GMOs are not monsters

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.

Genetic enginering for fun and profit

I was very young when I first read Copernick’s Rebellion by Leo Frankowski. It captured my imagination, and is directly responsible for my thoughts on genetic engineering and my desire to become a genetic engineer. The author was ahead of his time, taking the (then fictional) idea of manipulating genomes to fantastic conclusions. The characters turn our dismal world into something beautiful, a utopia that provides food and shelter for everyone.
Of course, some of the organisms in the book are more likely than others, but the idea holds true. So many things could be accomplished with biotechnology, from feeding the world to cleaning up pollution… but regulatory, financial, and social issues are preventing the most interesting and promising work from being done.
The main character in the book took some extreme measures to get his creations to the people who needed them most, but I think we have some better options. One of those is make genetic engineering accessible to more people.
Software has improved by leaps and bounds because so many people have contributed. Big companies like Microsoft and Google don’t have the desire to make every function that people might want to use. However, people who have time and knowledge can create helpful applications and share them, Open Source, for the good of the community. The code can be tweaked by others, shared, and tweaked further, until some highly useful items come about.
How could this idea apply to genetic engineering?
Over 180 genomes have been sequenced to date, according to Craig Venter’s Genome News Network, and we can expect to see more and more. Within these genomes are the genes we need to solve problems, if only there were enough people working on them. There are relatively few hands working on genetic engineering right now, so most of the treasure remains hidden. If more people had access to the genomes, along with basic knowledge of how genes work, they could apply their time and creativity to designing new solutions. A whole new industry could develop, providing the tools people would need to bring their ideas into reality.
I personally would like some cold-tolerant basil and late-flowering cilantro for my herb garden. Various genes for cold-tolerance and flowering are known, but certainly haven’t been applied in this way. One roadblock to long-lasting cilantro in my garden is patenting of genes. I can’t just use a previously described gene without dealing with intellectual property law.
As of 6 December 2007, Nature has opened all papers reporting genome sequences to the public, under a Creative Commons license. This is a step in the right direction, but doesn’t affect the patenting of individual genes. Patents are necessary to drive innovation – they allow the patent holder to recoup the cost of development or discovery.
A modified patent would allow only the patent holder to use the gene for profit, but freely allow non-profit use of the gene. I could design and create my cilantro, as long as I don’t sell it, and give credit to the person who developed the gene. If I do develop something with market potential, I could negotiate with the patent holder, perhaps to pay royalties for the duration of the patent.
Of course, we can’t ignore the negative aspects of the accessibility of technology. There will always be those who use technology to harm others. Harmful organisms certainly pose a special problem because they can replicate. Strict regulation of harmful organisms and genes would certainly be necessary, and not impossible.
This post was inspired by “The Open Organism: Genetic Engineering in the Open Source Era“.

News: 'Moral Footprint', 'Crossroads', 'mobile slaughter units'

Vaclav Havel, of Prague, wrote an intriguing editorial about global warming in the NY Times title “Our Moral Footprint.” With my recent trip to Prague, I was intrigued to see how someone from the Czech Republic might feel about the subject, and it turns out to be very similar to how I feel about the subject. Maybe climate change is human caused, maybe it’s not. We are having some effect with all of our activities on the planet, and the details of the change really don’t matter. Each and every one of us has a moral responsibility to leave as little of an impact as possible, because our choices today will affect our children, our children’s children, and our neighbor’s children too.

A filmmaker questioned scientists, including Richard Dawkins, for video interviews about their views on science intersecting with religion for a movie to be called “Crossroads.” The filmmaker instead put their interviews in a movie called “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” a pro-intelligent design film. The scientists are angry, with good reason. Being misquoted is one thing, but it’s completely another to have your statements misused in a propaganda film [NY Times]

A Seattle company has developed a hygenic and humane “mobile slaughter unit.” These could eliminate the problems of getting livestock from small farms to large slaughterhouses. It will also be an improvement in processing: big slaughterhouses have such high processing speeds that contaminated meat is inevitable. These MSUs could really revolutionize how animal agriculture works. If small farmers can more easily process their animals, perhaps we will see more and more free-range, grass-finished cattle. [Seattle Monthly]

World Food Prize Day

Today was the World Food Prize Symposium, where policy makers from around the world meet to discuss world food problems. The prize was started by Norman Borlaug. His took the idea of hybrids from corn production in Iowa (where he grew up), applied them to rice, and effectively ended hunger in Asia. The main topic today was recreating his “Green Revolution” of the 60s in an “Evergreen Revolution” today, with the goal of creating sustainable agriculture in Africa and eliminating hunger in our lifetimes.
Dr. Swaminathan from India spoke about organic farming. In sumary, the ideas of organic farming are good, but they are non-sustainable and will not feed the world. The idea of green farming is to use crop lines that have been responsibly modified in a farm setting with Integrated Pest Management (using biological methods over chemicals, but chemicals when absolutely necessary), and responsible fertilization and crop rotation to avoid depleting the soil. To me, this approach is ideal. Mixing traditional farming methods with state-of-the-art technology is the only way we can feed the world
A great statement made this morning by Sir Gordon Conway was that the greatest accomplishments of our time were achieved by non-violent methods. This worked to stop racism in America and apartheid in South Africa. Why can’t it work for Iraq? Or North Korea? If we poured money into agriculture, self-sustainment, and education (instead of war) then maybe something positive would actually happen! I truly believe in the power of agriculture to empower people in a positive way. Happy people don’t wage wars.
Other people seem to be seeing this idea in the same light, such as Bill and Melinda Gates. Dr. Shaw is their representative on agricultural initiatives, working towards the same goals as the World Food Prize people. Hearing him talk was amazing. Bill Gates may not be perfect, but his organization may singlehandedly eliminate malaria, and is working to do other great things too.
I had to leave right after Dr. Shaw’s talk, drive back to Ames, and run to a talk by Dr. Kathy Swords of Simplot. This company is working on a lot of awesome things that boils down to making genetically modified crops with no foreign DNA. In other words, instead of a gene from a fish in your tomato, it will be a gene from another type of tomato or from a related plant. It’s much less likely to cause allergic reactions in people, and results in no new novel proteins. The result of the modification could be achieved naturally, but it would take decades of breeding instead of a few years of development. The company voluntarily tests all of their crops, making sure that there are no differences from a naturally bred crop. It sounds like they have much more responsible business practices than Monsanto, with less objectionable results. One frustrating part is that I’ve been talking about this idea for at least a year now. I can be satisfied knowing that someone’s doing it.