Quick hits: Using a pay phone; hated Halloween candy; oral health is part of overall health; dude ranches for all

Finding and using a pay phone is a modern curiosity.
(Photo by Darin Epperly, Flatwater Free Press)

Smartphones may be the way of today, but pay phones still exist, and a call can cost a mere quarter. "Lane Handke called his wife to tell her he was bringing home the shelves they needed to finish their cabinet. The call cost him 25 cents," reports of Kevin Warneke of Flatwater Free Press. "Then, he phoned a friend just to say hello. . . . Handke made his calls from a pay telephone standing outside the Pierce Telephone Co. building. He felt drawn to this pay phone by curiosity. Pulled toward it by nostalgia." He told Warneke, “I hadn’t used a pay phone in decades. People were looking and wondering what I was doing. I thought it was kind of cool.”

While wind, solar, nuclear and fossil fuels are all part of the U.S. energy grid, geothermal power may be the next source to enter the mix. "The promise of new engineering techniques for geothermal energy – heat from the Earth itself – has attracted rising levels of investment to this reliable, low-emission power source that can provide continuous electricity almost anywhere on the planet," writes geophysicist Moones Alamooti for The Conversation. "That includes ways to harness geothermal energy from idle or abandoned oil and gas wells. . . . In the first quarter of 2025, North American geothermal installations attracted $1.7 billion in public funding – compared with $2 billion for all of 2024."

Do you know which Halloween candies are the most
disliked? (Adobe Stock photo)

As Halloween gets closer, adults and kids out shopping are met with store shelves packed with chewy eyeballs, glow-in-the-dark worms, bat-shaped candy bars, corn that's not real corn, and festive fall packaging. But some people find the  sweet, sticky world of Oct. 31 candy disgusting -- so much so, there's a list of the 10 most despised Halloween candies. Guesses go here.

Oral health and overall health are closely linked, and some "practitioners think dentistry should no longer be siloed," reports Lola Butcher for Knowable magazine. "Dentistry and medicine have operated as parallel fields: Dentists take care of the mouth, physicians the rest of the body. That is starting to change. . . . Dental hygienists have started working in medical clinics; physicians and dentists have started a professional association to promote working together; and a new kind of clinic — with dentists and doctors under one roof — is emerging. . . . The list of connections between oral health and systemic health — conditions that affect the entire body — is remarkable."

Triangle X Ranch, inside Grand Teton National Park, has been in the Turner family for nearly a century. 
(Triangle X Ranch photo via The New York Times)

Saddle up or relax at one of these six dude ranches. "All-inclusive guest ranches let you connect with nature, as well as your inner cowpoke, on the trail, around the campfire and under the starry skies," reports Ruffin Prevost for The New York Times. Whether honing horse skills, seeking majestic views, or simply wanting to leave technology and stress behind by heading out to the American West, Prevost's list offers suggestions and resources for a rural getaway.

Here a seed, there a seed, everywhere a company selling or consolidating to sell seeds. "Keeping track of [seed] brands — especially corn and soybeans — can be daunting," reports of Chris Torres of Farm Progress. "Knowing who owns what can provide crucial insights into what companies are behind the brands you buy, how they source and develop genetics, and what sorts of technology may be available to you." A compact seed chart and a listing of university variety seed trials are found here.

Each piano was tuned slightly differently to produce 11,000 Strings.
(Photo by Stephanie Berg via the Smithsonian)

When 100 pianos at the Hailun piano factory in China were all played together to test their performance before being shipped out, conductor Peter Paul Kainrath was there to experience the "massive sound," reports Ella Feldman for Smithsonian magazine. "The cacophonic scene left Kainrath so inspired that he called Austrian composer Georg Friedrich Haas to discuss its potential. . . .The next morning, Haas told Kainrath that if he brought him 50 pianos, he would compose a piece. The resulting composition is Haas’ 11,000 Strings."

Opinion: Farmers are working to bridge the producer-consumer divide. Here are ideas on how to do it.

GMO crops still make some Americans leery. Explaining what
they are can help create understanding. (Adobe Stock photo)

Some Americans believe chocolate milk comes from brown cows. Some think Genetically Modified Organism crops, also known as GMOs, can cause autism. While neither of these ideas is true, they are examples of how removed many Americans are from their food sources, which is something U.S. farmers are working to change, writes Holly Spangler in her opinion piece for Prairie Farmer.

Since the early 2000s, U.S. farmers have invested millions of dollars "to help consumers understand where their food comes from and how modern ag helps feed the world," Spangler explains. "To fight the agriculture disconnect, the Illinois Farm Families Coalition has produced two Super Bowl commercials, bussed moms to farms, bussed farmers to Chicago, and reminded Illinoisians that farm families own and operate 96% of all farms in Illinois, via the We Are the 96 campaign."

