tag:theconversation.com,2011:/ca/topics/gmo-crops-22483/articlesGMO crops – The Conversation2023-05-08T12:18:30Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2020842023-05-08T12:18:30Z2023-05-08T12:18:30ZGain-of-function research is more than just tweaking risky viruses – it’s a routine and essential tool in all biology research<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/523909/original/file-20230502-4095-u8oni1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C94%2C1500%2C1221&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Gain-of-function experiments in the lab can help researchers get ahead of viruses naturally gaining the ability to infect people in the wild.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/illustration/molecule-illustration-royalty-free-illustration/1423893041">KTSDesign/Science Photo Library via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The term “gain of function” is often taken to refer to research with viruses that puts society at risk of an infectious disease outbreak for questionable gain. Some research on emerging viruses can result in variants that gain the ability to infect people but this does not necessarily mean the research is dangerous or that it is not fruitful. Concerns have focused on lab research on the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/mar/28/bird-flu-mutant-strains">virus that causes bird flu</a> in 2012 and on the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-gain-of-function-research-matters-162493">virus that causes COVID-19</a> since 2020. The National Institutes of Health had previously implemented a <a href="https://www.science.org/content/article/nih-lifts-3-year-ban-funding-risky-virus-studies">three-year moratorium</a> on gain-of-function research on certain viruses, and some U.S. legislatures have <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/senate/texas-state-ban-gain-function-research-covid-pandemic">proposed bills prohibiting</a> gain-of-function research on “potentially pandemic pathogens.”</p>
<p>The possibility that a genetically modified virus could escape the lab needs to be taken seriously. But it does not mean that gain-of-function experiments are inherently risky or the purview of mad scientists. In fact, gain-of-function approaches are a fundamental tool in biology used to study much more than just viruses, contributing to many, if not most, modern discoveries in the field, including <a href="https://doi.org/10.3201%2Feid2305.161556">penicillin</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/anti-cancer-car-t-therapy-reengineers-t-cells-to-kill-tumors-and-researchers-are-expanding-the-limited-types-of-cancer-it-can-target-196471">cancer immunotherapies</a> and <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150204134119.htm">drought-resistant crops</a>.</p>
<p>As <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=IXDoiY4AAAAJ&hl=en">scientists who</a> <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=GBQiazwAAAAJ&hl=en">study viruses</a>, we believe that misunderstanding the term “gain of function” as something nefarious comes at the cost of progress in human health, ecological sustainability and technological advancement. Clarifying what gain-of-function research really is can help clarify why it is an essential scientific tool.</p>
<h2>What is gain of function?</h2>
<p>To study how a living thing operates, scientists can change a specific part of it and then observe the effects. These changes sometimes result in the organism’s gaining a function it didn’t have before or losing a function it once had. </p>
<p>For example, if the goal is to enhance the tumor-killing ability of immune cells, researchers can take a sample of a person’s immune cells and modify them to express a protein that specifically targets cancer cells. This mutated immune cell, called a <a href="https://theconversation.com/anti-cancer-car-t-therapy-reengineers-t-cells-to-kill-tumors-and-researchers-are-expanding-the-limited-types-of-cancer-it-can-target-196471">CAR-T cell</a> thereby “gains the function” of being able to bind to cancerous cells and kill them. The advance of similar immunotherapies that help the immune system attack cancer cells is based on the exploratory research of scientists who synthesized such “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00820662">Frankenstein” proteins</a> in the 1980s. At that time, there was no way to know how useful these chimeric proteins would be to cancer treatment today, some 40 years later. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/mXADrg_ckhI?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">CAR-T cell therapy involves giving a patient’s immune cells an increased ability to target cancer cells.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Similarly, by adding specific genes into rice, corn or wheat plants that increase their production in diverse climates, scientists have been able to produce plants that are able to grow and thrive in geographical regions they previously could not. This is a critical advance to maintain food supplies in the face of climate change. Well-known examples of food sources that have their origins in gain-of-function research <a href="https://www.sciencenews.org/article/rice-agriculture-feeds-world-climate-change-drought-flood-risk">include rice plants</a> that can grow in high flood plains or in drought conditions or that contain vitamin A to reduce malnutrition.</p>
<h2>Medical advances from gain-of-function research</h2>
<p>Gain-of-function experiments are ingrained in the scientific process. In many instances, the benefits that stem from gain-of-function experiments are not immediately clear. Only decades later does the research bring a new treatment to the clinic or a new technology within reach. </p>
<p>The development of most antibiotics have relied on the <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2021.684515">manipulation of bacteria or mold</a> in gain-of-function experiments. Alexander Fleming’s initial discovery that the mold <em>Penicillium rubens</em> could produce a compound toxic to bacteria was a profound medical advance. But it wasn’t until scientists experimented with <a href="https://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/objects-and-stories/how-was-penicillin-developed">growth conditions and mold strains</a> that therapeutic use of penicillin became feasible. Using a specific growth medium allowed the mold to gain the function of increased penicillin production, which was essential for its mass production and widespread use as a drug. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/523678/original/file-20230501-1518-hmu9o0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Worker monitoring penicillin capsules coming down production line" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/523678/original/file-20230501-1518-hmu9o0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/523678/original/file-20230501-1518-hmu9o0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=759&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523678/original/file-20230501-1518-hmu9o0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=759&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523678/original/file-20230501-1518-hmu9o0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=759&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523678/original/file-20230501-1518-hmu9o0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=954&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523678/original/file-20230501-1518-hmu9o0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=954&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523678/original/file-20230501-1518-hmu9o0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=954&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Gain-of-function research played a key role in the development and mass production of penicillin.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/penicillin-capsules-being-checked-as-they-come-off-the-news-photo/2667016">Wesley/Stringer/Hulton Archive via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Research on <a href="https://doi.org/10.1128%2FAAC.02381-18">antibiotic resistance</a> also relies heavily on gain-of-function approaches. Studying how bacteria <a href="https://theconversation.com/looming-behind-antibiotic-resistance-is-another-bacterial-threat-antibiotic-tolerance-200226">gain resistance</a> against drugs is essential to developing new treatments microbes are unable to evade quickly.</p>
<p>Gain-of-function research in virology has also been critical to the advancement of science and health. <a href="https://www.cancer.gov/news-events/cancer-currents-blog/2018/oncolytic-viruses-to-treat-cancer">Oncolytic viruses</a> are genetically modified in the laboratory to infect and kill cancerous cells like melanoma. Similarly, the <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/overview-COVID-19-vaccines.html">Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine</a> contains an adenovirus altered to produce the spike protein that helps the COVID-19 virus infect cells. Scientists developed <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1654(199910/12)9:4%3C237::AID-RMV252%3E3.0.CO;2-G">live attenuated flu vaccines</a> by adapting them to grow at low temperatures and thereby lose the ability to grow at human lung temperatures. </p>
<p>By giving viruses new functions, scientists were able to develop new tools to treat and prevent disease.</p>
<h2>Nature’s gain-of-function experiments</h2>
<p>Gain-of-function approaches are needed to advance understanding of viruses in part because these processes already occur in nature.</p>
<p>Many viruses that infect such nonhuman animals as bats, pigs, birds and mice have the potential to <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-is-spillover-bird-flu-outbreak-underscores-need-for-early-detection-to-prevent-the-next-big-pandemic-200494">spill over into people</a>. Every time a virus copies its genome, it makes mistakes. Most of these mutations are detrimental – they reduce a virus’s ability to replicate – but some may allow a virus to replicate faster or better in human cells. Variant viruses with these rare, beneficial mutations will spread better than other variants and therefore come to dominate the viral population – that is <a href="https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/evolution-today/natural-selection-vista">how natural selection works</a>.</p>
<p>If these viruses can replicate even a little bit within people, they have the potential to adapt and thereby thrive in their new human hosts. That is nature’s gain-of-function experiment, and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/ve/veaa016">it is</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chom.2020.08.011">happening constantly</a>.</p>
<p>Gain-of-function experiments in the lab can help scientists <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.1222526">anticipate the changes</a> viruses may undergo in nature by understanding what specific features allow them to transmit between people and infect them. In contrast to nature’s experiments, these are conducted in <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/labs/BMBL.html">highly controlled lab conditions</a> designed to limit infection risk to laboratory personnel and others, including air flow control, personal protective equipment and waste sterilization.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/523674/original/file-20230501-20-lxf4la.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="People in protective clothing collecting dead pelicans on a beach" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/523674/original/file-20230501-20-lxf4la.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/523674/original/file-20230501-20-lxf4la.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523674/original/file-20230501-20-lxf4la.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523674/original/file-20230501-20-lxf4la.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523674/original/file-20230501-20-lxf4la.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523674/original/file-20230501-20-lxf4la.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523674/original/file-20230501-20-lxf4la.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Researchers and public health officials are concerned that the bird flu virus is evolving to more readily infect people.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/BirdFluMutations/6895d38a33de468c93c14da427b4dfff">Guadalupe Pardo/AP Photo</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It is important that researchers carefully observe lab safety to minimize the theoretical risk of infecting the general population. It is equally important that virologists continue to apply the tools of modern science to gauge the risk of natural viral spillovers before they become outbreaks. </p>
<p>A <a href="https://theconversation.com/as-bird-flu-continues-to-spread-in-the-us-and-worldwide-whats-the-risk-that-it-could-start-a-human-pandemic-4-questions-answered-200204">bird flu outbreak</a> is currently raging across multiple continents. While the H5N1 virus is primarily infecting birds, some people have gotten sick too. More spillover events can change the virus in ways that would allow it to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adi1013">transmit more efficiently among people</a>, potentially leading to a pandemic. </p>
<p>Scientists have a better appreciation of the tangible risk of bird flu spillover because of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1213362">gain-of-function experiments</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10831">published a decade ago</a>. Those lab studies showed that bird flu viruses could be transmitted through the air between ferrets within a few feet of one another. They also revealed multiple features of the evolutionary path the H5N1 virus would need to take before it becomes transmissible in mammals, informing what signatures researchers need to look out for during surveillance of the current outbreak.</p>
<h2>Oversight on gain of function</h2>
<p>Perhaps this sounds like a semantic argument, and in many respects it is. <a href="https://www.statnews.com/2021/12/23/gain-of-function-research-advances-knowledge-and-saves-lives/">Many researchers</a> would likely agree that gain of function as a general tool is an important way to study biology that should not be restricted, while also arguing that it should be curtailed for research on specific dangerous pathogens. The problem with this argument is that pathogen research needs to include gain-of-function approaches in order to be effective – just as in any area of biology.</p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1128/jvi.00089-23">Oversight of gain-of-function research</a> on potential pandemic pathogens already exists. Multiple layers of safety measures at the institutional and national levels minimize the risks of virus research.</p>
