and Developmental Biology of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS).

Although the encounter yielded little consensus, scientists appreciated the chance to try to set the record straight. The onus is now on science communicators to provide accurate information and "play a role as a bridge" between scientists and the public, says symposium organizer Jia Hepeng, chief editor of CAS's Science News biweekly magazine. But with sentiments in China running strong against GM crops, and GM rice in particular, Huazhong's Zhang Qifa, a leading rice researcher, says that he can't predict how long it will take for GM rice to win approval for commercial planting. "I have tried my best for research, but I can't control others," he says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Macleans magazine weighs in on the debate.

Green eggs and ham

Are genetically modified animals the solution to the environmental problem of a growing market for meat?

by Julia Belluz on Thursday, October 21, 2010

“When I look at the Enviropig,†says professor Richard Moccia, associate vice-president of research at the University of Guelph, “I’m in awe and amazement at the ability of humans to create this technology.†Though the pink mammals look, oink and act like regular Yorkshire pigs, they were created in a lab. In 1999, scientists at Guelph added an E. coli gene and mouse DNA to a normal pig embryo. The result: the “greener†Enviropig pig. Though no one has ever tasted an Enviropig, testing on its internal organs and meat cuts revealed it’s identical to a regular oinker. Except that this transgenic animal may solve an environmental problem, namely pollution caused by pig farming.

We know all about eating local foods, recycling and carpooling to reduce our environmental footprints. But how about opting for animal products genetically modified to be greener? A number of researchers in Canada and around the world are working at the frontiers of genetic modification to create animals—from pigs to trout—that they claim are less injurious to the environment.

The Enviropigs, for one, emit less phosphorus than normal pigs. Pigs need phosphorus in their diets, but it’s mostly indigestible for them; they lack the enzyme phytase. As a result, a lot of phosphorus ends up in their manure. Farmers, in turn, use pig manure as fertilizer, and when it rains, it trickles off farms and into bodies of water, where it promotes algae growth, strangling fish habitats by stealing oxygen and creating “dead zones.†Enviropigs have been modified to produce phytase so they excrete substantially less phosphorus. “It’s a low-pollution pig, if you will,†says Moccia.

A similar argument is being made for trout produced at the University of Rhode Island by Terry Bradley. The genetically modified fish contain inhibitors of the protein myostatin, which limits muscle growth. The result is a trout with more muscle mass than traditional fish. “You can equate these fish with Belgian Blue cattle, which use about 10 to 15 per cent less feed.†Like Belgian Blues, the cattle equivalent of a young Arnold Schwarzenegger, the trout grow to harvest size on a lot less food.

Bradley has not yet applied for U.S. FDA approval, but another GM fish creator did recently, to great hoopla. The Massachusetts-based biotechnology company AquaBounty’s “AquAdvantage†Atlantic salmon, deemed safe to eat by the FDA, grow faster than natural salmon (18 to 24 months as opposed to 30)—the result of receiving an extra growth hormone from Chinook salmon and a gene from an eel-like fish called ocean pout, which acts like an “on switch†for the growth hormone.

So how are they eco-friendly? According to John Buchanan, research director at AquaBounty, which produces the Canadian-designed fish (they were born at Memorial University in St. John’s, Nfld., in 1989), they cause “less degradation of the environment, less disease spread,†and require less feed. They can also be harvested in onshore containment facilities, he says, close to customers, which means less shipping. “The world population is growing,†he adds, “and the ability to produce twice the amount of fish for the same cost and time will be beneficial.â€

It sounds like a sales pitch, but that argument is reiterated by Mart Gross, a professor in ecology at the University of Toronto and a former critic of genetically modifying animals. “Our population today is over six billion people, and is going to increase by 50 per cent. Where is the food going to come from? It’s not going to come from our old ways of farming.â€

Experts say other fish, such as tilapia and cod, are next in line for genetic modification.

Meanwhile, genetic modification has been used by Scottish scientists to create chickens that lay eggs that contain proteins for cancer-fighting drugs. Russian researchers have created goats that produce human breast milk. A Canadian company owns the intellectual property for another transgenic goat. Its milk contains a protein that can be spun to produce high-strength materials (more eco-friendly than petroleum-based ones) for things like biomedical devices, or for use in the aeronautics industry.

Still, some researchers claim that instead of helping the environment, these novel animals could destroy it. The AquAdvantage salmon, while about 98 per cent sterile, could threaten natural populations if they interbreed. Mark Abrahams, professor at Memorial University, has conducted behavioural experiments and concludes that if the GM salmon enter environments where their natural predators have been depleted, they’d outperform wild salmon, putting those fish at risk.

“Most animals, when they are making a decision about where to go to feed, weigh the costs and benefits,†says Abrahams. “Transgenic salmon don’t. They are growing all the time, they need food, they go for it.â€

Moccia says not to worry: “Society will make the ultimate call.†But will it? According to Grace Skogstad, a University of Toronto professor who researches the politics of genetically modified foods, the consumer has been the last to make decisions about what she eats in the U.S. and Canada. “In Europe,†Skogstad says, “there is this notion that there isn’t anything in genetic modification that benefits the consumer—it just benefits the producer—so governments have encouraged organic farming instead of modern farming methods.â€

Nevertheless, if society can’t swallow the GM salmon option, another eco-friendly method of fish farming is being piloted on Canada’s East Coast. Instead of using cutting-edge technology, Thierry Chopin at the University of New Brunswick has been looking back to complex polyculture, an approach used centuries ago in Asia. With integrated multi-trophic aquaculture, salmon are grown in conjunction with mussels and seaweed. Different species have complementary functions in the ecosystem, so they balance each other out. “What we’re doing is like crop diversification in agriculture,†says Chopin, “which brings economic stability and reduces risks.†Water quality is improved, and mussels appear to reduce the virulence of infectious salmon anemia virus. Recently, Chopin’s team has also been exploring the possibility that mussels may filter and consume sea lice. If Chopin is successful, Canada may once again present a viable alternative to today’s fish farming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...