But as long as Americans remain uncertain about where and how their food is produced, there will be a significant degree of distrust between farmers and consumers. "A 2022 University of Minnesota study revealed that just 24% of U.S. adults have a high degree of trust in the information they receive about food production," Spangler writes. "Only 27% of all survey respondents said they had a 'very favorable' impression of U.S. agriculture and food production. . . . It’s no surprise that farmers feel misunderstood or even under attack."

How can the farmer-to-consumer information breakdown be repaired? Through connection. Spangler explains, "What really connects with consumers? Shared values. When you share that you worry about the safety of your drinking water the same way they do, they will pay attention. And when you share that you want your family to eat healthy and safe food the way they do, they will listen."

When farmers share their values, such as humane animal
treatment, they can reconnect with consumers. (AS photo)

Even when connections can't be immediately forged, Spangler says, "There's still plenty to talk about. . . . Like, explaining the science behind GMO crops and how they don’t cause cancer, autism, allergies or gluten intolerance. . . . Arm yourself with good news. I often think back to farmer Mike Martz telling a group of Chicago women about the healthy and unhealthy fats in steak. 'The fat in the marbling is actually monounsaturated fat. That’s the healthy fat, like olive oil. We call those flecks of flavor!' Martz said. The unhealthy fat? That’s the thick white stuff on the outside that you usually cut off."

Bring the facts and be ready to have a conversation. Spangler adds, "Statistics don’t change people’s minds. People change people’s minds."

Opinion: An agriculture columnist reviews reader reactions to his four most controversial stances

The value of Covid-19 vaccines is still controversial topic
for journalists to discuss. (The Forum News Service photo)

Public distrust, newsroom layoffs, 24/7 work cycles and frequent online updates are just a few of the daunting challenges journalists face. In the case of controversial stories, public responses can double the pressure. Farm Journal columnist Jonathan Knutson writes, "I dislike the handful of profanity-laden emails and phone calls from readers who disagree with my column. To be clear, the vast majority of emails and phone calls from disagreeing readers are polite and use appropriate language, and I welcome their feedback." Knutson revisited his four most "difference-filled" stories.

Knutson covered GMOs and "The column noted the strong consensus of U.S. experts that GMOs are safe for humans to eat. That's good enough for me. . . Especially since GMOs increase food production in a world in which far too many people are hungry. . . . A few readers thanked me, but most respondents disagreed. They correctly pointed out that the majority of GMO-knowledgeable scientists in some parts of the world say GMOs aren't safe for humans. . . . My response then and now: I don't have a good answer for the foreign scientists' stance."

Knutson wrote on free trade's relationship to agriculture. "Most U.S. ag groups support freer trade. They say — and statistics and obvious real-world observations agree — that freer trade increases U.S. ag exports, which in turn increases grain prices and farmers' profit. . . . But my column criticizing former President Trump's trade-distorting, ag-harming trade policies drew angry responses from a number of his supporters, as well as a few officials from U.S. economic sectors hurt by freer trade. . . . My response then and now: Freer trade isn't perfect; the column noted that some U.S. workers are hurt by it. But freer trade helps American farmers, farm communities, ag-heavy states and the national economy overall."

What about human activities and their relationship to climate change? Knutson had been a skeptic for years, but around 2002, his opinion shifted. "I learned that 97% of climate scientists believe climate change is real and human activity contributes to it. I talked at length with a climate scientist who patiently answered my many questions.

"My column, which said that climate change is real and human activity contributes to it, drew angry responses from a number of readers. Their main argument was that climate scientists must support the climate-change-is-real position or lose their federal funding. . . . However, I also received positive responses from several respondents. One wrote: 'It's ironic that so many in ag praise the courage of GMO experts who tell them what they want to hear while they rip climate scientists who tell them what they don't want to hear.' . . . My take then and now: 97% of climate scientists say climate change is real, and I respect their overall professionalism and integrity."

Knudson tackled the Covid-19 vaccination debate and received angry and supportive responses. "Again, I'll stick with the vast majority of experts who say vaccinations are both safe and needed. . . . The takeaway: It's easy to praise experts who say what we want to hear and vilify experts who don't. And it's altogether too easy to accept dubious, dangerous internet 'facts' that lead to muddled minds and fanatical faith in bizarro-world conspiracy theories. Established science isn't perfect, but it's still the best bet available."

Feds still mulling old request to test gene-modified chestnut trees in the wild; to play God after playing the Devil?

A horse chestnut tree
(Photo by Jean Mottershead, flickr.com via CC)

Eastern U.S. forests were once full of chestnut trees, but they are gone, and only science can replace them. "The majestic trees grew as much as 100 feet tall and 10 feet wide. . . . Over the 20th century, an estimated four billion of them, one-fourth of the hardwood trees growing in Appalachia, were killed by an Asian fungus accidentally imported in the late 19th century," recounts Sarah Gibben of National Geographic. "It's considered one of the worst environmental disasters to strike North America—and also a preview. . . . Emerald ash borer, sudden oak death--in a globalizing world, many trees are facing pandemics of their own."