<p>While updates to current oversight are not unreasonable, we believe that <a href="https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/who-we-are/nih-director/statements/statement-report-national-science-advisory-board-biosecurity">blanket bans or additional restrictions</a> on gain-of-function research do not make society safer. They may instead slow research in areas ranging from cancer therapies to agriculture. Clarifying which specific research areas are of concern regarding gain-of-function approaches can help identify how the current oversight framework can be improved.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/202084/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Seema Lakdawala receives funding from National Institutes of Health and the Flu Lab. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anice Lowen receives research funding from the National Institutes of Health and Flu Lab. </span></em></p>From cancer immunotherapy and antibiotics to GMO crops and pandemic surveillance, gain of function is a cornerstone of basic research.Seema Lakdawala, Associate Professor of Microbiology and Immunology at Emory University and Adjunct Professor Microbiology and Molecular Genetics, University of PittsburghAnice Lowen, Associate Professor of Microbiology and Immunology, Emory UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2042752023-05-07T20:17:48Z2023-05-07T20:17:48ZWhat’s the latest on GMOs and gene-edited foods – and what are the concerns? An expert explains<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/524539/original/file-20230505-15-jsa8bc.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=16%2C0%2C2679%2C1802&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Advances in genetic engineering have given rise to an era of foods – including genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and gene-edited foods – that promise to revolutionise the way we eat.</p>
<p>Critics argue these foods could pose risks to human health and the environment. Proponents point to their potential for enhancing yields, reducing food waste, and even combating climate change.</p>
<p>What are GMOs and gene-edited foods? And how are they shaping the future of our food systems?</p>
<h2>GMOs and gene-edited foods aren’t the same</h2>
<p>GMOs are organisms whose genetic material has been artificially altered by inserting a piece of foreign DNA. This DNA may be synthetic in origin or sourced from other organisms. </p>
<p>Gene editing involves making precise changes to an organism’s genome without the integration of foreign DNA elements. Using techniques such as CRISPR/Cas, scientists make precise “cuts” in the DNA to create new genetic variation. Unlike with GMOs, this introduces only minor modifications, which are indistinguishable from natural mutations.</p>
<p>Although GMOs and gene-edited foods have been in circulation for almost three decades, research in this space continues to deliver breakthroughs. These technologies <a href="https://www.fao.org/3/cc3579en/cc3579en.pdf">are being applied</a> to provide a range of benefits, from improved nutrition in food, to reduced food waste and increased crop tolerance against climate stresses.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/what-is-crispr-the-gene-editing-technology-that-won-the-chemistry-nobel-prize-147695">What is CRISPR, the gene editing technology that won the Chemistry Nobel prize?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>What are the concerns?</h2>
<p>The major criticisms of GMOs are related to the overuse of specific herbicides.</p>
<p>GMOs are mainly used to produce crops that are herbicide-resistant or produce pesticides. Farmers can then use herbicides on those crops to control weeds more effectively, without the plants themselves dying. This leads to higher yields on less land, and often with less chemicals used overall.</p>
<p>However, these crops rely on the use of said lab-made <a href="https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/gmfood/pages/herbicides-in-gm-foods.aspx">chemicals</a>. And although the government <a href="https://apvma.gov.au/node/15931">regulates</a> them, ethical and safety debates continue. People raise concerns over potential long-term health impacts, impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems, and the <a href="https://www.ogtr.gov.au/news/announcement/release-genetically-modified-organism-herbicide-tolerance-trait-review">increased corporate control</a> over agriculture. </p>
<p>Concerns generally aren’t related to the actual manipulation of the plants’ DNA.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/kZIYkYNpnP0?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>Is genetic modification itself unsafe?</h2>
<p>When it comes to the food we eat, how much do we really know about its DNA? Even among experts with genome-sequencing information, most have only one or a few sequenced “reference” varieties, and these often aren’t the same as the plants we eat.</p>
<p>The fact is, we don’t really understand the genomes of many plants and animals we eat. So there’s no reason to suggest tweaking their gene sequences will make consumption harmful. Moreover, there’s currently <a href="https://www.fda.gov/media/135280/download">no</a> <a href="https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/gm-plants/is-it-safe-to-eat-gm-crops">evidence</a> regulator-approved GMOs or gene-edited foods aren’t safe for human consumption. </p>
<p>In regards to food safety, one valid concern would be the potential creation of new allergens: proteins within the crop the body recognises and creates an immune response to. </p>
<p>But it’s important to remember many foods we eat are already allergenic. Common examples include wheat, peanuts, soy, milk and eggs. Some <a href="https://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/ss/slideshow-toxic-foods">common foods</a> are even toxic if consumed in large quantities or without appropriate preparation, such as rhubarb leaves, raw cassava, raw kidney beans and raw cashews. </p>
<p>Ironically, researchers are using gene editing to work towards eliminating proteins that cause allergies and intolerances. <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2020.00051/full">Gluten-free wheat</a> is one example.</p>
<h2>GMOs and gene-edited foods are widespread</h2>
<p>Due to inconsistent rules about labelling GMOs and gene-edited foods around the world, many consumers may not realise they’re already eating them. </p>
<p>For example, the most <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK562892/#">widely used enzyme</a> in cheese-making, <a href="https://thecheesewanker.com/cheese-science/microbial-rennet">rennet</a>, is produced from a GMO bacterium. GMO microbial rennet produces a specific enzyme called chymosin, which helps coagulate milk and form curds. Historically, chymosin was extracted from young cow stomachs, but in the 1990s scientists managed to genetically engineer a bacterium to synthesise it. </p>
<p>GMOs and gene-edited cereal and oilseed products are also widely used in stockfeeds. There is ongoing research to improve feed through enhanced <a href="https://www.bestfoodfacts.org/what-benefits-can-gene-editing-bring-to-food-quality-and-sustainability/">nutrition</a>, and produce crops that will decrease methane <a href="https://www.fwi.co.uk/livestock/gene-editing-breakthrough-could-cut-ruminant-methane">emissions from cattle</a>. </p>
<p>When it comes to modifying animals themselves, ethical considerations must be balanced alongside <a href="https://cabiagbio.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s43170-022-00091-w">potential</a> benefits.</p>
<p>In Australia, about 70% of <a href="https://www.mla.com.au/news-and-events/industry-news/polled-gene-testing-for-a-more-sustainable-herd/">cattle</a> are genetically polled (hornless). Having polled cows improves meat quality through less injury to meat, and is considered better for animal welfare. In the US, fast-growing <a href="https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/aquadvantage-salmon/qa-fdas-approval-aquadvantage-salmon">genetically modified salmon</a> has been approved for consumption.</p>
<p>In a horticultural context, the genetically modified rainbow papaya stands out. It was developed in the late 1990s in response to a ringspot virus outbreak that nearly wiped out the global papaya industry. <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1071/APP9930002">Researchers created</a> the virus-resistant “transgenic” papaya, which now makes up a significant proportion of papayas consumed. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/524540/original/file-20230505-29-5x67m0.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/524540/original/file-20230505-29-5x67m0.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/524540/original/file-20230505-29-5x67m0.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/524540/original/file-20230505-29-5x67m0.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/524540/original/file-20230505-29-5x67m0.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/524540/original/file-20230505-29-5x67m0.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/524540/original/file-20230505-29-5x67m0.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/524540/original/file-20230505-29-5x67m0.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Scientists in the US developed the rainbow papaya to be resistant to the papaya ringspot virus. It was commercialised in 1998.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In terms of boosting nutritional content, “<a href="https://www.world-grain.com/articles/17357-cgiar-initiative-plants-golden-rice-in-philippines">golden rice</a>” biofortified with Vitamin A (GMO) is being cultivated in the Philippines, as are tomatoes <a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/2321469-gene-edited-tomato-offers-new-plant-based-source-of-vitamin-d/">biofortified with Vitamin D</a> (GE) in the United Kingdom, and <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK513311/#">GABA-enriched</a> tomatoes (GE) in Japan.</p>
<p>Research is also being done to create <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2016.19754">non-browning mushrooms</a>, apples and potatoes. A simple gene edit can help inhibit the browning oxidation reaction, leading to a longer shelf-life and less food waste.</p>
<h2>Regulation in Australia and New Zealand</h2>
<p>So why don’t you see non-browning mushrooms at your local supermarket? </p>
<p>In Australia, the <a href="https://www.ogtr.gov.au/">Office of the Gene Technology Regulator</a> regulates GMOs. It has <a href="https://www.ogtr.gov.au/resources/publications/genetically-modified-gm-crops-australia">approved</a> four GMO crops for cultivation: cotton, canola, safflower and Indian mustard. However, many more are imported for food ingredients (including modified soy, cottonseed oil, corn and sugar beet) and stockfeed (canola, maize and soy).</p>
<p>Gene-edited food crops can be cultivated without any regulatory restrictions or labelling in Australia. The Gene Technology Act 2000 <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2019L00573">deregulated these products</a> in 2019.</p>
<p>On the other hand, New Zealand’s Environmental Protection Authority has maintained regulatory restrictions on both gene-edited foods and GMOs. Divergent definitions have led the bi-national agency Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) to adopt a cautious approach, regulating gene-edited foods and feeds as GMOs. </p>
<p>The lack of alignment in definitions in Australian has confused producers and consumers alike. FSANZ has said it will continue to monitor developments in gene-editing technology, and will consider reviewing its regulatory approach.</p>
<h2>Responsible research</h2>
<p>Both GMOs and gene-edited foods offer great promise. Of course there are valid concerns, such as the potential to create new allergens, unintended consequences for ecosystems, and growing corporate control over food. But these can be addressed through responsible research and regulatory frameworks.</p>
<p>Ultimately, the development of future foods must be guided by a commitment to sustainability, social justice and scientific rigour.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Correction: This article previously said the transgenic rainbow papaya made up the majority of papayas consumed worldwide. This was incorrect and the wording has been amended.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/204275/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Karen Massel does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Debates about GMOs and gene-edited foods are multifaceted. There’s no evidence they’re not safe to eat, but no room for complacency either.Karen Massel, Research Fellow, Centre for Crop Science, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1670982021-09-17T12:15:54Z2021-09-17T12:15:54ZThe fall armyworm invasion is fierce this year – and scientists are researching how to stop its destruction of lawns, football fields and crops<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/419160/original/file-20210902-15-1yfjtms.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Fall armyworm devouring a soybean leaf.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Scott D. Stewart</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Across the Northeast, Midwest, South and Southwest United States, homeowners are watching with horror as their lawns turn from green to brown, sometimes in less than 48 hours, and wondering, “What happened this year – and how did it happen so fast?”</p>
<p>The culprit: the fall armyworm. </p>
<p>As <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=xbxQZkwAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">an entomologist, I</a> can attest that their appearance is nothing new: They’re an annual problem, but <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/09/01/fall-armyworm-outbreak-damages-lawns-across-us/5683595001/">the scale of this year’s invasion is unprecedented</a>. These voracious feeders are destroying lawns and grasses, attacking golf courses, pastures, football and soccer fields – and they can completely defoliate rice, soybean, alfalfa and other crop fields within days. They are called armyworms because of their habit of marching across the landscape.</p>
<h2>The invader</h2>
<p>The fall armyworm, <em>Spodoptera frugiperda</em>, isn’t a worm. It’s a striped caterpillar, the larvae of an ordinary and benign brown moth. It’s <a href="https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/29810">native to the Americas</a> and is extremely adaptable, thriving everywhere from lush forests to arid regions and in pristine, disturbed and urban landscapes. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/420551/original/file-20210910-19-8gn64z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/420551/original/file-20210910-19-8gn64z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/420551/original/file-20210910-19-8gn64z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/420551/original/file-20210910-19-8gn64z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/420551/original/file-20210910-19-8gn64z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/420551/original/file-20210910-19-8gn64z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/420551/original/file-20210910-19-8gn64z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/420551/original/file-20210910-19-8gn64z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The armyworms’ impact on lawn grass can be dramatic.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Scott D. Stewart</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This moth survives year-round in warmer locales, from the tip of South America to the southern U.S. Each year they invade more northern regions until cold weather ends their occupation.</p>
<p>From larvae to moth, its <a href="https://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/field/fall_armyworm.htm">entire life cycle</a> is about 30 days during the summer and 60 in spring and fall. Adult moths survive just two weeks. During that time, a female lays up to 2,000 eggs, deposited underneath leaves in clusters of 100 to 200.</p>
<p>The moths aren’t the problem; it’s their larvae. When eggs first hatch, the tiny caterpillars are barely noticeable, about one-sixteenth of an inch long. By the time the caterpillars reach full size – an inch and a half – they’ve become ravenous eaters. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wDVzi0ykWlY?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">During its short life cycle, the fall armyworm can devastate important crops.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Depending on the season, the armyworms eat and grow for 14 to 30 days. Initially, they chew holes in leaves, sometimes reducing them to a lacework skeleton. If they run out of food, they become cannibals, with the larger armyworms preying on the smaller ones.</p>
