Genetic Maize

Norm Borlaug warns of another impending crisis relating to food – one that few have thought about. I hope that people will take notice of his editorial in the NY Times, and that the US and other governments will be willing to fund solutions. Distinguished Professor John Pesak sent the editorial to some ISU students and faculty, saying: “He makes some excellent points with which there cannot be too much disagreement.” Indeed, who can say that developing crops that can handle new challenges is a bad thing?
I’ve posted the full article below for your convenience. A quick summary of Stem Rust Never Sleeps: Stem rust is a fungus that can decimate wheat fields. In the 1950s, Dr. Borlaug and others developed resistant wheat lines, but these lines are no help against a new strain of the fungus. We, as a planet (and especially in the US), must fund research to prevent the loss of millions of tons of wheat. Unfortunately, the US is doing exactly the opposite, cutting funding for agricultural research.
Specifically, stem rust research at the Cereal Disease Laborotory in St. Paul Minnesota is poised to loose funding, according to Dr. Borlaug, despite the importance of the research.
Say what you will about the Green Revolution – but Dr. Borlaug knows how to feed people. If anyone is equipped to notice an upcoming crisis, it’s him. We all need to contact our congresspeople and representatives, email the Secretary of Agriculture at AgSec @ usda.gov, and do whatever we can to ensure that the US helps to prevent further famine.

The article “Exposed: The Great GM Crops Myth” published by The Independent is surprising, and at first glance looks like it could be about significant research indicating that genetic engineering has unforeseen yield decreases. However, I’m not very good at first glances. Instead, I read deeply and find out more. This post is going to be long, but I think the length is justified since the article has been diligently repeated on Common Dreams and Grist, and of course picked up by Digg and used as part of an anti-GM riff at the DailyKos and other political blogs. Frankly, I’m tired of seeing science get twisted to suit an agenda, and I’m going to report some facts.

The first sentence of Exposed is clearly sensationalist: “Genetic modification actually cuts the productivity of crops, an authoritative new study shows, undermining repeated claims that a switch to the controversial technology is needed to solve the growing world food crisis.”

Nevermind that scientists never state findings in such definite terms. Any result is simply a hypothesis that hasn’t been rejected. It isn’t fact until it has been corroborated by multiple studies by other researchers, and until it has been published in a peer reviewed journal of consequence. That’s simply the way science works. I suppose the enthusiasm can be chalked up to journalistic license.

(more…)

Reason’s science correspondent Ronald Bailey has written an amusing retort to the Friends of the Earth report “Who benefits from biotech crops?” As expected, the FoE twist the facts and call scientists liars, in their attempts to sweep the ISAAA report under the rug. They may be friends of the earth, but they certainly aren’t friends of poor farmers in developing nations. Bailey himself is an interesting character, with at least one book that I don’t really agree with (twisting science and politics in what might not be an entirely wholesome way), but his article is amusing and pointed. In “Are Farmers Stupid, Deluded, or Both“, Bailey uses information from a variety of sources to refute the FoE (admittedly with much more style than I can muster, but he is a professional).
Even the title calls to mind the greatest challenge to biotech detractors. If GMOs are so bad, then why do farmers keep buying them? Obviously they work, or the farmers must be deluded, stupid, or both. We can’t count first time plantings because the farmers might have been influenced by overzealous salesmen. But when farmers plant the new and old varieties side-by-side and choose the biotech version – who can argue with them?
The article is certainly worth a read, but here’s a quick summary:

1. Biotech has increased farm incomes (up $27 billion since 1996) and decreased pesticide use (down 7% since 1996, or 493 million pounds less).
2. Glycophosphate is a far lesser evil than most pesticides. An added benefit is that RoundUp Ready crops have increased use of low- or no-tillage farming, which improves soil fertility (and happens to sequester carbon, as well).
3. Weeds would become resistant to herbicides eventually, regardless of biotech use. That’s evolution for you.

Then, there are the big two: arguments against biotech that are false because they were actually caused by anti-biotech activists. I’m very glad to see that I’m not the only one who believes this to be true.