Given the mass loss and desire to reestablish part of native Appalachia, some efforts have been launched to grow blight-proof chestnut trees. They're still trying. Tom Saielli, a forest scientist for the American Chestnut Foundation, told Gibbens, "Fast-forward 30-plus years of breeding work, and what we see is, blight resistance is much more complicated than we really thought."

The crux of the problem is the insidious infecting fungus, Cryphonectria parasitica, which releases oxalic acid; the acid kills adult chestnut trees, so efforts to hybridze them with Chinese chestnuts failed around the time the hybrid trees were 15 years old. Then reseearchers found "a wheat gene that enhanced pathogen resistance in tomatoes" and produces "an enzyme that breaks down the acid produced by the blight fungus, rendering it harmless," Gibben reports. They added the gene to the chestnut's genome and produced a modified tree that they named Darling 58. "Trees grown in test plots proved tolerant of the blight."

Researcher Bill Powell of the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry in Syracuse, N.Y., "is confident Darling 58 is safe, but transgenic trees inspire a fear of the unknown," Gibbens writes. "In 2014, chestnut fans wanted to know when they could get Darling 58. Eight years later, they’re still waiting. . . .Who can grow genetically modified crops and where they can be grown are tightly regulated in the United States. Powell and his colleagues have asked the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency to deregulate Darling 58, affording it the status of a non-modified tree. . . .Anne Petermann, executive director of the Global Justice Ecology Project, told Gibbens, "Once these are out in the forest, there's no calling them back. There's no way to reverse it." Allen Nichols, president of the New York chapter of the chestnut foundation, told Gibbens, "Some people say, 'You're playing God,' What I say is: 'We've been playing the devil for ages, so we need to start playing God, or we're going to start losing a whole mess of stuff.'"

Dicamba still drifts, hurting crops; manufacturer Bayer sues four Missouri farmers for using older versions of it

Soybeans with suspected dicamba damage
(Photo by Darrell Hoemann, Investigate Midwest)

"Bayer is suing four farmers in the Bootheel of Missouri for illegally spraying older versions of dicamba on its genetically-engineered soybeans, as well as doing so after the state's cutoff date for spraying the herbicide," which can drift onto non-engineered crops and damage or kill them, reports Johnathan Hettinger of Investigate Midwest. "Critics say the lawsuits are an attempt by Bayer to blame the older version of the weedkiller for damage caused by the widespread legal use of dicamba on crops. The lawsuits, filed in January in federal court in the Eastern District of Missouri, allege that the farmers are in violation of their user agreements with Bayer and have harmed the company's reputation with the Environmental Protection Agency."

"Millions of acres of farmland and natural areas have been harmed by dicamba moving off of where it was applied since genetically engineered dicamba-tolerant crops were introduced in 2015. Because of the damage, a federal court banned dicamba briefly in 2020. Still, the EPA re-approved dicamba with additional restrictions months later. That approval is currently being challenged," Hettinger notes. "In response to questions from Investigate Midwest, a Bayer spokesman said that the lawsuits help 'protect grower access to the technologies. . . . The vast majority of growers abide by the law and honor their contractual agreements. In these cases, there was clear evidence of irresponsible and illegal use.'"

Hettinger explains, "George Kimbrell, legal director for the Center for Food Safety, a nonprofit that is among those challenging the EPA's 2020 approval of dicamba, said the lawsuits by Bayer are a strategic way to blame factors other than legal use of dicamba for the herbicide's harm to farmers. 'They view this as a way to relitigate responsibility for drift harm,' said Kimbrell, who said that Monsanto, the original creator of dicamba-tolerant crops, has been suing farmers for decades for patent infringement by saving seeds from one harvest and planting them the next year. . . . In 2012, the Center for Food Safety released a report showing that Monsanto had filed at least 142 lawsuits against farmers."

"Volatilization is particularly concerning because dicamba can move for miles and harm non-target crops, especially non-resistant soybeans, or lawns and gardens. . . . . Older versions, which are more likely to volatilize are much cheaper and have been allowed for decades," Hettinger reports. "Bob Hartzler, professor emeritus of weed science at Iowa State University, said he places the onus on the EPA to take the older products off the market. Hartzler told Hettingger, "The higher volatility of these products results in more off-target movement. It seems like it would be a fairly easy fix to take the older products off the market."

It's a first: Genetically modified trees have been planted in Georgia Pine Belt, with hopes for large-scale climate help

Living Carbon researchers used a crude technique known as the
gene gun method. (Photo by Audra Melton, The New York Times)

I think that I shall never see

A poem as lovely as a tree.

Poet and journalist Joyce Kilmer penned that in 1913. What would he have thought if he had looked out his window to see "a low-lying tract of southern Georgia’s Pine Belt where half-dozen workers were planting row upon row of twig-like poplar trees," some "genetically engineered to grow wood at turbocharged rates while slurping up carbon dioxide from the air," as Gabriel Popkin of The New York Times reports?