<p>Then they burrow into the ground, encase themselves in a cocoon and pupate. When they emerge as moths, the cycle repeats, with the next generation propelling their expansion across the country.</p>
<h2>An invasive species</h2>
<p>Meanwhile, fall armyworms have spread across the globe as an <a href="https://www.cabi.org/ISC/fallarmyworm">invasive species</a>, reaching the Near East, Asia, Australia, Africa and India. Without its native complement of parasites, predators and diseases to control it, these rapacious caterpillars pose a serious agricultural threat to these newly invaded countries. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1056794059191156736"}"></div></p>
<p>Farming practices have fueled their proliferation. Most of these countries do not grow armyworm-resistant <a href="https://www.fda.gov/food/agricultural-biotechnology/gmo-crops-animal-food-and-beyond#:%7E:text=What%20GMO%20crops%20are%20grown%20and%20sold%20in,insect%20pests%20and%20disease.%20...%20More%20items...%20">GMO crops</a> and many have limited access to newer insecticides and modern application equipment.</p>
<p>Armyworms have been particularly destructive in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/jipm/pmab002">sub-Saharan Africa</a>, where they devour maize, the continent’s staple crop. Damage is estimated at <a href="https://reliefweb.int/report/world/fall-armyworm-cost-more-2bn-losses#:%7E:text=A%20new%20report%20released%20by%20the%20Centre%20for,%245.5%20billion%20per%20year%20in%20lost%20maize%20harvests">US$2 billion per year</a>. It also causes major damage to corn, rice, sorghum, sugar cane, vegetable crops and cotton.</p>
<h2>This year’s ‘perfect storm’</h2>
<p>Entomologist <a href="https://entomology.tamu.edu/people/kerns-david/">David Kerns</a> sounded the alarm in June, warning that armyworms in Texas were bad and heading north and east. They’d gotten off to an early start, aided by good weather in their winter home range. </p>
<p>Once the moths are on the move, they leave their natural enemies behind, taking their new territories by surprise. They can migrate hundreds of miles, riding the winds to reinfest the northern part of their domain. But with an early start this year, they rode the winds farther than normal. By the end of August, much of the southern U.S. east of the Rocky Mountains had suffered serious assault, akin to a plague of locusts.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/420549/original/file-20210910-21-85de09.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/420549/original/file-20210910-21-85de09.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/420549/original/file-20210910-21-85de09.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/420549/original/file-20210910-21-85de09.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/420549/original/file-20210910-21-85de09.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/420549/original/file-20210910-21-85de09.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1006&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/420549/original/file-20210910-21-85de09.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1006&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/420549/original/file-20210910-21-85de09.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1006&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">An adult armyworm moth (genus <em>Spodoptera</em>)</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Scott D. Stewart</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/420550/original/file-20210910-17-hxdodn.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/420550/original/file-20210910-17-hxdodn.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/420550/original/file-20210910-17-hxdodn.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/420550/original/file-20210910-17-hxdodn.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/420550/original/file-20210910-17-hxdodn.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/420550/original/file-20210910-17-hxdodn.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/420550/original/file-20210910-17-hxdodn.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/420550/original/file-20210910-17-hxdodn.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Newly hatched armyworms.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Scott D. Stewart</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>How do we control the invasion?</h2>
<p>There are two ways to deal with an infestation: Wait it out, or fight. For those concerned about lawns, waiting may be the answer. Armyworms don’t feast on all grasses, and a well-established lawn will often recover, though it may not look great for a while. However, armyworms particularly love freshly laid sod, which may sustain irreparable damage.</p>
<p>Waiting it out isn’t an option for farmers. Applying insecticides is the only way to save crops, which may prove difficult as pandemic-fueled disruptions have left some insecticides in short supply. Success is a numbers game: Killing 80% of a group of 100 armyworms controls them, but with larger numbers of armyworms, killing 80% still means many crops will be devastated.</p>
<p>Some evidence also suggests that fall armyworms may be developing more resistance to certain insecticides, and it wouldn’t be the first time. This pest is infamous for developing resistance to the insecticidal proteins from <em>Bacillus thuringiensis</em> produced by genetically modified crops. My colleague <a href="https://epp.tennessee.edu/people/directory/dr-juan-jurat-fuentes/">Juan Luis Jurat-Fuentes</a> is trying to understand how the fall armyworm becomes <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23752438/">resistant to Bt toxins</a> in <a href="https://entomology.ca.uky.edu/ef130">Bt corn</a> and cotton. </p>
<p>His work is also revealing how insecticidal protein-resistant armyworms are <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33711916/">spreading their genes</a> across the Americas. We are currently collaborating on a project using <a href="https://hopes.stanford.edu/gene-silencing/">gene silencing</a> to help control outbreaks of fall armyworm. The technique can turn off specific genes, including those <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32484869/">that make the fall armyworm resistant to insecticides</a>. The goal is to develop extremely specific and effective insecticides that have minimal impact on the environment and other wildlife species.</p>
<h2>The cost – and the future</h2>
<p>The economic costs of fall armyworm invasions are high. <a href="https://www.agweb.com/news/crops/soybeans/southern-farmers-fight-fall-armyworm-damage-epa-grants-insecticide-relief-rice">This year alone</a> they have preyed upon millions of acres of crops, hayfields, lawns and turfgrass. Farmers, homeowners and businesses have spent tens of millions of dollars on insecticide applications. Some farms have suffered major crop losses.</p>
<p>The battle is not quite over. It will continue for a few more weeks as the fall armyworm continues to spread farther north and east. </p>
<p>[<em>Over 100,000 readers rely on The Conversation’s newsletter to understand the world.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/the-daily-3?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=100Ksignup">Sign up today</a>.]</p>
<p>Was this “year of the armyworm” a fluke? Will they be back? The answer to both questions is probably yes. We don’t know why fall armyworms started off en masse in 2021, but the extreme infestations were hopefully a rare anomaly. There is concern, however, that a warming climate will allow these and other subtropical and tropical insects to expand their territories northward. </p>
<p>We do know that armyworms will reinvade much of the Southern U.S. every year as they always have, and northern states should expect more frequent incursions from insect neighbors to the south.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/167098/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Scott D. Stewart's research and extension programs at the University of Tennessee are partially supported by grants and contracts from Tennessee cotton, corn and soybean commodity boards, the USDA, and from various seed and pesticide companies for evaluation of their technologies.</span></em></p>This year’s unprecedented fall armyworm invasion has laid waste to lawns, athletic fields and crops. Is it a fluke? When will it end?Scott D. Stewart, Professor of Entomology and Director of the West Tennessee AgResearch and Education Center, University of TennesseeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1114692019-02-12T22:48:21Z2019-02-12T22:48:21ZFrom cannabis edibles to plant proteins: 2019 food trends<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/258383/original/file-20190211-174857-b1nlw3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Plant-based foods, including fruits and vegetables, will be more popular this year.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Sydney Rae/Unsplash</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Food continues to find its way into the consciousness of Canadians. </p>
<p>It’s in our news feed, on our television screens and, more and more, part of our day-to-day conversations. The challenge is to separate the fact from the fiction, the ephemeral from the soon-to-be everyday. The University of Guelph’s newest <a href="https://www.foodfocusguelph.ca/trends-report">Food Focus Trends Report</a> highlights six key trends likely to be front and centre this year.</p>
<h2>Flexitarians on the rise</h2>
<p>While vegans and vegetarians get all the attention, the <a href="https://www.foodfocusguelph.ca/blog/the-new-food-guide-a-reflection-or-driver-of-change">flexitarians</a> are rapidly growing in number — and in clout. A flexitarian is someone who is eating less meat rather than giving it up entirely.</p>
<p>Almost 85 per cent of Canadians claim to eat at least one vegetarian meal per month, with nearly 50 per cent saying they do so at least once a week. Despite only seven to eight per cent of Canadians identifying as vegetarian or vegan, the conscious consumption of flexitarians will likely have a profound impact on the quantity and types of meat we eat as well as spurring the growth of protein alternatives. </p>
<p>By choosing to eat less meat, consumers are likely to indulge in more premium cuts while sacrificing staples like ground beef.</p>
<p>Plant-based proteins are also sure to grow in popularity, as are those from previously taboo sources, such as insects. Canada’s new <a href="https://food-guide.canada.ca/en/">Food Guide</a> also recommends an increased focus on plant-based foods.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/in-defence-of-canadas-food-guide-110347">In defence of Canada's Food Guide</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Should Canada’s meat industry be concerned? Possibly, but increased international demand should keep overall prices in our country steady for the foreseeable future and population growth here will also continue to increase the total demand for meat.</p>
<h2>Easing fears about gene-editing</h2>
<p>If comic books and horror movies have taught the average Canadian anything, it’s that nothing good ever comes from playing with genes. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, fiction can sometimes be more believable than facts. When it comes to agriculture, gene editing increases yields, develops tolerances to things like drought or pests, removes allergens (to make gluten-free wheat, for example) and enhances nutritional quality. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/258306/original/file-20190211-174870-1wf7jfx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/258306/original/file-20190211-174870-1wf7jfx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/258306/original/file-20190211-174870-1wf7jfx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/258306/original/file-20190211-174870-1wf7jfx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/258306/original/file-20190211-174870-1wf7jfx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/258306/original/file-20190211-174870-1wf7jfx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/258306/original/file-20190211-174870-1wf7jfx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Canadian government approved the sale of genetically modified golden rice that’s fortified with Vitamin A. It’s an example of a GM food that directly benefits consumers.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Josep Folta/Flickr</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>And the <a href="https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2018-04-10/gene-editing-good">biggest benefit</a> may be for the world’s poor. Basically, gene editing is doing what animal and plant breeders have been doing for hundreds and hundreds of years, only in a way that’s much faster, much cheaper and much more specific. </p>
<p>The only challenge? Reducing unfounded fears and communicating the incredible potential of genetically modified crops and foods in a way that Canadians can fully embrace.</p>
<h2>Protecting our pollinators</h2>
<p>In recent years, the humble bee has gone from picnic pest to cause célèbre. The decline of bee populations and its potential impact on food resources has Canadians rallying in support. And with good reason — <a href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2006.3721">a third of the world’s crops rely on pollinators</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/258308/original/file-20190211-174861-1s5a1wp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/258308/original/file-20190211-174861-1s5a1wp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/258308/original/file-20190211-174861-1s5a1wp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/258308/original/file-20190211-174861-1s5a1wp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/258308/original/file-20190211-174861-1s5a1wp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=496&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/258308/original/file-20190211-174861-1s5a1wp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=496&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/258308/original/file-20190211-174861-1s5a1wp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=496&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A third of the world’s crops need pollinators like bees. But some of them also require pesticides that are harmful to bees.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Jenna Lee/Unsplash</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In Canada, the contribution of bees to crops like apples, blueberries and canola <a href="http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/industry-markets-and-trade/canadian-agri-food-sector-intelligence/horticulture/horticulture-sector-reports/statistical-overview-of-the-canadian-honey-and-bee-industry-and-the-economic-contribution-of-honey-bee-pollination-2016/?id=1510864970935#a5">has been estimated at over $5 billion.</a> </p>
<p>So shouldn’t we all be behind the bee? It’s not that simple. </p>
<p>While they are essential for some crops, other crops rely on methods of pest control that are associated with the decline of pollinators. </p>
<p>As we’ve seen with the neonicotinoids debate, striking a delicate balance between the needs of farmers and the protection of pollinators is an ongoing challenge and a goal that will not be easily achieved.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-its-time-to-curb-widespread-use-of-neonicotinoid-pesticides-96620">Why it's time to curb widespread use of neonicotinoid pesticides</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Canada is high on cannabis edibles</h2>
