The Maryland bills deal with the dyes: Blue 1; Blue 2; Green 3; Orange B; Red 3; Red 40; Yellow 5 and Yellow 6. One of the bills would prohibit public schools and child care facilities from providing food with the coloring in it. The second bill would require a label warning: The color additives in this food may cause hyperactivity and behavior problems in some children. Use of the dyes would be banned in the state in 2012.

The food industry opposes the bill saying the link to ADHD is based on flawed research while the Food and Drug Administration states there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that the colorings cause hyperactivity.

I’m rather conflicted about this. On the one hand, there really isn’t any science backing the idea that dye causes ADHD, although perhaps there is a genetic predisposition that is exacerbated by the dye. There are studies showing a link between dye and hyperactivity – is that enough of a reason to ban it? Sugars cause tooth decay and diabetes, high-fat and high-sodium foods cause heart disease… if we ban one, shouldn’t we ban, restrict use of, or at least paste a warning label on the others?
On the other hand, do we need food dye? Shouldn’t food just be the color it is? What about other additives, like sodium benzoate? Do we need those more or less than, say, trans-fats?
Risk benefit analysis may tell us the answer, but we need regulators to actually think through it.
In a correspondence in June 2008 Environ Health Perspectives, titled Food Additives and Hyperactivity, Bernard Weiss writes:

… The Forum article [Barrett (2007)] emphasized how food additives might contribute to the clinical diagnosis of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder rather than on the more significant finding that food additives, particularly synthetic colors at levels prevailing in the diet, induce adverse behavioral responses. This is hardly a novel finding. In 1980, such effects were documented in two different groups of subjects with two different experimental designs (Swanson and Kinsbourne 1980; Weiss et al. 1980). Many later publications have confirmed their results. I briefly reviewed the data in Environmental Health Perspectives (Weiss 2000).

According to Barrett (2007), a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) official, Mike Herndon, maintains that the agency sees “… no reason at this time to change our conclusions that the ingredients that were tested in this study that currently are permitted for food use in the United States are safe for the general population.” This is a rather baffling statement. In fact, our study (Weiss et al. 1980) was funded by the FDA, and its results, along with a number of others from that period, definitively demonstrated adverse behavioral effects of synthetic food colors (Weiss 1982). During the intervening years, with a plethora of confirmations, the FDA has remained blindly obstinate. It continues to shield food additives from testing for neurotoxicity and apparently believes that adverse behavioral responses are not an expression of toxicity.

Herndon and the FDA should seriously consider what the late Philip Handler said about balancing risks and benefits:

A sensible guide would surely be to reduce exposure to hazard whenever possible, to accept substantial hazard only for great benefit, minor hazard for modest benefit, and no hazard at all when the benefit seems relatively trivial. (Handler 1979)

The FDA has never clarified the health benefits of artificial food colors.

Balancing risks and benefits can help us to rank various ingredients, additives, processes, methods. It’s not that easy, though. These food dyes have no health benefit but do have economic benefits to the companies selling products like juice drinks, for example. What about natural colorants, like beet juice? Some might argue they are superior to artificial dyes, but some people are allergic to beet juice. There just isn’t a clear answer. I have to wonder if the best answer isn’t to let people decide for themselves.
I really like the idea of stickers with websites or even better barcodes that could be scanned with an iPhone or similar device. Rather than cramming a ton of labels onto the product, consumers could obtain information if they wished, in a format that could actually present valuable information. As Pamela Ronald pointed out in To Label or not to Label, a lot of labels are utterly unhelpful to the average person, serving only to confuse and alarm. The ability to see detailed information about a product (perhaps an ingredient list linking to a FDA or NGO database of studies or up-to-date summaries?) would be more helpful and allow people to decide for themselves.

