Genetic Maize

Photo by Yvan leduc via Wikipedia.

There is so much information out there on Colony Collapse Disorder. Wouldn’t it be nice if someone summarized it in one place? Kyle Bailey, undergraduate in biology at Iowa State, has done just that. The following, posted with permission, is an up-to-date review of CCD research. It includes information from a variety of sources, from fact sheets to peer-reviewed journal articles.

Introduction

Honeybees (apis mellifera) are the primary pollinator available to agriculturalists in the United States. This makes them a critical part of US agriculture.  Crops such as “almonds (82% of the world’s supply and 100% dependent on interstate pollinators); apples; cherries; blueberries; broccoli; carrots; cranberries; cucurbits like cucumber, melons, squash, pumpkins, and gourds” (Stankus 2008) are heavily reliant on honey bees for pollination.  Traveling hives provided by commercial apiary services pollinates many of these crops.

A current epidemic, called Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), affecting honeybee hives throughout the US threatens the apiarist industry.  In the US during 2006-2007 29% of beekeepers reported some loss to CCD with some losing up to 75% of their stock (Winfree, Williams, Dushoff, et al).  CCD is characterized as a mysterious loss of worker bees in the hive.  There are no corpses to be found as the bees apparently wander far from the hive to die.  The hive generally has sufficient food stores to maintain the population.  The hives also generally still have undeveloped brood stock.  The new brood (as well as the queen) is of course doomed without any adult workers present to care for them and they soon die.  Because the bees travel far from the hive there are no bodies to necropsy and attempt to determine a cause (Stankus 2008).

This paper will explore the US economic and agricultural impacts of pollinator loss, and recent research into the causes of and potential solutions to CCD.

(more…)

Alan McHughen, plant biotechnologist at UC Riverside and author of Pandora’s Picnic Basket, is one of the professors participating in Debating Science, helping the students to develop an informational website about bioethics that may one day be relesased to the public. He recently shared some insights with the group that he has allowed me to share with you (emphasis original)…

I just returned from a trip to Lithuania and Poland, giving talks to university students, farmers and the public. They confirmed what I’d often thought, that the variouscriticisms of GE crops could equally be applied to conventional breeding, but rarely, if ever, are.This doesn’t necessarily mean the criticisms are invalid, but it does mean we show prejudiceagainst GE by applying the criticisms exclusively to GE.

For some examples:

1.GEis unnatural; it requires human intervention to produce plants that could not be produced by Nature alone. Conventional counterexample: Grafts between rootstock and scion of different species could not exist without human intervention. GE is singled out for this criticism. There is no regulatory scrutiny for interspecific grafts.

2.GE is disruptive to the genome, inserts t-DNA randomly and unpredictably Conventional counterexample:Ionizing radiation is far more disruptive to the genome and unpredictable in its effects. GE is singled out for this criticism. There is no regulatory scrutiny for mutation breeding.

3. GE crosses the species barrier; nature does not allow genes to cross the species barrier Conventional counterexample: Wheat, triticale and many other examples of conventional breeding to move genes from one species to a different one. Even in nature, Agrobacteriumtumefaciens does itacross distant and completely unrelated species, and without human help.GE is singled out for this criticism. There’s no regulatory scrutiny for interspecific crossing.

4. HT GE crops can cross with wild relatives, creating hybrid ‘superweeds’. Conventional counterexample: All crop cultivars carry some (natural) HT genes, and these can (and do) cross into wild relatives to create hybrids with herbicide tolerance(e.g. triazine tolerant canola). GE is singled out for this criticism. There’s no regulatory scrutiny for outcrossing of conventional HT cultivars.

5. Successful GE cultivars can lead to broad regional monoculture, exposing the crop to diseases and other threats. Conventional counterexample: So can a successful conventional cultivar lead to monoculture. GE is singled out for this criticism. There’s no regulatory scrutiny for monoculture of conventional cultivars.

6. GEcultivars requirefarmers to buy seed each year. Conventional counterexample: Conventional hybrids also require farmers to buy fresh seed each year. They’ve done so since the mid-20^thCentury. GE is singled out for this criticism. There’s no regulatory scrutiny for conventional hybrids.

7.GE seeds are patented and so use of their seeds is restricted. Conventional counterexample: Patents can also exist on conventional cultivars. And Not all GE cultivars are patented. GE is singled out for this criticism. Patenting is not unique or limited to GE, normustGE cultivars be patented.

8.GE cultivars are controlled by big companies and intended to make profits. Conventional counterexample: All seed companies intend to make profit, even with sales of seed of conventional cultivars. Also, not all GE cultivars are from private companies (e.g.GE papaya in Hawaii). GE is singled out for this criticism.

Can you think of any examples of a criticism of GE that cannot also be applied to conventional breeding?