The Impact of Phytases on the Release of Bioactive Inositols, the Profile of Inositol Phosphates, and the Release of Selected Minerals in the Technology of Buckwheat Beer Production

A relatively high concentration of phytate in buckwheat malt, and the low activity of endogenous buckwheat phytases, both of which limit the effective use of substrates (starch, proteins, minerals) for fermentation and yeast metabolism, gives rise to the potential for application of phytases in beer production. This study aims at obtaining a 100% buckwheat wort with high bioactive cyclitols (myo-inositol and D-chiro-inositol) concentrations released by exogenous phytases and acid phosphatases. Two mashing programs were used in the study, i.e., (1) typical for basic raw materials, namely the well-established Congress method, and (2) optimized for phytase activity. The results indicated a nearly 50% increase in the level of bioactive myo-inositol and an 80% degradation of phytate in the wort as a result of simultaneous application of phytase and phosphatase enzymes in the mashing of buckwheat malt. In addition, high D-chiro-inositol concentrations were released from malt to the buckwheat wort. The concerted action of the two phytases significantly increased (19–44%) Zn²⁺ concentrations in wort. This may be of great importance during mash fermentation by Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeasts. There is a potential to develop technology for buckwheat beer production, which, in addition to being free from gluten, comprises high levels of bioactive myo- and D-chiro-inositols.

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.