Bernard Weiss (2008). Food Additives and Hyperactivity Environmental Health Perspectives, 116 (6) DOI: 10.1289/ehp.11182
.
Lovely photo of Red velvet cake mix by designergeek via flickr.

http://www.geneticmaize.com

Good news from Africa – “Scientists and crop researchers at Kenya´s Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) developed the new wheat seeds over the past decade. Through a process called ‘mutation plant breeding’, they applied radiation-based techniques to modify crop characteristics and traits.” In 2001, KARI plant breeders released Njoro-BW1, their first mutant wheat variety. It is drought tolerant, moderately resistant to rust (a fungus), has good yield, and good flour quality. “Kenya´s plant breeders soon will release a second mutant wheat variety, code-named DH4, which shares most of the same good qualities of Njoro-BW1.” [Golden Wheat “Greens” Kenya´s Drylands]

Traditional breeding encompasses all plant breeding methods that do not fall under current GMO regulations.As the European legal framework defines GMOs and specifies various breeding techniques that are excluded from the GMO regulations,we use this framework as a starting point, particularly the European Directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release of GMOs into the environment (European Parliament, 2001). Excluded from this GMO Directive are longstanding cross breeding, in vitro fertilization, polyploidy induction, mutagenesis and fusion of protoplasts from sexually compatible plants (European Parliament, 2001).It is indeed good news that Kenyan farmers have these lines of wheat with such improvements over unimproved varieties. However, radiation based so-called mutation plant breeding could have unintended changes in the genome. This technique, widely used in both organic and conventional crops, literally bombards the seeds with radiation. The seeds are allowed to germinate, and interesting mutants are used to create new lines. The problem is that multiple mutations can occur in the same seed, and some of those mutations may go undetected.

A February report entitled “Microarray analyses reveal that plant mutagenesis may induce more transcriptomic changes than transgene insertion” from the National Institute of Health in Portugal indicates that this plant breeding tool may not be the best idea. The last few sentences of their abstract sums it up:

We found that the improvement of a plant variety through the acquisition of a new desired trait, using either mutagenesis or transgenesis, may cause stress and thus lead to an altered expression of untargeted genes. In all of the cases studied, the observed alteration was more extensive in mutagenized than in transgenic plants. We propose that the safety assessment of improved plant varieties should be carried out on a case-by-case basis and not simply restricted to foods obtained through genetic engineering.

Transgenesis is the genetic modification of a recipient plant with one or more genes from any non-plant organism, or from a donor plant that is sexually incompatible with the recipient plant. This includes gene sequences of any origin in the anti-sense orientation, any artificial combination of a coding sequence and a regulatory sequence, such as a promoter from another gene, or a synthetic gene.Trying to regulate GM or non-GM as broad categories are impossible, because each resulting plant variety is going to have its own “quirks”. If DH4 and Njoro-BW1 have been extensively tested for unwanted alteration in gene expression and subsequently released for general use, then they are reasonably safe (remember, nothing is definitive in science). Similarly, if transgenic plants such as Sub1A-1 rice have been tested and released, then they too can be used without worry. However, if plant varieties mutated with radiation are not adequately tested before release, then we might all have something to worry about.

To my knowledge, only Canada requires testing of these crops. We can’t even assume that traditional breeding by cross pollination is 100% safe because of natural mutation and new combinations of genes and alleles. Tomatoes, potatoes, and celery all naturally produce some nasty toxins. We’ve mostly bred them out, but there have been cases where the toxins appeared at higher levels through traditional breeding. These plants have much higher probability of danger for consumers than transgenic plants, but don’t have to be tested at all under current regulations in the US or EU.

Intragenic or cisgenic plants are our best opportunity for safe enhancement of food crops (cis- means same). This is a form of genetic engineering that uses the plant’s own genome as a source for new traits instead of other non-related organisms (has also been called GM-lite). To learn more about the idea, please see www.cisgenesis.com.

Cisgenesis is the genetic modification of a recipient plant with a natural gene from a crossable—sexually compatible—plant. Such a gene includes its introns and is flanked by its native promoter and terminator in the normalsense orientation.Cisgenic plants can harbour one or more cisgenes, but they do not contain any transgenes.Some people, including myself, beleive that cisgenic crops should be regulated differently from transgenic crops that express proteins that don’t normally occur in that species. The applications of cisgenics are more limited than transgenics, but still there is a lot to be done. A great example of cisgenics is gene silencing, which can be used to inactivate unwanted genes, such as those that cause toxins. Examples that are currently being researched are less carcinogenic tobacco and rice that can more easily form hybrids. All of the benefits in KARI’s mutated wheat could have been accomplished with cisgenics.