Made by God, but reingineered by humans: "The poplars may be the first genetically modified trees planted in the United States outside of a research trial or a commercial fruit orchard," Popkin writes "Just as the introduction of the Flavr Savr tomato in 1994 introduced a new industry of genetically modified food crops, the tree planters on Monday hope to transform forestry. Living Carbon, a San Francisco-based biotechnology company that produced the poplars, intends for its trees to be a large-scale solution to climate change."

“We’ve had people tell us it’s impossible,” Maddie Hall, the company’s co-founder and chief executive, told Popkin, who reports, "But she and her colleagues have also found believers — enough to invest $36 million . . . The company has also attracted critics. The Global Justice Ecology Project, an environmental group, has called the company’s trees 'growing threats' to forests and expressed alarm that the federal government allowed them to evade regulation. . . . Living Carbon has yet to publish peer-reviewed papers; its only publicly reported results come from a greenhouse trial that lasted just a few months."

Donald Ort, a University of Illinois geneticist whose plant experiments helped inspire Living Carbon’s technology, told Popkin, “They have some encouraging results," but he added that translation from greenhouse to the field is "not a slam dunk.”

Popkin explains: that the Georgia plantings used "the gene gun method, which essentially blasts foreign genes into the trees’ chromosomes. . . . In a field accustomed to glacial progress and heavy regulation, Living Carbon has moved fast and freely. The gene-gun-modified poplars avoided a set of federal regulations of genetically modified organisms that can stall biotech projects for years. (Those regulations have since been revised.) . . . On the land of Vince Stanley, a seventh-generation farmer who manages more than 25,000 forested acres in Georgia’s pine belt, mattock-swinging workers carrying backpacks of seedlings planted nearly 5,000 modified poplars."

Both the trees and Living Carbon will have survival challenges. "While outright destruction of genetically engineered trees has dwindled, the trees still prompt unease in the forestry and environmental worlds," Popkin reports. "Major organizations that certify sustainable forests ban engineered trees from forests that get their approval; some also prohibit member companies from planting engineered trees anywhere. To date, the only country where large numbers of genetically engineered trees are known to have been planted is China."

Ort "dismissed such environmental concerns. But he said investors were taking a big chance on a tree that might not meet its creators’ expectations," Popkin reports. Ort told him, “It’s not unexciting. I just think it’s uber-high risk."

Quick hits: How to deal with conspiracy theories in the pandemic; a program to help rural sexual-assault survivors

Here's a roundup of stories with rural resonance; if you do or see similar work that should be shared on The Rural Blog, email us at heather.chapman@uky.edu.

How can local officials deal with conspiracy theories during the pandemic? Read it here.

Genetic engineering could bring back the American chestnut tree. Here's the latest update.

A Penn State program aims to better help rural sexual assault survivors through telehealth and more. Read about it here.

An energy analyst with the Union of Concerned Scientists discusses what coal communities need to recover from the pandemic. Read it here.

Pandemic hurts rural mass transit agencies. Read more here.

Barrage of complaints about drift of dicamba herbicide overwhelm state agencies that probe pesticide damage

State agencies responsible for investigating pesticide-misuse reports have been overwhelmed by complaints about the herbicide dicamba for the past three years, and many are asking the Environmental Protection Agency for help, Dan Charles reports for NPR.

Dicamba is notorious for drifting into nearby fields, damaging crops that aren't genetically engineered to be resistant to it. It was once sprayed only before crops sprouted, but in 2016 EPA allowed farmers to spray it on genetically modified soybean plants. Then came a large increase in complaints from farmers who say their non-GMO crops were damaged, Charles reports.

State agencies have to investigate each complaint of pesticide drift and decide whether it happened because someone broke the law, "but many have struggled to keep up," Charles reports. "In Illinois, the number of complaints soared from about 120 in the pre-dicamba era to more than 700 in 2019. In Indiana, it went from about 60 to 200. Meanwhile, because they're fully occupied with dicamba complaints, inspectors don't have time for all their other work, such as routine inspections of pesticide use at schools, golf courses or businesses."

The complaints aren't likely going away any time soon. Several states have banned or restricted dicamba use over the past few years, but in November of 2018 EPA extended its approval through 2020. "The agency decided the problems could be addressed with a few new restrictions on how and where dicamba can be sprayed, along with more training for people who use it," Charles reports. 

However, dicamba complaints have continued to increase, and where they have decreased, there is evidence that most people aren't filing complaints because they don't think it will do any good, Charles reports.

The states' heavy workload has resulted in high staff turnover. In the past year and a half, all but one of Missouri's eight pesticide inspectors left their jobs, Charles reports. And, frustratingly, EPA may not be paying much attention to the state reports anyway. The EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs stopped asking for routine updates on state regulators' injury reports last year.

