I love bread, but I don't let myself eat too much of it. The reason? Like so many other people in the US, I am concerned about my waistline. Don't get me wrong, I eat bread. I just try to eat it in moderation. However my days of limited bread consumption may soon be over, as cereal scientists are working on creating a kind of wheat that produces flour with fewer available calories.

When I first saw this article at Inventor Spot, I was mighty skeptical. The title and early portion of the article make it seem as though the wheat being developed actually has fewer calories. However, as I read further, I realized that the wheat simply has fewer available calories. Because of the way the wheat is genetically altered, a portion of the calories are indigestible by our stomach acids and acts more like dietary fiber.

I know that the wheat currently available is genetically modified, but it's not the kind of GM wherein genes from another species is introduced. Instead, certain aspects of the wheat's genetic information have been turned off. Cereal scientists are working on growing this wheat by natural breeding rather than genetic modification.

If you're wondering where I got all this information, I have a secret weapon. My friend the cereal scientist explained Inventor Spot's article, albeit in pretty technical language. If you want to read what he has to say on this subject, just continue reading after the jump.

Have you ever wondered what those PLU (price look up) codes mean on the stickers that come affixed to your fruits and vegetables? The folks over at Sprig.com have put together a video that walks you through the basics of how to read the codes. When the code is printed with just four digits, it means that you are holding a conventionally grow product. Organic products have a five digit code that always starts with the number nine. Genetically modified produce also has a five digit number, but it always starts with the number eight.

Now you can tell with just a glance if the apple you just picked out of the bin is conventional, organic or GMO. This is particularly handy for those times when the display has gotten a little messy and you can't tell exactly where one pile ends and another starts.

Greenpeace has issued a warning regarding chocolate Easter eggs. According to the environmental group, some confectioners use genetically engineered ingredients and/or dairy from animals raised on genetically engineered feedstock. The group is rightfully  concerned about potential health risks.

One of the makers it has called to task is Cadbury. Among the Easter egg makers it considers friendly are Darrell Lea and Ferrero Rocher. While I'm skeptical of any so-called Frankenfoods, I'm rather conflicted now that I've seen the Cadbury Easter Egg Delight. It's the Russian nesting doll of candy  – an outer egg encases an inner one, which is in turn filled with individual chocolates. I think I'll take my chances!

[image:Cadbury]

China has officially given all 43 varieties of Heinz baby food products the clear from GM influence.

Greenpeace had claimed that Heinz baby cereal products designed, I think, specifically for the Chinese market, contained genetically modified ingredients. Heinz denied the claim but the Ministry of Agriculture in China decided to put the products through a series of tests to find out.

The official Xinhua News Agency has reported that the products and their raw ingredients were not made from genetically modified crops. Such foods are not yet approved for consumption in China as they continue researching the effect of modifications on agriculture in general.

Could it be true? Could bacon really be...healthy for your heart?

According to an article I just came across, American researchers have cloned pigs that can produce their own omega-3 fatty acids, which would make bacon and pork good for your heart. Omega-3 fatty acids are those compounds found in fish like tuna that reduce the incidence of heart disease.

For now, the research is still in a theoretical stage, as scientists are not sure whether meat from the cloned piglets whose flesh is laden with the omega-3 fatty acids have the same effect as the omega-3 fatty acids from fish. They are also not sure how consumers would react to genetic modification.

A report was issued this week by the auditor of the US Department of Agriculture revealing the department's failure to properly control and regulate the trials of genetically modified crops. "In many cases, the report said, regulators didn't even know where the field trials were." Numerous violations were noted, such as not inspecting sites and failing to ensure that the trial crops with genetically modified genes were destroyed after the test was complete. This increases the risk that these genes may have been released into the environment. 

The release of the report followed the announcement that two of Monsanto Company's engineered corn traits had received final clearance from the USDA. One of the corn traits protects from a pest know as rootworm, as well as providing weed control around the crops, while the other trait combines the first with protection against a corn borer pest. Receiving final clearance for deregulation means that Monsanto can now market its products at state level and in foreign markets

The European Union has developed a proposal to allow foods that have up to 0.9% genetically modified material to be sold with labels that confirm them as organic. The EU says that this measure, which would go into effect by 2009, is being proposed to protect organic farmers against the "risk of GM contamination." The commissioner for agriculture and rural development claimed that this move would make it easier for consumers to identify organic products, presumably by making them more similar to non-organic items.

Current guidelines stipulate that organic products cannot contain genetically modified substances "in any quantity." Environmental and organic groups are protesting the action, saying that "organic" labeled products should contain no more than 0.1% GM material, the lowest amount that can be detected both reliably and consistently. The EU should support organic farming, but not by lowering the standards of the industry.

 

Sir John Krebs, a professor and major proponent of genetically modified foods, has made onions shine by modifying it with jellyfish genes. This was shown during a series of lectures that aims to show that genetically modified (GM) foods can be a powerful tool against food shortages among people in places of high population growth.

I wonder why they didn't go for a more subtle showing of the benefits of GM foods. Making an onion glow is probably going to enrage the anti-GM food activists, not persuade them to adopt it.

[Photo Eddie Mulholland]

In a refreshingly surprising report, Kraft has stated that it will stop employing genetically modified (GM)food ingredients in China by 2007. This, coming from the world's second-largest food producer, is a big step, I think, in the right direction. Apparently, the Chinese are more picky than we are about the use of GM ingredients in their foods. But who knows? Perhaps Kraft will make one of the first big thrusts against the tide of GM in America?