JR Simplot is a company that is particularly interested in cisgenics, and has produced a lot of literature that essentially says that Monsanto’s way of creating new plant lines is not the right way. I think there’s room for both, but agree that cisgenics are inherently safer. I especially like the idea that cross pollination between cisgenic plants and wild varieties won’t be a problem, since these things could have all happened naturally anyway. The idea of cisgenics has been around for quite a few years now, but scientists need to talk with the public about it, so the public can talk to their government representatives, so the representatives can go about getting the regulations changed. 

Images from “Cisgenic plants are similar to traditionally bred plants: International regulations for genetically modified organisms should be altered to exempt cisgenesis”.

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.

The results of this study were published in the quarterly Better Crops (the full name of the publication is Better Crops with Plant Food). Better Crops is published by the International Plant Nutrition Institute. This is the first time I’ve heard of IPNI, but admittedly that doesn’t necessarily mean anything. The website states:

The International Plant Nutrition Institute (IPNI) is a new, not-for-profit, scientific organization dedicated to responsible management of plant nutrients — N, P, K, secondary nutrients, and micronutrients — for the benefit of the human family. With established programs in Latin America, North America, China, India, Southeast Asia, and planned expansion in other areas of the world, IPNI is a global organization ready to respond to the world’s demand for food, fuel, feed, and fiber.

IPNI provides a unified, scientific voice for the world’s fertilizer industry; independent of the industry, but scientifically credible and recognized by governments, academia, NGOs, the public, and the industry. Its scientists are working to help define the basis for appropriate use and management of plant nutrients, especially focusing on the environmental and economic issues related to their use and to provide comprehensive and regional information and research results to help farmers, and the industry, deal with environmental and agronomic problems.

So, IPNI is controlled by the fertilizer industry, which is one of the agricultural input industries that anti-big-ag advocates fight against. Looking over the website, this NGO seems to have a lot of information on fertilizer. Not genetic engineering, biotech, plant breeding, or any similar topics. Just fertilizer.

Of Better Crops, IPNI has this to say:

It’s not easy to describe this unique magazine. With an identity somewhere between an agronomic research journal and a marketing information series, BC provides a steady vehicle for reporting news from research related to nutrient management. While constantly evolving to serve its target audiences, the magazine also serves as a mirror of the agronomic research and education programs of the Institute.

In other words, Better Crops is an industry newsletter, similar to pamphlets on topics like “Beef, it’s what’s for dinner” or “The incredible edible egg.” I may be a bit skeptical, but I don’t trust information that comes directly from individual companies or from large industry groups unless similar findings are reported elsewhere.

Because Exposed came out on 20 April, I assumed that the article of interest would be in the current issue of Better Crops. Instead, the article by Barney Gordon was in the fourth issue of 2007 (way to keep on top of things, Independent). The abstract:

This study was conducted to determine if glyphosate-resistant (GR) soybeans respond differently to Mn fertilizer than conventional soybean varieties in an irrigated high-yield environment, and if so to develop fertilization strategies that will prevent or correct deficiencies. Yield of the GR variety was less than the conventional variety without Mn fertilizer. However, Mn application (banded at planting) to the GR variety closed the yield gap. The conventional soybean variety was not responsive to Mn fertilization. Conversely, yield was reduced at the highest rate of Mn. A second phase of the study showed that a combination of Mn applied as starter and foliar application provided maximum yield response.

I freely admit that I don’t know anything beyond the basics of fertilizers, so feel free to take my analysis of the article with a grain of salt. On the other hand, I am knowledgeable enough in plant physiology to make reasonable conclusions about the article. Geoffrey Lean, environment editor of The Independent, is presumably not, since he completely twisted the facts to make his story.

First, I’d like to mention that Dr. Gordon of Kansas State (not University of Kansas as Lean reported) studies fertilizer and farming methods. Not plant breeding or plant physiology. He makes no claims to the contrary.

Next, I’d like to call attention to the title of the article: Manganese Nutrition of Glyphosate-Resistant and Conventional Soybeans. Titles of scholarly articles are always about the topic at hand, or they will be rejected by editors of the journal. If this article really was about differences in yield between GM and non-GM crops, the title would say so. Occasionally an experiment on one topic will result in exciting data on a topic other than the one that was intended, but the title would certainly reflect that. Scholarly articles typically start with an introduction that indicates past research about the topic. This article starts with:

Glyphosate-resistant soybean variety planting dwarfs that of conventional varieties in the U.S. by a factor of about 9 to 1. Nevertheless, GR soybean yield may still lag behind that of conventional soybeans, as many farmers have noticed that yields are not as high as expected, even under optimal conditions. In Kansas, average yield seldom exceeds 60 to 65 bu/A even when soybeans are grown with adequate rainfall and/or supplemental irrigation water.