The herbicide is under increased scrutiny right now as dicamba makers Bayer (which bought the originator Monsanto) and BASF face allegations in a lawsuit that they deliberately sold a product known to hurt non-resistant crops in order to increase their sales. The Midwest Center for Investigative Reporting has an in-depth package on the trial.

FDA approves GMO cotton with edible cotton seeds

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a genetically engineered form of cotton that makes its seeds edible without hurting the valuable fiber. Researchers believe the seeds can become a cheap source of protein for people and animals, Jessica Fu reports for The New Food Economy.

The U.S. is a powerhouse cotton producer, bringing 9.6 billion pounds worth $7 billion to the world market every year. Most of its value is in the fiber; seeds have been of little use because they contain a toxic chemical called gossypol. The chemical can trigger severe respiratory distress, impaired immune and reproductive function, and death in humans. Cotton seeds are used in some cattle feed, a few insecticides, and for cottonseed oil, production of which removes gossypol, Fu reports.

Keerti Rathore, a plant-biotechnology professor at Texas A&M University, has been working for the past two decades to change that. It turns out that cotton seeds are rich in proteins, but Rathore found it difficult to reduce gossypol levels in seeds but not in the rest of the plant, where it serves as a natural insecticide, Fu reports.

After years of experimentation, Rathore submitted a low-gossypol cotton to the FDA and the Agriculture Department for approval in 2017. "Last year, USDA deregulated the genetically engineered cotton, giving farmers free rein to grow the crop. FDA’s move this month gives producers permission to use it as an ingredient in human food, as well as animal feed," Fu reports.

It will still be a while before the new seeds are on grocery and feed-store shelves. Seed companies must agree to sell them, and farmers may be slow to grow a new form of cotton. And, "beyond the bureaucratic aspects, low-gossypol cotton seeds also face the challenge of overcoming the cultural stigma surrounding genetically modified foods," Fu reports.

Grocery makers' lobby changes name, reflecting fractured food industry often at cross purposes on Capitol Hill

The Grocery Manufacturers Association announced recently that it's changing its name to the Consumer Brands Association, reflecting a shift in focus and a new landscape in which there is no unified group representing foodmakers on Capitol Hill.

The move "comes nearly two years after about a dozen major food companies left the group amid deep disagreements over how to handle thorny food policy issues like GMO labeling," Helena Bottemiller Evich reports for Politico. "The association is now pivoting to focus on representing companies that produce consumer packaged goods — a broad sector that extends well beyond food to personal care products like shaving cream and even over-the-counter drugs."

Changes in consumer tastes drove the splintering of the once-powerful lobby, as people increasingly question ingredients, country of origin, farm and processor labor laws, and environmental impact of the food they buy. “The intense pace of change has left major food companies unable to agree on all sorts of issues, from mandatory labeling of genetically modified ingredients to whether the federal government should nudge foodmakers to reduce salt in their products," Evich reports. Among food companies, "consensus on pressing policy issues is nearly impossible to achieve, and things are likely to stay that way, according to interviews with more than a dozen industry leaders."

Some specialized food-industry groups have been unable to agree on policies. Dairy behemoth Dean Foods, which is struggling with declining sales, said last week it's leaving the International Dairy Foods Association because the lobby hasn't fought to keep plant-based products from being marketed with dairy terms like "milk" on the label.

Dean left GMA a few years ago, Evich notes. She writes, "Today, GMA is half the size it once was, in terms of revenue — an almost unheard of level of decline for a major trade association — and none of the companies that quit the group have rejoined, even after a complete leadership shake-up last year. The group’s new strategy is to seize on more unifying, less controversial issues like supply-chain logistics, sustainable packaging and recycling."

Trump orders easier path for OKing GMO crops, livestock

President Trump signed an executive order Tuesday directing federal agencies to streamline rules for approving genetically engineered crops and livestock. "The order also noted the government’s policies should urge trading partners to adopt similar regulatory approaches. Even if the U.S. loosens regulations on genetically engineered foods . . . companies could be hampered by regulations overseas," Candice Choi reports for The Associated Press.

The order's impact will depend on how the Agriculture Department, the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency carry it out, since simple deregulation could cause consumers to be more skeptical of GMOs, argues Greg Jaffe, biotechnology director at the Center for Science in the Public Interest. The order may have a bigger impact on livestock than crops, since genetically engineered animals tend to face more regulatory hurdles, Choi reports.

Federal agencies try to make policies keep up with new technologies, but the GMO-approval process is complicated because "how genetically engineered plants and animals are currently regulated in the U.S. varies depending on the exact methods used to produce them," Choi reports.

Last week USDA proposed changing rules to exempt most GMOs from special oversight if produced through gene editing. That's a form of genetic modification that only produces traits that could have been achieved through traditional breeding techniques, albeit much more quickly and accurately, Choi reports. Most of the GMO corn and soy grown in the U.S. is produced through gene editing.

"But Jaydee Hanson of the Center for Food Safety said gene editing could also be used to make more significant changes, including those that would never happen in nature, and said oversight is necessary," Choi reports.