<p>Cannabis will soon be a major driver in the food and beverage category. This year should see edible products incorporated into Bill C-45 (the Cannabis Act), opening up opportunities for health foods and supplements, snack foods, packaged meals, restaurants and tourism.</p>
<p>A recent <a href="https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/ca/Documents/consulting/ca-cannabis-2018-report-en.PDF">Deloitte report</a> found that 58 per cent of current Canadian cannabis users intend to consume edibles once they’re legalized. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/258310/original/file-20190211-174880-uqlyx1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/258310/original/file-20190211-174880-uqlyx1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/258310/original/file-20190211-174880-uqlyx1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/258310/original/file-20190211-174880-uqlyx1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/258310/original/file-20190211-174880-uqlyx1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/258310/original/file-20190211-174880-uqlyx1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/258310/original/file-20190211-174880-uqlyx1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Most Canadian cannabis users say they intend to consume edibles once they’re legal.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But these highs do have some potential lows — work will need to be done to ensure proper dosing and to prevent unintended secondary consumption by children and pets. </p>
<p>As well, the path to market for cannabis products in Canada goes through three different pieces of legislation: the Cannabis Act, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Food and Drugs Act. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-keep-your-pets-safe-from-marijuana-poisoning-109134">How to keep your pets safe from marijuana poisoning</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In addition, products for medical consumers must also meet the Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations that are included in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. But with the total market estimated at more than $7 billion (on par with Canada’s wine industry), the future is nonetheless bright for cannabis companies.</p>
<h2>Prospering in a time of protectionism</h2>
<p>The whirlwind of trade deals and disputes in the past few years has left many Canadians reeling. While there has been much hand-wringing over inter-provincial barriers, NAFTA/USMCA and new agreements with Europe and the Pacific Rim, freer trade in food has actually provided Canadian farmers with markets that are hungry for our products. </p>
<p>Plus, Canadian consumers have benefited and now enjoy a wider range of affordable food products. </p>
<p>The one downside? Our regulated dairy industry, along with other supply managed commodities, has ceded nearly 10 per cent of its market through recent trade deals.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/in-defence-of-canadas-dairy-farmers-105774">In defence of Canada's dairy farmers</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>This will not only be painful for the dairy sector, but it isn’t likely to result in lower prices for Canadians — although we will probably see a broader array of cheeses and other dairy products. Overall, though, trade has been good for Canada and will continue to be for the foreseeable future.</p>
<h2>Growing divide between food & farms</h2>
<p>Farms may feed people, but they have very little to do with the price you pay for food. </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/258314/original/file-20190211-174861-1rhvxyg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/258314/original/file-20190211-174861-1rhvxyg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/258314/original/file-20190211-174861-1rhvxyg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=445&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/258314/original/file-20190211-174861-1rhvxyg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=445&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/258314/original/file-20190211-174861-1rhvxyg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=445&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/258314/original/file-20190211-174861-1rhvxyg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=559&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/258314/original/file-20190211-174861-1rhvxyg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=559&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/258314/original/file-20190211-174861-1rhvxyg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=559&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A farmer is seen on his Nova Scotia farm in 2014 with some of his laying hens.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS/Andrew Vaughan</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Fluctuating prices of agricultural commodities like corn, wheat or soybeans often fuel news stories but the reality is the increases in food prices Canadians have seen over the years have been relatively consistent. </p>
<p>Put simply, food and farm prices are not the same and the relationship between the two continues to weaken. Today, the <a href="https://www.fb.org/market-intel/farmers-share-of-food-dollar-at-record-low">farmers’ share</a> of the food dollar is around 20 per cent — higher for less processed foods (nearly 50 per cent for eggs) and lower for more processed foods (two per cent for corn, which is used as a sweetener in manufactured food products). </p>
<p>While the effect of low commodity prices may be felt in farming regions and associated industries, it has little impact on Canadians when they’re checking off their grocery lists — and that isn’t expected to change in 2019.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/111469/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael von Massow receives funding from the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food to research issues in food waste and nutrition labeling for restaurant menus. He has received funding from the Walmart Foundation to explore food waste at the household level. He has received money from the Tim Hortons Sustainable Food Management Fund to explore consumer attitudes to antibiotic use and animal welfare. He has also received funding from Longo's Brothers Markets in support of research into consumer behaviour in food retail.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Aaron De Laporte receives funding from the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alfons Weersink receives funding from the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, and the Canada First Research
Excellence Fund’s Food from Thought Initiative. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Liam D. Kelly does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The six food trends likely to be front and centre in 2019.Michael von Massow, Associate Professor, Food Economics, University of GuelphAaron De Laporte, Research Associate, University of GuelphAlfons Weersink, Professor, Dept of Food, Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of GuelphLiam D. Kelly, Ph.D. Candidate, University of GuelphLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1096322019-02-07T11:31:45Z2019-02-07T11:31:45ZI fight anti-GMO fears in Africa to combat hunger<p>As a child, I remember feeling hungry most of the time. Growing up in rural Tanzania, I walked to school barefoot and most of the time had one meal a day. After school, I helped my mother with various farming chores, including feeding the animals, weeding, harvesting and planting. I often heard my mother express concerns about the lack of ways to protect our crops from drought, pests and diseases. I wanted to help my mother but was too young to understand what the solution might be. </p>
<p>In my undergraduate genetics class, I completed a term paper on the domestication of maize. I was surprised to discover that ancestral maize did not produce the type of kernels we consume today. It took humans thousands of years of deliberate selection to breed a maize plant capable of producing edible seeds. Subsequently, more work by plant breeders helped improve the genetics of maize for higher yield and tolerance to environmental stresses. This was fascinating to me, because when plant breeders interbreed plants, large sections of parental genetic material pass on to new varieties, but the function of many genes that end up in the crops we grow and consume remain unknown. </p>
<p>I am a plant physiologist at Iowa State University and director of the <a href="https://pbea.agron.iastate.edu">Plant Breeding Education in Africa Program</a>. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3139">I believe that Africa deserves cutting-edge technologies</a>, including genetic engineering to develop stress-tolerant crop varieties and more nutritious staple crops to improve human health. However, the <a href="https://mg.co.za/article/2018-07-23-resistance-to-genetically-modified-seeds-in-africa">anti-GMO news and campaign</a> across the globe make me wonder whether improved crop varieties would ever reach small stakeholder farmers like my mother. </p>
<h2>Humanitarian work in Africa</h2>
<p>When I was working for UNICEF in Zimbabwe from 1999-2000, I met a young single mother with several children. Her village was in an area of the country that was facing a devastating drought and many families needed food. The purpose of my meeting with the woman was to assess her food security situation and whether she qualified for food aid.</p>
<p>Near the conclusion of my visit, I saw her little girl, probably 3 or 4 years old, sitting on the ground, eating porridge, probably the only meal she would have that day. The little girl did not appear too bothered by my presence, nor the flies that swarmed her plate. I was surprised she seemed happy. It was overwhelming for me to think that there were thousands of children in the area facing a similar situation. That day I dedicated my life to fight hunger and poverty. </p>
<h2>Graduate education and research</h2>
<p>My doctoral training helped me understand the scientific process and biotechnology techniques for inserting new genes more precisely into plants. <a href="http://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-008-0694-4">My research</a> on plant insect defense genes involved gene <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-009-1080-6">cloning and creation of genetically modified plants</a>. During my time in the laboratory, I often thought of my mother and the crop production challenges she faced. I felt that genetic engineering crops to increase resistance to insects could benefit small stakeholder farmers. I was hopeful that my research could benefit Africa. </p>
<p>Scientific research suggests that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3061">climate change will have a negative effect</a> on yields, especially in Africa. In addition, <a href="http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-arplant-042110-103751">millions in Africa rely on starchy crops</a> as their staple foods and are more prone to mineral and protein deficiencies. </p>
<h2>Scientists debunk GMO myths</h2>
<p>In my opinion, scientists need to share more of the scientific facts about GMOs and debunk the myths. In many African countries, the <a href="https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2018/20170276">root cause for resistance to GMO crops</a> is lack of public awareness of the scientific principles and benefits of biotechnology. </p>
<p>To help increase awareness, <a href="http://doi.org/10.1007/s11248-009-9321-9">my team analyzed</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.211329998">dozens of research articles</a> on risk assessment of transgenic maize containing the Bt insect resistance gene. Bt maize is a transgenic crop that contains the Bt gene from the soil bacterium <em>Bacillus thuringiensis</em>. The Bt gene helps maize fight off insect pests such as the fall armyworm, <em>Spodoptera frugiperda</em>.</p>
<p>This work, recently <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2018.10.004">published in Global Food Security</a>, compared the risk assessment process for Bt maize with risk assessment in other fields such medicine and engineering. Risk can be defined as the likelihood of harm that happens from a set of specific conditions. Risk assessment uses fact-based information to define the effect of exposure to such harm on a given population. My team hopes that policymakers and leaders would <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2018.10.004">read this article</a> to help them appreciate that risk assessment for GM crops is similar to the other kinds of risk assessments.</p>
<p>For instance, the maintenance of bridges uses risk assessment studies. Potential hazards with bridges include natural hazards, errors in design and traffic overload. These regular risks assessments determine the probability of bridge collapse to ensure public safety. </p>
<p>Risk assessments are also done to quantify the dangers of exposure to radon, a known carcinogen and significant health hazard recognized by <a href="https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/radon-and-health">many international environmental and health organizations</a>. Radon gas is naturally present in homes and risk assessment studies have enabled recommendations on safe levels of radon above which mitigation efforts might be required. Subsequently, in the United States, during sales of new homes, the seller is obliged to divulge their home’s radon value to the buyer. </p>
<p>For both the bridge and radon examples, the public is willing to trust the analysis by experts in these fields. But when the same kind of analysis is done for GM crops - like Bt maize - these expert risk assessments are considered less trustworthy than those for radon or bridges. </p>
<h2>Educating future hunger fighters</h2>
<p>Through the analysis of numerous research articles, my team agrees with experts in risk assessment that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3021-2_16">no significant impacts on human health or the environment</a> have been found with Bt maize. However, not using Bt maize to block the rapid spread of fall armyworm, which has <a href="http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/1142085/icode/">destroyed maize and other crops across Africa</a>, poses a risk to human health if other control measures such as pesticides are used in large quantities. </p>
<p>Looking to the future, I believe there needs to be more investment in education and outreach concerning biotechnology and its applications in agriculture. Importantly, sustainable use of biotechnology in African agriculture depends on educating the youth. Educational programs such as <a href="https://pbea.agron.iastate.edu/">Plant Breeding E-Learning in Africa</a> are an excellent platform to deliver educational biotechnology content to the next generation of African scientists.</p>
<p>My travels back to Africa from Ames, Iowa, bring back many memories. During daytime flights out of African cities, I look through the window to see the beautiful blue sea or vegetation, and hundreds of brown corrugated iron rooftops. The sheer density of tiny homes with rusty rooftops reminds me of the challenges ahead – the urgent need for agricultural revolution in the face of a <a href="http://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/population/">population explosion in Africa</a>.</p>
<p>With the little girl I met during work with UNICEF and my mother in mind, I listen to a whisper in my ears – “all people at all times have the right to sufficient and nutritious food for a happy, productive and active life.” This is an important reminder to continue spreading knowledge and awareness to improve food security in Africa.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/109632/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Walter Suza receives funding from.
