Reduced Phytate Barley Malt to Improve Fermentation Efficiency

Changes in bioavailability of zinc during malting process and wort production

Trace metals, particularly zinc, influence the growth and metabolism of yeast. In the literature the recommended concentration of zinc in pitching wort is > 0.15 mg/L; lower concentrations cause fermentation problems and reduce in consequence final beer quality. The aim of this study was the exploration of changes in bioavailability (available zinc), which was never considered before, and in the mass balance of total zinc during malting process and wort production. Therefore, the work comprised two parts: (1) investigating the effect of malt modification on zinc content and bioavailability of, respectively, produced malt depending on malt modification by varying the steeping degree (38–48%) in the malting process and (2) examining the effect of zinc losses and changes in bioavailability in the by-products (spent grain and hot break) by performing brewing trials up to pitching wort. Zinc was measured by atomic absorption spectroscopy. We applied a specific extraction scheme to evaluate first the bioavailability of zinc in brewing-related samples. In the malting process, total zinc losses increased with greater modification level of the malt samples, although bioavailability increased simultaneously. Spent grain was the primary zinc loss by-product (98%) in the brewing process. The distribution of the binding forms of zinc in hot break and spent grain was significantly altered with an increase in the less water-soluble binding forms of zinc.

Genomic misconception: a fresh look at the biosafety of transgenic and conventional crops. A plea for a process agnostic regulation

The regulation of genetically engineered crops, in Europe and within the legislation of the Cartagena biosafety protocol is built on false premises: The claim was (and unfortunately still is) that there is a basic difference between conventional and transgenic crops, this despite the fact that this has been rejected on scientifically solid grounds since many years. This contribution collects some major arguments for a fresh look at regulation of transgenic crops, they are in their molecular processes of creation not basically different from conventional crops, which are based in their breeding methods on natural, sometimes enhanced mutation. But the fascination and euphoria of the discoveries in molecular biology and the new perspectives in plant breeding in the sixties and seventies led to the wrong focus on transgenic plants alone. In a collective framing process the initial biosafety debates focused on the novelty of the process of transgenesis. When early debates on the risk assessment merged into legislative decisions, this wrong focus on transgenesis alone seemed uncontested. The process-focused view was also fostered by a conglomerate of concerned scientists and biotechnology companies, both with a vested interest to at least tolerate the rise of the safety threshold to secure research money and to discourage competitors of all kinds. Policy minded people and opponent activists without deeper insight in the molecular science agreed to those efforts without much resistance. It is interesting to realize, that the focus on processes was uncontested by a majority of regulators, this despite of serious early warnings from important authorities in science, mainly of US origin. It is time to change the regulation of genetically modified (GM) crops toward a more science based process-agnostic legislation. Although this article concentrates on the critique of the process-oriented regulation, including some details about the history behind, there should be no misunderstanding that there are other important factors responsible for the failure of this kind of process-oriented regulation, most importantly: the predominance of politics in the decision making processes combined with the lack of serious scientific debates on regulatory matters within the European Union and also in the Cartagena system, the obscure and much too complex decision making structures within the EU, and the active, professional, negative and intimidating role of fundamental opposition against GM crops on all levels dealing with flawed science, often declared as better parallel science published by 'independent' scientists.