Chinese approval process for genetically modified crops is a sticking point in talks to end trade war with U.S.

"China's lengthy approval process for genetically modified crops remains a sticking point in talks to end the trade war between China and the United States, according to two sources with knowledge of the talks," Chris Prentice reports for Reuters. "Beijing has taken years to approve new strains of GM crops, which U.S. companies and farmers have complained stalls trade by restricting the sales of new products from companies such as DowDuPont Inc., Bayer AG, and Syngenta AG."

Relaxation of the approval process is among the demands that the Trump administration has made of China "if it wants to end trade disputes that have cost both countries billions of dollars and slowed the global economy," Prentice writes. Before the trade war, China bought 60 percent of U.S. soy exports.

The issue of genetically modified organisms "has been a source of tension between the two countries for years," Prentice notes. "China is the biggest buyer of U.S. soybeans, the bulk of which are genetically modified. If it does not approve new strains, then farmers in the United States cannot plant them because China may reject shipments that include them. Seed companies cannot fully commercialize sales of new strains without those approvals."

Prentice reports that there appeared to be progress on the issue in January, "when China approved a handful of GMO crops for import. They were the first in about 18 months. The move did not address the core U.S. concerns over delays to the process. . . . It is unclear what differences on the issue remain. The United States wants China to accelerate its approval process and make it more similar to Washington's. Beijing allows imports of GMO soybeans and corn for use in animal feed, even though it does not permit planting of them."

Chicken industry spends big to fix tough or squishy breasts

"Chicken companies spent decades breeding birds to grow rapidly and develop large breast muscles," Jacob Bunge reports for The Wall Street Journal. "Now the industry is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to deal with the consequences ranging from squishy fillets known as 'spaghetti meat,' because they pull apart easily, to leathery ones known as 'woody breast'."

There's some evidence that the traits, which pose no risk to consumers, are side effects of selecting for hens that grow to slaughter weight twice as quickly as hens 50 years ago. But researchers and breeders are still trying to figure out the exactly what led to the traits. "While there are some factors linked to the occurrence—including bird weight, feed ingredients and the time of year the bird is grown—even a combination of these factors will not necessarily produce the same issues consistently," a Tyson Foods spokesperson told Bunge. Tyson owns Cobb-Vantress, one of the two breeding firms that supply most of the breeding stock for the world's chicken companies. 

It's in the poultry industry's best interests to figure out what causes the substandard chicken breasts, since culling them is a considerable expense. 'Spaghetti meat' can be found in up to 5 percent of breast samples. 'Woody' meat is present in about 10 percent, and white striping occurs in about 30 percent, researchers found. None of these traits was widespread before 2010, but major chicken producers are now spending an estimated $200 million annually to find and quash them. And the U.S. Poultry and Egg Association has spent $500,000 over the past three years on research to find the cause of the problems and identify nutrients that could lessen them, Bunge reports. 

Some restaurants and grocery chains, like Wendy's and Whole Foods, have switched to buying slower-growing chickens to improve quality. The smaller chickens cost more, but a Wendy's spokesperson told Bunge that the switch was worth it; customer comments improved.

Biologists 'hack' photosynthesis to create bigger and faster-growing plants; now working on food crops

University of Illinois scientists say they've figured out how to genetically engineer some plants' photosynthesis process to make them grow dramatically bigger and faster, and they're now working on making the hack work in plants people grow for food.

Their work, published this month in Science, centers on rubisco, an enzyme found in most plants' leaves that uses solar power to convert carbon dioxide in the air into sugar molecules the plant can use for energy, Dan Charles reports for NPR. The problem with rubisco is that it also scoops oxygen from the air along with the carbon, and must detoxify it via an energy-intensive process. That leaves less energy available for making leaves or fruit.

The researchers have spent the past five years trying to make rubisco more efficient, with funding for their project from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and more. The team was able to create tobacco plants that grew faster and up to 40 percent bigger than normal in both greenhouse and open-air conditions, Charles reports.

The team is now working on food crops like tomatoes, soybeans, and black-eyed peas. Black-eyed peas were selected because they're a staple crop in sub-Saharan Africa, where funders want to make a big impact. But it will be years before such genetically engineered crops are available for purchase, if at all. "Researchers will have to find out whether it means that a food crop like soybeans actually produces more beans — or just more stalks and leaves," Charles reports. 'Then they'll need to convince government regulators and consumers that the crops are safe to grow and eat."

Gene-edited foods are headed to grocery stores; customer perception and international trade rules are still uncertain

The ability to edit the genes of plants and animals has been hailed as a breakthrough that will help feed a sharply increasing human population in a world wracked by climate change. But governments disagree or are uncertain about how to regulate the technology, and the biggest question of all remains unanswered: When gene-edited foods hit grocery stores, will customers buy them?