Gates Foundation
USAID</span></em></p>Predictions suggest that Africa will suffer dramatic losses of crops and productive land as the climate warms. Perhaps adopting GM crops designed to tolerate stress can save the continent from famine.Walter Suza, Adjunct Assistant Professor of Agronomy, Iowa State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1092832019-01-03T19:08:47Z2019-01-03T19:08:47ZReclaiming lost calories: Tweaking photosynthesis boosts crop yields<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/252353/original/file-20190102-32154-f71x7a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A farmer shows smaller-than-usual soybeans harvested due to drought conditions in Tallapoosa, Georgia.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Deep-South-Drought/39a0f96509c0426b8ad1bd69fdfe96f5/58/0">AP Photo/David Goldman</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>What if your ability to feed yourself was dependent on a process that made a mistake 20 percent of the time? </p>
<p>We face this situation every day. That’s because the plants that produce the food we eat evolved to solve a chemistry problem that arose billions of years ago. Plants evolved to use carbon dioxide to make our food and the oxygen we breathe – a process called photosynthesis. But they grew so well and produced so much oxygen that this gas began to dominate the atmosphere. To plants, carbon dioxide and oxygen look very similar, and sometimes, plants use an oxygen instead of carbon dioxide. When this happens, toxic compounds are created, which lowers crop yields and costs us 148 trillion calories per year in unrealized wheat and soybean yield – or enough calories to feed an additional <a href="https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-arplant-043015-111709">200 million people</a> for a whole year. </p>
<p>Improving crop yields to grow more food on less land is not a new challenge. But as the global population grows and diets change, the issue is becoming more urgent. It seems likely that we will have to increase food production by between <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix010">25 and 70</a> percent by 2050 to have an adequate supply of food. </p>
<p><a href="https://scholar.google.ca/citations?user=MBlLt6sAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">As a plant biochemist</a>, I have been fascinated by photosynthesis for my whole career, because we owe our entire existence to this single process. My own interest in agricultural research was spurred by this challenge: Plants feed people, and we need to quickly develop solutions to feed more people.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/252327/original/file-20190102-32130-1bryd9z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/252327/original/file-20190102-32130-1bryd9z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252327/original/file-20190102-32130-1bryd9z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252327/original/file-20190102-32130-1bryd9z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252327/original/file-20190102-32130-1bryd9z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252327/original/file-20190102-32130-1bryd9z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252327/original/file-20190102-32130-1bryd9z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Amanda Cavanagh tests modified tobacco plants in a specialized greenhouse to select ones with genetic designs that boost the yield of key food crops.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Claire Benjamin/RIPE Project</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Supercharging photosynthesis to grow more food</h2>
<p>It can take decades for agricultural innovations such as improved seeds to reach growers’ fields, whether they are created via genetic approaches or traditional breeding. The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution#High-Yielding_Varieties">high-yielding crop varieties</a> that were bred during the first green revolution helped prevent food shortages in the 1960s by increasing the proportion of <a href="http://plantbreeding.coe.uga.edu/index.php?title=The_Green_Revolution">grain-to-plant biomass</a>. It’s the grain that contains most of the plant’s consumable calories, so having more grain instead of straw means more food. But most crops are now so improved that they are close to their <a href="https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-arplant-042809-112206">theoretical limit</a>.</p>
<p>I work on an international project called Realizing Increased Photosynthetic Efficiency (<a href="https://ripe.illinois.edu/">RIPE</a>), which takes another approach. We are boosting harvests by increasing the efficiency of photosynthesis – the solar-powered process that plants use to turn carbon dioxide and water into greater crop yields. In <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi/10.1126/science.aat9077">our most recent publication</a>, we show one way to increase crop yield by up to 40 percent by rerouting a series of chemical reactions common to most of our staple food crops. </p>
<h2>Photorespiration costs a lot of energy</h2>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/252299/original/file-20190102-32139-1ecd0o9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/252299/original/file-20190102-32139-1ecd0o9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/252299/original/file-20190102-32139-1ecd0o9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=445&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252299/original/file-20190102-32139-1ecd0o9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=445&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252299/original/file-20190102-32139-1ecd0o9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=445&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252299/original/file-20190102-32139-1ecd0o9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=559&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252299/original/file-20190102-32139-1ecd0o9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=559&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252299/original/file-20190102-32139-1ecd0o9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=559&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In the process of photosynthesis, carbon dioxide and water are transformed into sugars and oxygen. Sunlight powers this chemical reaction.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/diagram-showing-process-photosynthesis-illustration-563007307">BlueRingMedia/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><a href="http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/">Two-thirds of the calories</a> we consume across the globe come directly or indirectly from just four crops: rice, wheat, soybean and maize. Of these, the first three are hindered by a photosynthetic glitch. Typically the enzyme that captures carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, called Rubisco, converts carbon dioxide into sugar and energy. But in one out of every five chemical reactions, Rubisco makes a mistake. The enzyme grabs an oxygen molecule instead. Rather than producing sugars and energy, the chemical reaction yields glycolate and ammonia, which are toxic to plants. To deal with this problem, plants have evolved an energy-expensive process called photorespiration that recycles these toxic compounds. But toxin recycling requires so much energy that the plant produces less food. </p>
<p>Photorespiration uses so much energy that some plants, like maize, as well as photosynthetic bacteria and algae, have evolved mechanisms to prevent Rubisco’s exposure to oxygen. Other organisms, like bacteria, have evolved more efficient ways to remove these toxins. </p>
<p>These natural solutions have inspired many researchers to try to tweak photorespiration to improve crop yields. Some of the more efficient naturally occurring recycling pathways have been <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/ers247">genetically engineered</a> in other plants to improve growth and photosynthesis in greenhouse and laboratory conditions. <a href="https://theconversation.com/helping-plants-remove-natural-toxins-could-boost-crop-yields-by-47-percent-97505">Another strategy</a> has been to modify natural photorespiration and speed up the recycling. </p>
<h2>Chemical detour improves crop yield</h2>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/252429/original/file-20190103-32148-15ghpt0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/252429/original/file-20190103-32148-15ghpt0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/252429/original/file-20190103-32148-15ghpt0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252429/original/file-20190103-32148-15ghpt0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252429/original/file-20190103-32148-15ghpt0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252429/original/file-20190103-32148-15ghpt0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252429/original/file-20190103-32148-15ghpt0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252429/original/file-20190103-32148-15ghpt0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The red car represents unmodified plants who use a circuitous and energy-expensive process called photorespiration that costs yield potential. The blue car represents plants engineered with an alternate route to shortcut photorespiration, enabling these plants to save fuel and reinvest their energy to boost productivity by as much as 40 percent.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">RIPE</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>These direct manipulations of photorespiration are crucial targets for future crop improvement. Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide from fossil fuel consumption boosts photosynthesis, allowing the plant to use more carbon. You might assume that that this will solve the oxygen-grabbing mistake. But, higher temperatures promote the formation of toxic compounds through photorespiration. Even if carbon dioxide levels more than double, we expect <a href="https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-arplant-043015-111709">harvest yield losses of 18 percent</a> because of the almost 4 degrees Celsius temperature increase that will accompany them. We cannot rely on increasing levels of carbon dioxide to grow all the food we will need by 2050. </p>
<p>I worked with <a href="https://ripe.illinois.edu/team/paul-south">Paul South</a>, a research molecular biologist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, <a href="https://www.ars.usda.gov/">Agricultural Research Service</a> and professor <a href="https://ripe.illinois.edu/team/don-ort">Don Ort</a>, who is a biologist specializing in crop science at the University of Illinois, to explore whether modifying the chemical reactions of photorespiration might boost crop yields. One element that makes recycling the toxin glycolate so inefficient is that it moves through three compartments inside the plant cell. That’s like taking an aluminum can into three separate recycling plants. We engineered three new shortcuts that could recycle the compound in one location. We also stopped the natural process from occurring.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/252325/original/file-20190102-32136-b8lb67.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/252325/original/file-20190102-32136-b8lb67.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/252325/original/file-20190102-32136-b8lb67.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252325/original/file-20190102-32136-b8lb67.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252325/original/file-20190102-32136-b8lb67.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252325/original/file-20190102-32136-b8lb67.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252325/original/file-20190102-32136-b8lb67.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252325/original/file-20190102-32136-b8lb67.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Four unmodified plants (left) grow beside four plants (right) engineered with alternate routes to shortcut photorespiration. The modified plants are able to reinvest their energy and resources to boost productivity by 40 percent.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Claire Benjamin/RIPE Project</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Designed in silico; tested in soil</h2>
<p>Agricultural research innovations can be rapidly tested in a model species. Tobacco is well-suited for this since it is easy to genetically engineer and grow in the field. The other advantage of tobacco is that it has a short life cycle, produces a lot of seed and develops a leafy canopy similar to other field crops so we can measure the impact of our genetic alterations in a short time span. We can then determine whether these modifications in tobacco can be translated into our desired food crops.</p>
<p>We engineered and tested 1,200 tobacco plants with unique sets of genes to find the genetic combination that recycled glycolate most efficiently. Then we starved these modified plants of carbon dioxide. This triggered the formation of the toxin glycolate. Then we identified which plants grew best – these have the combination of genes that recycled the toxin most efficiently. Over the next two years, we further tested these plants in real-world agricultural conditions. Plants with the best combination of genes flowered about a week earlier, grew taller and were about 40 percent larger than unmodified plants. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/252351/original/file-20190102-32130-1njbhjo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/252351/original/file-20190102-32130-1njbhjo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/252351/original/file-20190102-32130-1njbhjo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252351/original/file-20190102-32130-1njbhjo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252351/original/file-20190102-32130-1njbhjo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252351/original/file-20190102-32130-1njbhjo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252351/original/file-20190102-32130-1njbhjo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252351/original/file-20190102-32130-1njbhjo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Over two years of field trials, scientists Donald Ort (right), Paul South (center) and Amanda Cavanagh (left) found tobacco plants engineered to modify photorespiration are more productive in real-world field conditions. Now they are translating this technology hoping to boost the yield of key food crops, including soybeans, rice, cowpeas and cassava.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Claire Benjamin/RIPE Project</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi/10.1126/science.aat9077">Having shown proof of concept in tobacco</a>, we are beginning to test these designs in food crops: soybean, cowpea, rice, potato, tomato and eggplant. Soon, we will have a better idea of how much we can increase the yield of these crops with our modifications. </p>
<p>Once we demonstrate that our discovery can be translated into food crops, the Food and Drug Administration and the USDA will rigorously test these modified plants to make sure they are safe for human consumption and pose no risk to the environment. Such testing can cost as much as US$150 million and take more than 10 years. </p>
<p>Since the process of photorespiration is common across plant species, we are optimistic that our strategy will increase crop yields by close to 40 percent and help find a way to grow more food on less land to be able to feed a hungry global population by 2050.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/109283/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Amanda Cavanagh receives funding from Realizing Increased Photosynthetic Efficiency (RIPE), an international research project that is engineering crops to photosynthesize more efficiently to sustainably increase worldwide food productivity with support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research (FFAR), and the U.K. Government’s Department for International Development (DFID).</span></em></p>Many of the crop plants that feed us waste 20 percent of their energy, especially in hot weather. Plant geneticists prove that capturing this energy could boost crop yields by up to 40 percent.Amanda Cavanagh, Postdoctoral Research Associate at the Carl R. Woese Institute for Genomic Biology, University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1058012018-11-14T11:46:33Z2018-11-14T11:46:33ZSkipping a few thousand years: Rapid domestication of the groundcherry using gene editing<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244618/original/file-20181108-74751-1js5zvf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">These fresh vegetables and fruits are the result of hundreds to thousands of years of plant breeding and selection. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/fresh-organic-vegetables-fruits-on-shelf-291734936?src=UZ9QrVFavgQUe4SmXEdjKw-1-28">Irina Sokolovskaya / Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Shopping in your supermarket’s produce section is like strolling through a museum of humanity’s greatest inventions. Perfect ears of golden sweet corn; tomatoes of different sizes, shapes and colors; and spicy jalapeño peppers are all a testament to human ingenuity. You may not consider food an invention, but nearly all foods we eat are the product of thousands of years of constant breeding and selection. </p>