There is evidence to suggest that glyphosate may interfere with Mn metabolism and also adversely affect populations of soil micro-organisms responsible for reduction of Mn to a plant-available form. Manganese availability is also strongly influenced by soil pH. As soil pH increases, plant-available Mn decreases. It is unlikely that Mn deficiencies will occur on acid soils. It stands to reason that the addition of supplemental Mn at the proper time may correct deficiencies and result in greater GR soybean yields.

Dr. Gordon hypothesizes that the herbicide glyphosate interferes with Mn uptake (although this is not what this study tested). All plants could have this response to glyphosate application, but we can’t test this hypothesis on plants that are not engineered or evolved to resist glyphosate, for hopefully obvious reasons. The evidence that glyphosate might interfere with crop mineral uptake is serious and must be further investigated, because crops won’t be able to reach their full yield potential without proper mineral uptake. I’m also concerned that glyphosate might affect soil micro-organisms, because research in organic farming methods shows that soil microbes are crucial to soil and plant health. These results might mean that we should discontinue or decrease glyphosate application, but more experiments to investigate these preliminary results must be conducted.

This experiment was designed to test the response to Mn fertilizer of one particular line of soy that has one particular transgene. The results showed that this particular line did respond to Mn fertilizer, indicating that it might not be as good at Mn uptake as the non-transgenic control. Since only one event was tested, though, no conclusions about the gene itself can be made.

An experiment to compare the overall yield of GM crops to non-GM crops (regardless of fertilizer) must include multiple lines of multiple species and include multiple transgenic traits. It must also include comparable non-GM crops for each GM crop in the study. The reason for the repetition is to avoid choosing particular lines of plants that naturally have higher or lower than average yields. Multiple transgenic traits must be used in order to prove one way or another whether “all GMOs” have lower yields than non-GMOs. Each transgene or cisgene is different, and we can’t assume that drought resistant GM rice is the same as beta carotene enhanced GM rice, for example. Despite peoples’ claims to the contrary, making general statements about all GM crops is impossible due to the wide diversity of traits that are available.

The experiment must treat the GM and non-GM plants exactly the same (same planting time and method, same fertilizer, same irrigation, same pest control, and so on) so that the results will actually tell us about the difference between the GM and non-GM plants, not about the differences in farming methods. The experiment must also take place in multiple climates, to ensure that the crops in the experiment will act the same whether it is warm or cool, dry or wet during the growing season. Analyzing the results from a comparison of farming methods would be a lot more complex because there would be multiple differences between experiment and control plots.

Note: In Dr. Gordon’s rebuttal to Exposed, he says that the third year of the experiment showed no difference between the GM and non-GM lines, probably due to environmental variation from year to year.

Another complication is environmental variation from year to year. One of my research projects includes the hypothesis that a certain type of selection will improve seed protein over a period of years. To show this change over time, I have to save seed from multiple years and plant them side by side. I can’t just compare the data from 2006 to the data from 2007 because of all the tiny details that I couldn’t control in the field. Maybe the control plots in 2006 had a worse aphid infestation. Maybe the experimental plots in 2007 had slightly better soil…

Not only does the experiment to compare all GM crops to non-GM have to meet all of the above requirements, it also has to include multiple years worth of seed for each tested line.

It is sometimes possible to use multiple separate experiments to support a hypothesis, in a type of scholarly article called a meta analysis. These articles are often used in medicine in cases where larger human studies are not possible due to cost and other factors. A meta analysis can be used to collect information, but must be very extensive to allow conclusions to be drawn. Often, differences in the way each experiment was done prevent strong conclusions from being made.

I’d like to expand upon something that was mentioned briefly, but not explained, in Exposed. Companies such as Monsanto take years to develop and test the GM seed that is available for sale. The regulatory process is so stringent that, once approval is applied for, the trait can not be improved upon (to be more clear, once approval is applied for with one event, another event can not be substituted), or face a whole new round of application for approval. Regulatory hurdles and other issues make GM seed very expensive for the company to develop, so they must develop new seed to recoup their losses. For these and other reasons, GM seeds are often “one hit wonders” that excel in one specific trait, but not particularly for increased yield. Non-GM lines, on the other hand, are improved every year, with the best yielding plants being used to produce the next year’s seed. I recently attended a seminar presented by a scientist from Pioneer where he said that they were working to develop better yielding lines that would work in conjunction with their primary transgenic traits. The companies are aware that this is a problem with their products, and are of course working to solve it, to avoid losing sales.