"By early next year, the first foods from plants or animals that had their DNA 'edited' are expected to begin selling. It's a different technology than today's controversial 'genetically modified' foods, more like faster breeding that promises to boost nutrition, spur crop growth, and make farm animals hardier and fruits and vegetables last longer," Lauran Neergaard reports for The Associated Press.

Scientists hope consumers will see the value in the changes they're pursuing: "Wheat with triple the usual fiber, or that's low in gluten. Mushrooms that don't brown, and better-producing tomatoes. Drought-tolerant corn, and rice that no longer absorbs soil pollution as it grows. Dairy cows that don't need to undergo painful de-horning, and pigs immune to a dangerous virus that can sweep through herds," Neergaard reports.

The federal government is split on how or whether to regulate gene-edited organisms: the Agriculture Department says no extra rules are needed for gene-edited plants that could have been developed through traditional breeding, but in 2017 the Food and Drug Administration proposed tighter restrictions on gene-edited animals. International rules, important for trade considerations, are likewise up in the air. "Europe's highest court ruled last summer that existing European curbs on the sale of transgenic GMOs should apply to gene-edited foods, too," Neergaard reports. "But at the World Trade Organization this month, the U.S. joined 12 nations including Australia, Canada, Argentina and Brazil in urging other countries to adopt internationally consistent, science-based rules for gene-edited agriculture."

Read more here: https://www.newsobserver.com/news/article221634745.html#storylink=c

Read more here: https://www.newsobserver.com/news/article221634745.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: https://www.newsobserver.com/news/article221634745.html#storylink=cpy

Some farmers still use dicamba despite ban, posing threats (and maybe tough choices) for other farmers

Dozens of Arkansas farmers could face thousands of dollars in fines after using a banned herbicide on their crops. Last year Monsanto, now owned by Bayer, introduced varieties of soybeans and cotton that are tolerant of the herbicide dicamba. But dicamba tends to drift to neighboring fields and damage or kill other crops and plants, Dan Charles reports for NPR.

At first Arkansas and a few other states restricted spraying of dicamba after April 15 to protect newly sprouted crops from from the pesticide. But after reports that dicamba had damaged millions of acres nationwide, last July Arkansas and Missouri banned the sale and use of dicamba, and other states placed restrictions on its use. Arkansas farmers who defy the ban face fines of $1,000 to $25,000 per violation, but some are still using the chemical this growing season because of concerns about weeds choking crops.

Two farmers who asked to remain anonymous told Charles that farmers used dicamba and Monsanto's dicamba-tolerant seeds because they think it will produce a bigger harvest. Another told Charles, "Spraying dicamba is the only way to stay in business, and paying the fine is cheaper than fighting weeds any other way."

But that can endanger other farmers' crops. Tad Nowlin, whose northeast Arkansas farm is just across the border from Missouri, told Charles that he was able to get rid of weeds without using dicamba, but his soybeans were damaged by dicamba drift from another farm. "If other people insist on using dicamba, he may be forced to plant those new dicamba-tolerant soybeans, because those plants won't get injured," Charles reports. "And if he does that, he'd be tempted to spray dicamba, too."

Active ingredient of herbicide Roundup linked to shorter pregnancies, and thus 'lifelong adverse consequences'

More than 90 percent of a group of pregnant women in central Indiana had detectable levels of the active ingredient in the popular herbicide Roundup in their urine, according to researchers at Indiana University and the University of California San Francisco. The levels of glyphosate were higher in rural areas. The study, recently published in the journal Environmental Health, is the first to examine glyphosate exposure in pregnant Americans, Rich Schneider reports in an IU press release.

Researcher Shahid Parvez (IUPUI photo)

The glyphosate levels correlated significantly with shortened pregnancies, and "There is growing evidence that even a slight reduction in gestational length can lead to lifelong adverse consequences," said principal investigator Shahid Parvez, an assistant environmental health science professor at IU-Purdue University Indianapolis.

The researchers thought public drinking water supplies was the primary source of glyphosate exposure, but none of the tested water samples showed glyphosate residue. Rather, the main source of glyphosate intake seemed to be consumption of genetically modified food items and caffeinated beverages. "Use of glyphosate is heaviest in the Midwest due to corn and soybean production," Schneider reports. "Its residues are found in the environment, major crops and food items that humans consume daily."

Researchers found that 66 of the 71 women in the study, 93 percent, had glyphosate in their urine. "We found higher urine glyphosate levels in women who lived in rural areas, and in those who consumed more caffeinated beverages," Parvez said. The samples were obtained while the women received routine prenatal care.

Monsanto loses bid to stop Arkansas dicamba ban

"An Arkansas judge on Friday dismissed a Monsanto Co. lawsuit aiming to stop Arkansas from blocking the use of a controversial farm chemical the company makes, dealing a blow to its attempts to increase sales of genetically engineered seeds," Tom Polansek reports for Reuters.

University of Missouri map; click on the image to enlarge it.