<p>In the distant past, when our ancestors transitioned from hunter-gatherers to an agrarian lifestyle, they began domesticating plants by breeding them for characteristics they found desirable – bigger, tastier fruits and more compact growth. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2006.12.006">The wild ancestors of domesticated crops</a> looked much different than the foods we eat today: They had smaller, sometimes inedible fruits; the plants grew in a sprawling growth pattern; and they scattered their seeds or dropped their fruit to the ground in order to ensure the survival of their species. To put it bluntly, you wouldn’t want these wild plants in your garden, or on your dinner plate. </p>
<p>The process of domestication resulted in the crops people grow and eat today, but it is a time- and labor-intensive process. Our lab, led by <a href="https://btiscience.org/joyce-van-eck/">Joyce Van Eck</a>, wanted to accelerate the domestication of the groundcherry, a semi-domesticated orphan crop, using modern gene editing techniques. Orphan crops do not grow well in large-scale agricultural production because they possess many undesirable characteristics such as sprawling growth and fruit drop. </p>
<p>We chose to work on groundcherry because it is a relative of domesticated tomato. We know a lot about tomato genetics and are able to compare a particular gene in domesticated tomato with its counterpart in the wild groundcherry to determine what edits need to be made. We have also crowdsourced local growers and farmers to learn which traits needed improvement and which ones were most valuable for agricultural production. Using this critical information gleaned from growers, we then used gene editing technology known as CRISPR/Cas9 to improve groundcherries.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244593/original/file-20181108-74757-eappkt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244593/original/file-20181108-74757-eappkt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=506&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244593/original/file-20181108-74757-eappkt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=506&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244593/original/file-20181108-74757-eappkt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=506&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244593/original/file-20181108-74757-eappkt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=636&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244593/original/file-20181108-74757-eappkt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=636&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244593/original/file-20181108-74757-eappkt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=636&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A typical groundcherry plant. Inset: groundcherry husks and fruit (dime for scale).</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Nathan T. Reem</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>A neglected fruit</h2>
<p>Although you likely won’t find them in your grocery store, you may have seen groundcherries for sale at your local farmer’s market. The groundcherry is a wild relative of the tomatillo and, much like the tomatillo, its fruits are encased within a papery husk that protects the fruit from spoiling. The berry inside the husk is small – marble-sized – but delivers a big citrusy flavor. A source of antioxidants, vitamins A, B and C, and other nutrients, these small berries are exclusively grown in small-scale farms and home gardens. Based on the groundcherry’s wild growth habit and small size of fruit, we identified it as an underutilized crop. Our current research has been focused on how to incorporate groundcherry into the current food system.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244595/original/file-20181108-74787-8b8zsm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244595/original/file-20181108-74787-8b8zsm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244595/original/file-20181108-74787-8b8zsm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=801&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244595/original/file-20181108-74787-8b8zsm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=801&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244595/original/file-20181108-74787-8b8zsm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=801&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244595/original/file-20181108-74787-8b8zsm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1006&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244595/original/file-20181108-74787-8b8zsm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1006&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244595/original/file-20181108-74787-8b8zsm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1006&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Wild groundcherries growing on a small farm.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Esperanza Shenstone</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Commercial production of the groundcherry (<em>Physalis pruinosa</em>) is virtually nonexistent, a void that can at least partially be attributed to the plant’s unruly growth. With its long sprawling branches, the groundcherry requires extensive management to tame its growth. Its branches are adorned with husk-covered fruits that fall to the ground, often before ripening. This makes harvesting the fruits a labor-intensive process, and raises food safety concerns if the fruits come in contact with soil microorganisms that can cause food-borne illnesses.</p>
<p>A critical element of our groundcherry improvement project was crowdsourcing the wisdom of New York state citizen scientists and farmers to identify groundcherry characteristics or traits that needed improvement. Volunteer home-gardeners and farmers across different USDA hardiness zones collaborated with us by growing several groundcherry varieties and provided feedback on characteristics such as flowering time, fruit size, flavor and fruit drop. We used this critical feedback for improve this fruit. </p>
<h2>Taming the wild plants</h2>
<p>To improve traits in crops, plant breeders have largely relied on the natural mutations that occur in all living organisms. These natural mutation events change gene sequences and thus modify traits, but they are rare. Before gene editing, there were few tools to speed the breeding process. One of these, called ethyl methanesulfonate (EMS), is a powerful carcinogen and used to randomly mutate DNA of thousands of plants. The downside is that all of the mutated plants must be carefully assessed to select those with mutations in the genes breeders wished to modify. </p>
<p>This process, still in use today, is messy and time-consuming; there is no way to control which genes are, or aren’t, mutated, and screening thousands of plants can take time.</p>
<p>CRISPR/Cas9 is a powerful gene editing tool that can be used to cause mutations in DNA more precisely than the EMS-induced random mutations. Rather than waiting for random mutations or evaluating thousands of mutagenized plants, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.01932">CRISPR/Cas9 can accelerate breeding and domestication of crops</a> with greater specificity than any other technology. Fortunately, many of the traits associated with domestication, including fruit size and growth habit, are the result of natural mutations and rearrangements of DNA that ultimately change the function of the genes controlling these traits. CRISPR/Cas9 allows us to copy these mutations from the tomato and replicate them in the groundcherry. </p>
<p>Along with our collaborator <a href="http://lippmanlab.labsites.cshl.edu">Zach Lippman at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory</a>, we recently published our first attempts at accelerating domestication of groundcherry <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-018-0259-x">in the journal Nature Plants</a>. Our first priority was to tame the wild growth. </p>
<p>In tomato, a natural mutation in the <em>SELF PRUNING</em> (<em>SP</em>) gene, which represses flowering, results in plants that have <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9570763">more manageable growth</a>. We hoped to see the same response when we “CRISPR’ed” groundcherries, and found that the plants with mutated <em>SP</em> grew with a much more compact structure. Specifically, the branches of these plants were much shorter than their unedited counterparts. This more diminutive growth habit is preferable for larger-scale agricultural settings, because more compact plants can be grown and harvested more easily. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244601/original/file-20181108-74766-i2qi8u.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244601/original/file-20181108-74766-i2qi8u.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=380&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244601/original/file-20181108-74766-i2qi8u.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=380&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244601/original/file-20181108-74766-i2qi8u.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=380&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244601/original/file-20181108-74766-i2qi8u.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=478&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244601/original/file-20181108-74766-i2qi8u.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=478&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244601/original/file-20181108-74766-i2qi8u.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=478&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Left: groundcherry with CRISPR’ed <em>SP</em>. Right: unedited groundcherry.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Nathan T. Reem</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We targeted one more well-studied gene in groundcherry, called <em>CLAVATA1</em> (<em>CLV1</em>), which directly <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.3309">controls fruit size</a>. In tomato, mutations in <em>CLV1</em> result in larger fruits. Because groundcherry fruits are rather small, we tried to increase fruit size by mutating <em>CLV1</em> with CRISPR/Cas9. </p>
<p>At first glance, groundcherry plants with mutated <em>CLV1</em> looked the same as their unedited counterparts. However, fruits from <em>CLV1</em>-mutant plants were larger, weighing 20 percent more after mutating this single gene. <em>CLV1</em> is just one of many genes controlling fruit size. We expect that mutating more of these genes will enable us to create larger fruit in a short time. The process of CRISPR'ing a plant gene, such as <em>CLV1</em> and <em>SP</em>, takes only about a year, whereas traditional breeding usually requires much more time and effort to achieve the same result.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244600/original/file-20181108-74769-2jvmdy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244600/original/file-20181108-74769-2jvmdy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=272&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244600/original/file-20181108-74769-2jvmdy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=272&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244600/original/file-20181108-74769-2jvmdy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=272&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244600/original/file-20181108-74769-2jvmdy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=342&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244600/original/file-20181108-74769-2jvmdy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=342&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244600/original/file-20181108-74769-2jvmdy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=342&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Left: groundcherry fruits with CRISPR’ed <em>CLV1</em>. Right: unedited groundcherries.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Nathan T. Reem</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In order to fully domesticate and improve groundcherry, we plan to study more genes associated with characteristics that would make it more attractive crops for farmers to grow and consumers to purchase. Currently, we are focusing on genes that have the potential to correct fruit drop, influence fruit flavor and nutrition, and increase fruit size further. </p>
<p>Ultimately, we envision creating a more compact groundcherry plant with larger, more nutrient-laden fruits that remain on the plant. To do so, CRISPR/Cas9 mutations of all the genes controlling these traits will be combined into a single plant to create a fully domesticated groundcherry worthy of growing in farmers’ fields and stocking grocery store shelves. Importantly, the groundcherry isn’t the only wild plant that can be domesticated. CRISPR/Cas9 can be applied to virtually any plant species, so in the future more wild species may be domesticated much the same way we have achieved here.</p>
<p>So, the next time you go shopping for groceries, pay attention to the produce aisle. Appreciate the efforts of our ancestors that took thousands of years to invent the foods we know today, and think how gene editing will help achieve this in a fraction of the time.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/105801/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nathan T. Reem receives funding from the National Science Foundation. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Esperanza Shenstone receives funding from The Triad Foundation.</span></em></p>It has taken hundreds, if not thousands, of years to create the juicy, shiny produce that you take for granted at the supermarket. But now there is a faster way to domesticate wild fruits and veggies.Nathan T. Reem, Postdoctoral Researcher in the Boyce Thompson Institute, Cornell UniversityEsperanza Shenstone, Research Specialist in the Boyce Thompson Institute, Cornell UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1006752018-07-27T15:48:57Z2018-07-27T15:48:57ZGM crop ruling shows why the EU’s laws are wholly inadequate<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/229610/original/file-20180727-106514-1ifkybv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/seeds-shoots-genetically-modified-cereals-petri-600890039?src=DRRMLzrC4E0ZUGNquNVlJQ-1-4">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The European Court of Justice has made an important ruling on genetically modified crops. <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32003R1829">Since 2003</a>, new crop varieties produced by genetic modification have had to be assessed for their risks to the environment and human and animal health before they can be farmed in the European Union. The court <a href="http://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-528/16#">has now decided</a> that genetic modification includes any technique that induces genetic changes “in a way that does not occur naturally”. This includes new genome editing techniques such as <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-is-crispr-gene-editing-and-how-does-it-work-84591">CRISPR/Cas9</a>, but also approaches that have been used in plant breeding since the 1960s.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-44953100">Some scientists have criticised</a> the court for “shutting the door” on new technologies that could benefit human health and the environment. This is certainly a concern. The ruling will discourage the use of genome editing that could bring significant environmental benefits by making it more expensive for such such crops to clear the necessary regulatory processes. </p>