The second study mentioned in Exposed also investigates “yield drag” in commercial soy that has been engineered for resistance to glyphosate. In the 2002 Yield Suppressions of Glyphosate-Resistant (Roundup Ready) Soybeans, Roger Elmore (now of Iowa State, previously of University of Nebraska) performs a similar experiment to the one in Manganese Nutrition, albeit without the manganese. The abstract:

Herbicide-resistant crops like glyphosate resistant (GR) soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] are gaining acceptance in U.S. cropping systems. Comparisons from cultivar performance trials suggest a yield suppression may exist with GR soybean. Yield suppressions may result either cultivar genetic differentials, the GR gene/gene insertion process, or glyphosate. Grain yield of GR is probably not affected by glyphosate. Yield suppression due to the GR gene or its insertion process (GR effect) has not been reported. We conducted a field experiment at four Nebraska locations in 2 yr to evaluate the GR effect on soybean yield. Five backcross-derived pairs of GR and non-GR soybean sister lines were compared along with three high-yield, nonherbicide-resistant cultivars and five other herbicide-resistant cultivars. Glyphosate resistant sister lines yielded 5% (200 kg ha21) less than the non-GR sisters (GR effect). Seed weight of the non-GR sisters was greater than that of the GR sisters (in 1999) and the non-GR sister lines were 20 mm shorter than the GR sisters. Other variables monitored were similar between the two cultivar groups. The high-yield, nonherbicide-resistant cultivars included for comparison yielded 5% more than the non-GR sisters and 10% more than the GR sisters.

In other words, this is more of the same: plants bred for high yield perform better than plants that were bred for something else. More information about the difference in seed weight and height between the glyphosate resistant and non-GM soy can be found in the discussion section of the paper:

On average, non-GR sister lines yielded 5% more than the GR sisters when averaged over all locations and both years (Table 5). Non-GR sister grain yields were greater than those of their associated GR sisters in two of the five pairs… Grain yields of sister-line pairs are shown in Fig. 1. The greater number of data points to the right of the 1:1 ratio line indicates that the non-GR sisters yielded more on the average than their GR sister counterparts.

A correlation of 0.75 is very strong. This correlation (as shown in Fig. 1 from Dr. Elmore’s paper) means that, if a GM-soy was low yielding, there is a strong probability that its non-GM sister would also be low yielding. The 5% average difference is undeniable, but the GM plant in some sister pairs out preformed the non-GM plant. In short, I wouldn’t say that this is conclusive, and there would still have to be additional studies on other types of genetically engineered plants to show a difference between all GM and non-GM.

Dr. Elmore concludes: “Cultivar choices are best based on (i) previous weed pressure and success of control measures in specific fields, (ii) the availability and cost of herbicides, (iii) availability and cost of herbicide-resistant cultivars, and (iv) yield.” I read that as: if your fields have stubborn weeds and glyphosate is easy to use, then a slight decrease in yield may be preferable to having to either using a more dangerous herbicide or having your yield decrease anyway when your field is overgrown with weeds.

He also says something more concerning: “Based on the results of this study and those of Elmore et al., 2001, the yield suppression appears associated with the GR gene or its insertion process rather than glyphosate itself.” I would like to see further studies on this possibility, and I would be very surprised if Monsanto isn’t already frantically working to solve any related problems. The best way to test the second hypothesis would still be the laborious experiment with a wide variety of GM traits in different crops. The first hypothesis (that the glyphosate resistance gene itself is causing a yield decrease) could be tested in a few ways, including a study of markers for low yield in populations that include the gene, and testing the yields of plants that have naturally evolved glyphosate resistance compared to their “less evolved” relatives.

This type of study is important to help farmers choose the best seed each year from thousands of choices. They also help farmers to choose the best pest management strategy for their particular situation. This is the whole point of ag extension, and is Dr. Elmore’s job. The purpose of Dr. Gordon’s study is similar: to help soybean farmers achieve the highest possible yields, even if it means applying additional Mn fertilizer. I’m fairly confident in saying that these scientists don’t appreciate having their research misinterpreted to make over reaching conclusions, even if they appreciate the attention.