After receiving nearly 1,000 complaints about dicamba damage to crops, on July 7 the Arkansas Legislative Council approved the state Plant Board's proposal to ban applications of dicamba from April 16 through Oct. 31. Dicamba tends to vaporize after being sprayed on crops and drifts into other fields; the herbicide damaged more than 3.6 million acres of soybeans in the U.S. in 2017.

Monsanto's suit alleges that the ban hurt the company's ability to sell dicamba-tolerant seed in Arkansas and caused "irreparable harm" to the company, since the ban did not extend to products by other companies such as DuPont Inc. or BASF. But Pulaski County Circuit Judge Chris Piazza ruled against Monsanto, citing a recent state Supreme Court decision that the state cannot be made a defendant in court.

Meanwhile, Monsanto is on the defensive from several dicamba-related lawsuits: one alleging that the company essentially forced farmers to buy its dicamba-resistant seeds, and several that allege crop damage because of the chamical.

Lawsuits allege Monsanto forced farmers to buy dicamba-resistant seeds, and that dicamba damaged crops

A North Dakota farm filed a federal antitrust lawsuit against Monsanto Co., alleging that farmers are forced to buy its expensive patented dicamba-resistant seed if they don't want their crops to be damaged by dicamba powder drifting from nearby farms.

Forest River Farms' complaint, filed Feb. 1 in Missouri, says "Monsanto’s monopolization and attempted monopolization of the seeds market stymies competition, hurts producers, and harms the public at large," and alleges a class of "all individuals and entities who directly purchased seeds containing Monsanto’s dicamba-resistant trait," Eleanor Tyler reports for Bloomberg Law.

University of Missouri map; click on the image to enlarge it.

Dicamba is a herbicide notoriously prone to vaporizing into a powder and drifting to other fields. A study indicated that it damaged an estimated 3.6 million acres of soybeans in 2017 — about 4 percent of all soybeans planted in the U.S. Several states have banned its sale and use or limited when it can be sprayed. Monsanto responded to widespread complaints by introducing a new version of dicamba it says is less likely to drift. But scientists, who weren't allowed to fully vet the new product before its launch, say it's still too volatile. The new product will be available in 33 states in 2018, and on Feb. 1 Monsanto announced it will provide free mandatory training sessions for farmers on the use of dicamba in 26 of those states.

Also on Feb. 1 a federal judicial panel consolidated nine lawsuits against Monsanto filed in four states, all alleging crop damage from dicamba, into the same eastern Missouri court where the Forest River Farms suit was filed. "Those cases allege that Monsanto marketed dicamba-resistant seeds knowing that would tempt farmers to use dicamba — which has proven destructive to neighboring crops — before Monsanto had regulatory approval to market its low-drift version of the pesticide," Tyler reports.

New GMOs use edited genes, not those from other organisms; countries debate whether to regulate them

Jason McHenry on his South Dakota farm.
(Photo by Antonio Regalado)

Genetically modified crops usually focus on increasing the yield per acre, but a new generation of  GMOs could turn that on its head with a different focus, different technology, and possibly different regulations.

Traditionally, genetically modified crops are created by splicing in genes from a soil bacterium to help them resist herbicides, boosting yields by suppressing weeds. The new wave of GMOs focuses on altering native characteristics of a plant using only the DNA it already has—a technology known as gene editing. The creators of these new GMOs argue that their plants are just like those produced by conventional breeding, just faster.

"To many scientists, the potential of gene editing seems nearly limitless, offering a new way to rapidly create plants that are drought-resistant, immune to disease, or improved in flavor," Antonio Regalado reports for MIT Technology Review. "A supermarket tomato that tastes good? That could happen if scientists restore the flavor-making genes that make heirloom varieties delicious. What about a corn plant with twice as many kernels? If nature allows it, scientists believe, gene editing could let them build it."

For example, Minnesota start-up Calyxt markets a soybean that creates an oil more like olive oil than typical soybean oil. That’s important because soybean oil has lost a lot of market share since the U.S. banned trans fats (which are present in partially hydrogenated soybean oil). South Dakota farmer Jason McHenry told Regalado he was persuaded to plant the Calyxt soybeans because "You have to keep your finger on what the consumer wants, and as a farmer, you have to differentiate yourself. If you are looking at a market that could be gone, you have to think about alternatives."

Some consumers and scientists are alarmed about the new GMOs, saying they might be unsafe. The U.S. Department of Agriculture ruled that the plants won’t be regulated like traditional GMOs since they don’t have foreign genes in them. That means Calyxt can get its new beans to market more quickly and cheaply, without having to go through the battery of permits, inspections and safety tests usually required of GMOs.

The question of whether gene-edited GMOs should be regulated like traditional GMOs is playing out across the world. “New Zealand decided that the new plants are GMOs after all, and so did the USDA’s own organic council. The Netherlands and Sweden don’t think they are. China hasn’t said. The European Union still has to make up its mind. Billions in global grain exports could ultimately hang in the balance,” Regalado reports.