<p>But the main problem illustrated by this ruling is the deep logical flaw in the whole regulatory approach. Plants that have been bred in more traditional ways, which could have just as serious health or environmental impacts, will continue to be exempt from regulation. Focusing on how a new crop is produced – rather than the new characteristics or agricultural practices it brings – will inevitably result in wholly inadequate protection for the environment and consumers.</p>
<p>Every new crop variety is genetically different from its predecessors. A lot of genetic variation can arise naturally from errors in DNA copying, mutations caused by environmental factors, cross breeding with wild relatives, viruses and many other sources. All this variation is excluded from the EU definition of GM.</p>
<p>To increase genetic diversity and generally speed things up, scientists can <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21645698.2016.1270489">induce mutations deliberately</a>. Random mutagenesis – purposefully encouraging genetic mutations, for example with radiation – has been used on crops since the 1960s. It has since become possible to add specific new genes, sourced from the same or different species. And, even more recently, genome editing techniques have been developed that allow scientists to alter selected existing genes. These more recent approaches are becoming ever more useful as we build up our understanding of which genes do what. </p>
<p>All these techniques can be used to introduce new traits into a crop variety, for example to make a plant resistant to herbicides. The new court ruling came about because a group of farming organisations who were worried about the impact of herbicide resistant crops argued they should be regulated regardless of how they were developed.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/229613/original/file-20180727-106521-18ig7bl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/229613/original/file-20180727-106521-18ig7bl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/229613/original/file-20180727-106521-18ig7bl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/229613/original/file-20180727-106521-18ig7bl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/229613/original/file-20180727-106521-18ig7bl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/229613/original/file-20180727-106521-18ig7bl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/229613/original/file-20180727-106521-18ig7bl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Gene-edited crops can have the same properties as traditionally bred ones.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/biotechnology-woman-engineer-examining-plant-leaf-552990736?src=DRRMLzrC4E0ZUGNquNVlJQ-1-16">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This seems to me entirely reasonable. There are of plenty of <a href="https://grdc.com.au/resources-and-publications/groundcover/ground-cover-issue-11/herbicide-resistant-crops">arguments and counterarguments</a>
about the risks and benefits of this approach to weed control – and it is important to assess these before introducing a new herbicide resistant crop. None of these arguments have anything to do with how the crop was produced.</p>
<p>Yet the court ruling means that herbicide resistant crops produced through conventional breeding can be used freely, while crops produced using newer approaches must be subjected to intense scrutiny. So the farming groups might be happy that a new generation of herbicide resistant crops will have to be extensively assessed for their environmental and health impacts. But herbicide resistant crops produced by traditional methods, which raise identical concerns, will remain exempt from these regulations.</p>
<h2>Natural’s not in it</h2>
<p>This highlights the central problem with the EU regulations on new crop varieties. Anything that could occur naturally is exempt from scrutiny. Yet drawing a line between the natural and artificial is difficult to say the least. After thousands of years of careful human intervention, most “natural” crops <a href="https://theconversation.com/all-our-food-is-genetically-modified-in-some-way-where-do-you-draw-the-line-56256">look nothing like</a> their wild ancestor. They have many characteristics that mean they would not last more than a few generations if they had to compete in the wild.</p>
<p>One of the reasons we have spent so long breeding them is that many natural plants carry serious risks. Very few people would say to their children: “Go into the woods and eat anything you can find. It’s all natural so it must be good for you.” The distinction between natural and artificial is both contrived and not relevant when it comes to environmental and health impact assessment.</p>
<p>We should assess new crop varieties on the traits they are supposed to deliver, not on how those traits were introduced. The system needs to be proportional and risk-based. This should of course include consideration of the unintended effects of whatever genetic improvement process was used. Instead we spend years debating whether or not a new technique counts as genetic modification or not. That this is even a relevant question lays bare the flaws in our current approach.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/100675/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ottoline Leyser receives funding from The Gatsby Charitable Foundation, the European Research Council and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council. She works/volunteers/consults for the following organisations: Clare College Cambridge, The Royal Society, Max Planck Institute for Developmental Biology, European Molecular Biology Organisation, Royal Society of Biology, National Academy of Science, Leopoldina, Umea Plant Science Centre, John Innes Centre, Genetics Society, International Plant Molecular Biology, British Society for Developmental Biology, International Plant Growth Substances Association, Sense About Science, Science and Plants for Schools, Numerous academic Journals, Science Media Centre, Research England, UKRI-BBSRC, Wellcome Trust, The Crick Institute, The Council for Science and Technology, Netherlands Organisation For Scientific Research, The Gatsby Charitable Foundation, The European Research Council.</span></em></p>Genetic modification rules now cover gene edited crops but exclude plants bred traditionally with the same properties.Ottoline Leyser, Director of the Sainsbury Laboratory, University of CambridgeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/978902018-06-28T21:01:16Z2018-06-28T21:01:16ZHow to show consumers the benefits of genetically modified foods<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/225347/original/file-20180628-117377-1bj05f5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Canadian government recently approved the sale of genetically modified golden rice that's fortified with Vitamin A. It's an example of a GM food that directly benefits consumers.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Josep Folta/Flickr</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Genetically modified (GM) foods for human consumption have long been a subject of <a href="https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/06/12/the-social-consequences-of-the-gmo-debate/">intense public debate</a>, as well as academic research.</p>
<p>Despite <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2408621/">the lack of scientific evidence to suggest GM foods are less safe</a> than conventional foods, <a href="http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.587.5964&rep=rep1&type=pdf">previous studies have shown</a> that consumers are reluctant to fully embrace them and are wary about the technology that produces them.</p>
<p>In our upcoming article in the <em><a href="http://www.commercialbiotechnology.com/index.php/jcb">Journal of Commercial Biotechnology</a></em>, we show that consumers’ attitudes toward GM foods, their willingness to purchase them and the price they are willing to pay could be significantly improved if GM products had a direct benefit to them personally.</p>
<p>Our findings at the University of Saskatchewan’s Edwards School of Business have the potential to change how agriculture biotechnology companies promote their products —while also creating significant value.</p>
<p>Particularly, we found that consumers are willing to accept and pay premiums for GM foods that have value that’s personally relevant to them.</p>
<p>In other words, changing the value proposition from industry-centric to consumer-centric may help to mitigate the negatives associated with GM food.</p>
<h2>Food insecurity is critical</h2>
<p>In 2009, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations <a href="http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/docs/expert_paper/How_to_Feed_the_World_in_2050.pdf">identified global food security as an increasingly critical issue</a> as the world population grows, and said that meeting the growing demand for food will require agricultural biotechnology. Therefore it’s necessary to build widespread consumer support for GM foods.</p>
<p>Creating GM food with direct consumer benefits could play a pivotal role in gaining such support. Not only does promoting direct consumer benefits have the potential to change perceptions, as shown by our study’s data, it may also be a profitable endeavour.</p>
<p>We surveyed 750 Canadian consumers on different ways of presenting GM foods.</p>
<p>The first group of consumers saw ads for GM foods that promoted several industry-oriented benefits that might indirectly appeal to consumers, such as higher yield, less pesticide usage and enhanced global food supply. These messages were similar to those typically promoted by GM food proponents.</p>
<p>The second group of consumers saw ads focusing on direct consumer benefits, such as better taste and enhanced nutrition.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/scientists-have-unlocked-the-secret-of-making-tomatoes-taste-of-something-again-71916">Scientists have unlocked the secret of making tomatoes taste of something again</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The third group of consumers saw ads for GM foods that promoted both direct and indirect consumer benefits.</p>
<p>The result of the survey showed that, not surprisingly, the participants in the first group were less inclined to buy GM foods even at a price that was significantly lower than comparable non-GM foods.</p>
<p>The consumers who were accepting of GM foods appreciated that GM technology had positive benefits and was creating value. However, they believed that the technology has only benefited the industry, and demanded that a portion of the value is passed onto the consumers.</p>
<p>In contrast, the participants who were presented a value proposition that directly benefited both the industry and consumers reported better attitudes toward GM foods, expressed higher purchase intentions —and they were willing to pay a premium for such products.</p>
<h2>Why consumers do, or don’t, accept GM foods</h2>
<p>These findings suggest that how consumers assess the value of GM foods to themselves personally, as opposed to solely how or why the food is made, is fundamental to consumers’ attitudes, purchase intentions and willingness to pay.</p>
<p>Many previous studies have examined consumer perceptions of GM foods and explored why or why not consumers were reluctant to accept them.</p>
<p><a href="http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.587.5964&rep=rep1&type=pdf">A 2016 study</a> conducted meta-analyses that reviewed hundreds of prior studies and how consumers’ personal characteristics could influence their acceptance of GM food. Those factors included gender (men might be more likely to accept genetically modified foods than women), education, income (consumers with higher income might be less likely to accept GM foods), prior knowledge and family situations, etc.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/225137/original/file-20180627-112611-1961wmz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C4031%2C3024&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/225137/original/file-20180627-112611-1961wmz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/225137/original/file-20180627-112611-1961wmz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/225137/original/file-20180627-112611-1961wmz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/225137/original/file-20180627-112611-1961wmz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/225137/original/file-20180627-112611-1961wmz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/225137/original/file-20180627-112611-1961wmz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Genetically modified foods could be made more attractive to consumers by underscoring how they personally benefit from them.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Kirill Ignatyev/Flickr</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In other words, the emphasis has been on figuring out how to change consumers so that they would accept GM foods.</p>
<p>But our research points to the need for the GM industry to change how it’s promoting the products, and to begin producing foods that directly benefit consumers. The agricultural biotechnology industry needs to place consumer interests at the centre of their focus, not only at the time of selling their products, but also during the research and development processes.</p>
<p>Indeed, in a <a href="https://doi.org/10.5912/jcb645">previous University of Saskatchewan study</a>, we found that in Canada, consumer-oriented biotechnology companies generally outperform those that aren’t consumer-oriented. </p>
<h2>Healthier rice</h2>
<p>The idea of a second generation of GM products — the kind that could hold real appeal to consumers — <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8276.2007.01053.x">is now gaining momentum.</a></p>
<p>Earlier this year, <a href="https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/food-nutrition/genetically-modified-foods-other-novel-foods/approved-products/golden-rice-gr2e.html">the Canadian government approved the sale of a vitamin-fortified golden rice</a> that contains higher levels of Vitamin A. It’s potentially beneficial to those consumers who may suffer from Vitamin A deficiencies.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, promoting direct consumer benefits is not a total panacea.</p>
<p>Even while successfully showing consumers how GM foods can benefit them personally, there were still a substantial portion of the participants in our study (35 per cent to 50 per cent, depending on the products presented) who refuse to purchase GM foods no matter the price.</p>
<p>This indicates that consumer acceptance of GM foods is a complicated matter. There’s still a long road ahead to convince shoppers at the grocery stores to consider genetically modified foods as personally beneficial.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/97890/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Di Zhang receives funding from Social Sciences and Humanity Research Council (SSHRC) and Genome Canada. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Grant Alexander Wilson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Why are consumers so reluctant to embrace genetically modified foods? A new study suggests agricultural biotech companies are failing to show consumers a personal benefit to buying GM foods.David Di Zhang, Associate Professor in Management & Marketing, University of SaskatchewanGrant Alexander Wilson, Faculty Member, Department of Management & Marketing, University of SaskatchewanLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/975052018-06-25T10:34:34Z2018-06-25T10:34:34ZHelping plants remove natural toxins could boost crop yields by 47 percent<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/223938/original/file-20180619-126566-1m8w1vi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Genetically engineered tobacco plants growing in a greenhouse.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Paul South</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Can you imagine the entire population of the United States, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, the United Kingdom and France going hungry? </p>
<p>You don’t need to imagine. That is exactly what happens every day when an estimated <a href="http://www.fao.org/state-of-food-security-nutrition/en/">815 million people</a> around the globe go hungry. In the short term, the problem is likely to get worse as the population grows, diets change and urban sprawl forces farmers to produce more food on less land. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix010">Recent</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066428">reports</a> suggest that by the time children born today reach their 30s, the planet must increase food production by at least 70 percent. </p>