If few new biotech crops have yet to make it to the tables of consumers, FOE can take a good bit of the credit. FOE and other ideological environmentalists have campaigned tirelessly to block the development and spread of new beneficial biotech crop traits. FOE does its best to stop biotech in its tracks and then turns around to assert that researchers have developed nothing new.

And finally, FOE complains that biotech seeds are monopolized by a few large companies. Again, FOE activists should look in the mirror to find the culprits behind this industry consolidation. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the number of startup and well-established seed companies that aimed to develop agricultural biotech exploded. But, as we’ve seen, crop biotech ran into a buzz saw of environmentalist opposition, especially in Europe. Consequently, …small crop biotech companies withered and the industry consolidated into fairly large companies.

London’s Times Online had a great editorial about GMOs this past week, called “Frankenstein foods are not monsters.” It’s a sort of wake-up call to England and Europe, saying that the benefits of genetic engineering far outweigh hypothetical dangers that are based more on gut feeling than science and that still haven’t manifested. Unfortunately, the site’s comment feature isn’t working, but I’d like to give a “Bravo” to Carl Mortished, the author. It is good to know that at least some people in Europe are moving past gut reactions.

The piece is full of scathing comments directed to detractors. Regarding the anti-GMO fervor:

The world has moved on. Food is no longer frivolous. It is serious and expensive and even if the price surges in wheat, rice and corn abate, the longer-term outlook for food is inflationary, with population growth and affluence stimulating demand for grain while climate change and high energy costs hinder farm output.

A shining example of the benefits of genetic engineering over conventional (and even organic) methods can be found in potatoes that are resistant to blight (the fungus that caused the Irish potato famine in 1845), and this is the example that this author chooses to use.

Resistance is the result of two genes from a wild potato relative. It is possible that modern potatoes could be crossed with the wild relative, but the results would be unpredictable. Many generations of breeding would be necessary to get the hybrid back to what we think of as a potato, and the result still might harbor natural poisons (potatoes are related to nightshade).

Biotechnology makes possible a “cut and paste” so we can have blight resistant potatoes right now, without any unwanted genes. Unfortunately, the potatoes will not be available for use in Europe until about 2014 or 2016 – due to the required 8 to 10 years of testing [Farmers Weekly].

What I didn’t know is that potato plants are often sprayed with fungicide as a preventive. Blight prevention is 7% of total growing costs, and includes: “two treatments of Epok (mefenoxam (metalaxyl-M) plus fluazinam), followed by Electis (zoxium + mancozeb) alternating with Ranman TP (cyazofamid plus adjuvant) up until desiccation [Dow UK].” Surely, this huge amount of chemicals can not be better than resistance genes from a wild potato relative!

According to Carl Mortished, last summer was a bad year for potato farmers. Heavy rains cause wet fields, which are an ideal place for the blight. Organic farmers understandably didn’t want to use the conventional fungicide regimen, but their alternative is less than attractive. “Eschewing modern fungicides, about 30 per cent of Britain’s organic farmers last year took the Victorian option of spraying bordeaux mixture, a solution of poisonous copper sulphate on their crop.” Copper sulfate is fairly toxic, especially in the long term. It’s certainly not something I’d want to expose anyone to – especially when there is a safe and chemical-free alternative.

The piece is concluded with the following:

There were riots last year in Senegal over food prices. In France, José Bové is on hunger strike to force the Government to ban GM crops. In Europe, we have the technology, the funds and the minds to solve problems, but our hearts are lost in the past.

I ask, who is this José Bové to dictate what other farmers in France and around the world choose to plant? He certainly has the right to choose which foods he wants to eat, what he wants to plant on his land, and even to speak out about his feelings on the subject – but I think it’s absolutely amoral to use your public influence to make people’s lives more difficult. The people hurt by his ramblings aren’t Monsanto and Syngenta (happily making money in the US, Latin America, and Asia) but poor farmers in Africa and India that could really benefit from the higher yields and decreased chemical inputs that genetic engineering has to offer. People like José Bové are all complaints and no solutions, which is not a very productive way to be.