While researching the background of Exposed, I came across a semi-meta analysis of GM crop yield studies compiled by Clio Turton of the Soil Association (a non-profit promoting organic ag) that was posted on Check Biotech. Every study is listed with the goal of saying that GM crops yield less than non-GM. However, even Mr. Turton even says, “First generation genetic modifications address production conditions (insect and weed control), and are in no way intended to increase the intrinsic yield capacity of the plant.” Instead, they decrease competition from weeds and decrease insect damage which increases yield by corollary. I’d be happy to discuss the articles he presents, but this post is probably long enough.

Bear with me while I use an analogy. Saying that we should stop using all GM crops because they don’t yield as high as crops that have been specially bred for yield is like saying that you are going to throw away a business laptop because the processor can’t handle graphics intensive games. We all know that business laptops were designed with other functions in mind, and don’t necessarily need whizbang graphics cards. If graphics cards were less expensive, they would be in all laptops. If getting a GM crop to market wasn’t so expensive, we would see a better selection of seeds on the market. Right now, the only ones who can afford to make them are Monsanto and Pioneer. Public researchers at universities and small companies can’t even hope to get seed to market, so research in GM crops has been slowed to a trickle in the US. This is not the fault of the scientists or of the companies. Instead, we can blame the anti-GM hysteria that caused regulators to make things so difficult.

Thanks, Mike for pointing out the Common Dreams article, and thus for making me stay up all night and spend half of today researching this post!

Barney Gordon (2007). Manganese Nutrition of Glyphosate-Resistant and Conventional Soybeans Better Crops, 91 (4), 12-14

Roger W. Elmore, Fred W. Roeth, Lenis A. Nelson, Charles A. Shapiro, Robert N. Klein, Stevan Z. Knezevic, & Alex Martin (2001). Glyphosate-Resistant Soybean Cultivar Yields Compared with Sister Lines Agron. J., 93, 408-412

One of the most exciting parts of the WEMA (Water Efficient Maize for Africa) project is that it pulls in such a diverse group – including research entities from the participating countries, the well known non-profit CIMMYT, and the corporations Monsanto and BASF.

In this project, the corporations will not charge any royalties to small scale farmers. I’m assuming they plan to make their profits from large farmers in the developed world that are now or will soon be experiencing destructive droughts, such as Australia. Clearing up licensing issues before a project begins seems to be the best course, especially if we consider the fate of Golden Rice. This ensures that the people who most need the technology will be able to afford it, and that protracted legal battles will be avoided.

It’s easy to hate Monsanto at times (especially if you are anti-establishment), but it seems that the company is trying to be a better global citizen, if not for any other reason than to increase their potential customer pool. Who, besides Monsanto and a handful of other biotech companies, has the resources to conduct the research and produce desperately needed varieties like WEMA? Non-profits and government programs will never be able to do it alone.

Monsanto has information about the WEMA project on their website, including this telling photo with the caption: “Field trial of corn with the drought tolerant gene (on right) and control hybrid (on left). Note the greater size and healthier structure of the drought tolerant corn.”

[AATF] today announced a public-private partnership to develop drought-tolerant maize varieties for Africa. The partnership, known as Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA), was formed in response to a growing call by African farmers, leaders, and scientists to address the devastating effects of drought on small-scale farmers and their families. Frequent drought leads to crop failure, hunger, and poverty. Climate change will only worsen the problem.

AATF announced the effort at the end of a two-day planning meeting that included representatives from each of the countries participating in the project: Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, and South Africa. The partners will use marker-assisted breeding and biotechnology to develop African maize varieties with the long-term goal of making drought-tolerant maize available royalty-free to African small-scale farmers. The benefits and safety of these maize varieties will be assessed by national authorities according to the regulatory requirements in each country.

This partnership fits well with the AATF mandate of facilitating innovative public/private partnerships that bring to smallholder farmers in Africa the tools needed to increase productivity for better food and income security,’ Said Mpoko Bokanga, Executive Director AATF.

AATF will work with the non-profit International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT); the private agricultural company, Monsanto; and the national agricultural research systems in the participating countries. The new drought-tolerance technologies have already been licensed without charge to AATF so they can be developed, tested, and eventually distributed to African seed companies through AATF without royalty and made available to smallholder farmers.

Bokanga added that the project will involve local institutions, both public and private, and in the process expand their capacity and experience in crop breeding, biotechnology, and biosafety.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Howard G. Buffett Foundation contributed a total of $47 million to this effort.

The Director General of the National Agricultural Research Organisation of Uganda Dr. Dennis Kyetere presided over the official announcement of the initiative and said that the project will help address drought and contribute to food security in Africa.

‘Drought is a source of suffering and food insecurity for many people in Uganda and it is recognised as a challenge by the government. Drought causes up to 100 percent crop failure in Uganda in some instances’, said Dr. Kyetere.

Africa is a drought-prone continent, making farming risky for millions of small-scale farmers who rely on rainfall to water their crops. Maize is the most widely grown staple crop in Africa: more than 300 million Africans depend on it as their main food source. It is severely affected by frequent drought.

In the next five years, the partnership will develop the new maize varieties, incorporating the best drought-tolerance technologies available internationally. CIMMYT will provide conventionally developed drought tolerant high-yielding maize varieties that are adapted to African conditions and expertise in conventional breeding and testing for drought tolerance. Monsanto will provide proprietary germplasm, advanced breeding tools and expertise. Additionally, Monsanto and BASF will provide drought-tolerance transgenes that they have developed through their collaboration. These contributions will be provided without royalty. The national agricultural research systems, farmers’ groups, and seed companies participating in the project will contribute their expertise in breeding, regulatory issues and will be responsible for country-specific implementation including project governance, testing, germplasm evaluation, seed production and distribution.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has funded an independent program at the McLaughlin-Rotman Centre for Global Health (University of Toronto) to assess and monitor social, cultural, ethical and commercial issues related to the WEMA Project. The independent organization will conduct annual audits of WEMA and serve as an additional communication channel for stakeholders.

According to eminent scientist Professor Calestous Juma, who is the Director of the Science, Technology and Globalisation Project at Harvard University, the WEMA project is a powerful signal of the relevance of biotechnology to African agriculture.

The collaboration between CIMMYT and national agricultural research systems has already yielded excellent gains in drought tolerance through conventional breeding. The partners in the WEMA project expect the combination of advanced breeding and biotechnology to bring even greater gains. The partners estimate that the maize products developed over the next 10 years could increase yields by 20 to 35 percent under moderate drought, compared to current varieties. This increase would translate into about two million additional tons of food during drought years in the participating countries, meaning 14 to 21 million people would have more to eat and sell.

The first conventional varieties developed by WEMA could be available after six to seven years of research and development. The transgenic drought-tolerant maize hybrids will be available in about ten years.

Risk of crop failure from drought is one of the primary reasons why small-scale farmers in Africa do not adopt improved farming practices. A more reliable harvest could give farmers the confidence to improve their techniques. Good soil health, improved training and support, pest and disease management, and access to markets to sell their surplus are all necessary for small-scale farmers to boost their yields and incomes. To date, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has invested more than $660 million as part of a broad agricultural development strategy that includes efforts in all of these areas so small-scale farmers could have access to the tools and opportunities they need to build better lives.

The Amflora potato was developed by BASF and an application for its approval for cultivation was submitted in 2003. Subsequently, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) conducted a scientific safety assessment. Upon the conclusion of tests in 2005, the EFSA declared the Amflora line to be identical to conventional potatoes with regard to its effect on the environment.

On the basis of this declaration, the EU Commission recommended the approval of Amflora for cultivation within the Union. However, this recommendation was unable in 2007 to find support from a qualified majority of ministerial representatives of Member States in the European Council. As foreseen by EU law, ultimate responsibility for approval then was conferred to the Commission. This decision now has been delayed.

The most frustrating part of this non-decision is that no specific issues are listed. For example, if the Comission was concerned that the antibiotic resistance genes in the potato would spread, they should specifically ask BASF and other companies to only submit for approval plants that use other types of markers. The same goes for groups like FoE. It would be a lot easier for everyone if they made an effort to learn the science and made educated recommendations on what they do and do not want. Simply rejecting any form of genetic engineering only betrays their ignorance and their unwillingness to accept new technologies. No compromise will be possible without this effort to understand all sides of the issues.