<p>As a biochemist, I started my career in biomedical research, but I shifted to agricultural research in 2013 because everybody needs to eat. Now I’m working with an international research project exploring how to boost food production. The goal of <a href="http://ripe.illinois.edu/">Realizing Increased Photosynthetic Efficiency (RIPE)</a> is to increase the efficiency of photosynthesis – the process plants use to convert energy from the sun into the food we eat. In our most recent publication we’ve shown that it is possible to dramatically boost crop yield, by enabling the plant to get rid of its toxins more quickly.</p>
<p>It’s critical that we begin developing new crops now because it can still take at least a decade for agricultural innovations to reach farmers. </p>
<h2>Photorespiration is an energy-demanding process</h2>
<p>When it comes to photosynthesis, plants use sunlight to power a chemical reaction that converts carbon dioxide and water to sugars, oxygen and energy. But that isn’t the only chemical reaction that occurs in plants. A quirk in the evolution of the protein, called <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RuBisCO">Rubisco</a>, is that sometimes instead of converting carbon dioxide during photosynthesis, it uses oxygen instead. This produces waste products such as glycolate and ammonia, which can be toxic to plants and slow or stunt their growth. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/223931/original/file-20180619-126531-1d6mznk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/223931/original/file-20180619-126531-1d6mznk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/223931/original/file-20180619-126531-1d6mznk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=444&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223931/original/file-20180619-126531-1d6mznk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=444&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223931/original/file-20180619-126531-1d6mznk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=444&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223931/original/file-20180619-126531-1d6mznk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=558&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223931/original/file-20180619-126531-1d6mznk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=558&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223931/original/file-20180619-126531-1d6mznk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=558&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/diagram-showing-process-photosynthesis-illustration-563007307?src=a3PU67feC33hO6nHlMeNeg-1-0">By BlueRingMedia/shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>To remove these toxic chemicals, another process needs to kick into gear. Photorespiration is a part of natural plant metabolism that recycles these toxins. It is a necessary process in major crops including rice, wheat and soybeans, as well as most fruit and vegetable crops.</p>
<p>Recycling these toxic byproducts sucks up a huge portion of the plants’ energy – and can inhibit the plant’s growth by more than <a href="https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-arplant-043015-111709">30 percent</a>. At higher temperatures, plants tend to increase the amount of oxygen they convert, so as growing season temperatures rise and heat waves strike, up to 50 percent of the energy generated from photosynthesis can be required for photorespiration to recycle toxins in major crops like wheat and soybeans. That slashes yields in the hotter and drier regions of the world, such as sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia, where food is most needed. </p>
<p>To meet the growing demand for increased food production, I worked with an international team to explore whether speeding up photorespiration might boost crop yields. </p>
<h2>Making photorespiration faster</h2>
<p>The work, led by Professor <a href="http://www.ripe.illinois.edu/team/christine-raines">Christine Raines</a> and lead author <a href="http://www.ripe.illinois.edu/team/patricia-lopez-calcagno">Patricia Lopez-Calgano</a> from the University of <a href="https://www1.essex.ac.uk/bs/research/centres_and_groups/pp/">Essex</a> and the United States Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS), explored whether this modification could boost the production of tobacco plants.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/223940/original/file-20180619-126563-17d5kxw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/223940/original/file-20180619-126563-17d5kxw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223940/original/file-20180619-126563-17d5kxw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223940/original/file-20180619-126563-17d5kxw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223940/original/file-20180619-126563-17d5kxw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223940/original/file-20180619-126563-17d5kxw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223940/original/file-20180619-126563-17d5kxw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Researcher Patricia Lopez working with tobacco seedlings in the lab.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Monica Kennedy</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We managed to speed up the recycling of these toxins by designing plants that produce more of a protein, called the H-protein, that is already present in our crop plants and plays a role in photorespiration. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.febslet.2012.08.027">Previous</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.12676">work</a> in the lab using the small plant Arabidopsis, the “lab rat” of plant research, suggested that increasing the quantity of H-protein could speed up photorespiration and enable our plants to grow larger. Our team translated this idea from the lab to the field using a strain of tobacco, <em>Nicotiana tabacum</em>, which we grew outside at a research field station near the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign where I work as a USDA-ARS scientist.</p>
<p>We discovered pretty quickly that we had to carefully control the quantity of the H-protein we engineered plants to produce. Too much H-protein in all parts of the plant was harmful, stunting growth and reducing yield of tobacco leaves. Thus, we fine-tuned our approach and engineered plants that manufactured the H-protein only in the leaves. This increased photosynthesis and plant growth, probably because of faster recycling of the toxic chemicals. </p>
<h2>Harnessing biotechnology to improve crops</h2>
<p>We tested our hypothesis in tobacco because it is an excellent model for proof-of-concept research. It is easy to genetically engineer and only has a four-month life cycle, allowing us to conduct several trials in one field season. This allows us to test various genetic modifications in tobacco and then translate those discoveries to make improvements in targeted food crops. </p>
<p>To fine-tune the expression of the H-protein, the team engineered the tobacco using DNA from a close relative, <em>Solanum tuberosum</em>, or potato. Using a known sequence of potato DNA, we were able to boost the H-protein specifically in the desired leaf tissue. That proved to be the key to increasing yield without harming the plant.</p>
<p>Initially, I was skeptical that boosting the production of a single protein out of thousands in the plant could have such a dramatic impact on crop yield. But, after two years of field trials, my colleagues and I have demonstrated that increasing H-protein levels leads to larger plants, boosting the crop yield by <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.12953">27-47 percent.</a></p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/223941/original/file-20180619-126550-qn4dhj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/223941/original/file-20180619-126550-qn4dhj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223941/original/file-20180619-126550-qn4dhj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223941/original/file-20180619-126550-qn4dhj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223941/original/file-20180619-126550-qn4dhj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223941/original/file-20180619-126550-qn4dhj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223941/original/file-20180619-126550-qn4dhj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Author Paul South measures the rate of photosynthesis in the tobacco plants in a field site in Illinois.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Claire Benjamin</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>You might wonder whether plants with extra H-protein are safe to eat? It is too early to answer that question. Once we have engineered “high H-protein food crops” these plants must be proved safe, which includes allergen and environmental impact before these transgenic plants will be approved by the FDA and USDA. </p>
<h2>These higher-yielding crops would be genetically modified organisms</h2>
<p>Because part of the DNA comes from a foreign source (potato), these plants are considered genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. There’s no doubt that the idea of using GMOs as part of our food source is quite controversial. </p>
<p>Many individuals have rejected the use of GMO technology, and some countries have <a href="https://gmo.geneticliteracyproject.org/FAQ/where-are-gmos-grown-and-banned/">prohibitions or restrictions</a> of the use in their food supply. However, many studies have shown extensive evidence that GMOs are safe to eat, including this definitive <a href="http://nas-sites.org/ge-crops/category/report/">report</a> by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. We believe it is important to have this technology to increase crop productivity so farmers and consumers will have many high-yielding options available to them. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/223942/original/file-20180619-126531-1arrb71.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/223942/original/file-20180619-126531-1arrb71.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223942/original/file-20180619-126531-1arrb71.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223942/original/file-20180619-126531-1arrb71.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223942/original/file-20180619-126531-1arrb71.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223942/original/file-20180619-126531-1arrb71.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223942/original/file-20180619-126531-1arrb71.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A shot of the field where South and his colleagues test their genetically modified tobacco plants. This image was taken by a drone in 2017.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Beau Barber</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There are different techniques to create new crops, including traditional crop breeding techniques, GMOs and more recently CRISPR-based gene editing technology – which allow us to directly rewrite a plant’s DNA without adding foreign genes. But regardless of the technique, the goal is the same: produce plants that can thrive in farmers’ fields to create a more secure and sustainable food supply for everyone. </p>
<p>Our next goal is to bump up levels of the H-protein in important food crops including legumes – soybean and cowpea – as well as the root crop <a href="https://theconversation.com/research-shows-how-to-grow-more-cassava-one-of-the-worlds-key-food-crops-68115">cassava</a>, which are major staple foods worldwide. If we can increase the production of these target plants by between 27 and 47 percent, similar to what was observed in this study, it will go a long way toward meeting the goal of feeding another 2 to 3 billion people by 2050.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/97505/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paul South receives funding from USDA-ARS and the RIPE project which is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, The Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research and the UK department for International Development.</span></em></p>As the climate changes and the population grows, meeting the demand for food will become more difficult as arable land declines. But an international team of scientists has figured out an innovative solution to dramatically bumping up crop yields.Paul South, Postdoctoral Researcher at the Carl R. Woese Institute for Genomic Biology, University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/966612018-05-28T13:47:31Z2018-05-28T13:47:31ZSouth Africa needs to reverse corporate capture of agricultural policy<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/220487/original/file-20180525-51121-1pcy2lp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">South Africa is the only country in the world that permits its staple food, maize, to be grown from genetically modified seed.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>South Africans are embroiled in heated debates about the expropriation of <a href="https://theconversation.com/south-africa-is-still-way-behind-the-curve-on-transforming-land-ownership-87110">agricultural land</a>. But very little space is being devoted to how the country’s scarce arable land could and should be used once it has been acquired. </p>
<p>This is an important part of the puzzle given that the country’s existing industrial agricultural system has failed on a number of levels. A quarter of the country’s population goes hungry <a href="https://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/file_attachments/hidden_hunger_in_south_africa_0.pdf">every day</a>. Price inflation makes nutritious <a href="https://www.pacsa.org.za/research/research-reports/food-price-barometer">food increasingly unaffordable</a> and – as the listeriosis scandal <a href="https://www.who.int/csr/don/28-march-2018-listeriosis-south-africa/en/">recently revealed</a> – food safety is easily compromised. </p>
<p>Unlike most other countries on the continent, South Africa’s agricultural sector is heavily skewed to industrial farming. Its 40 000 commercial farmers <a href="http://www.harvestsa.co.za/articles/farming-holds-its-own-in-south-africa-24809.html">produce most of the country’s food</a>. The official number of households engaged in small-scale farming is <a href="http://www.daff.gov.za/Daffweb3/Portals/0/Statistics%20and%20Economic%20Analysis/Statistical%20Information/Abstract%202016%20.pdf">around 1,3 million</a>, although this could be a low estimate. </p>
<p>The country’s commercial agriculture sector relies on expensive and polluting genetically modified seed, pesticides and <a href="https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/18-foei-who-benefits-report-mr.pdf">chemical fertilisers</a>. It is also heavily reliant on irrigation: the commercial agricultural sector extracts 63% of the country’s <a href="https://www.agrisa.co.za/wwf-agriculture-facts-and-trends-south-africa/">available surface water</a>. None of this is good for the environment. </p>
<p>South Africa urgently needs to rethink its existing agricultural model. The current preference for large-scale, high-input farming enterprises fails to trust in small-scale family-based producers’ ability to provide more efficiently for the market. Employing agroecology – farming without GMOs, chemical pesticides and artificial fertilisers – small-scale farmers can, with sufficient policy and practical state support, contribute significantly to food and nutritional security. This has been accomplished successfully elsewhere. </p>
<p>For example in the state of Santa Caterina in Southern Brazil, the state supported 60 000 small farmers with their agriculture, resulting in an increase of the sales of their produce by <a href="http://www.worldbank.org/en/results/2017/10/24/enhancing-small-farmers-competitiveness-santa-catarina-brazil">64% after one year</a>. In South Africa, it is also possible to make small scale farms <a href="https://www.news24.com/Analysis/how-to-make-small-scale-farms-work-20180516">work</a>. </p>
<h2>Powerful corporate interests</h2>
<p>Why are South African policy makers choosing to back large scale farmers? The answer is that they have succumbed to pressures from transnational corporations that have made farmers dependent on hybrid or genetically modified proprietary seeds, herbicides and fertilisers.</p>
<p>South Africa is the only country in the world that permits its staple food, maize, to be grown from genetically modified seed. Over 87% of South Africa’s maize is now <a href="https://www.africabio.com/agriculture">based on proprietary GM seed</a>.</p>
<p>On top of this, the country’s legislation is weak. The <a href="http://www.saflii.org/za/legis/num_act/gmoa1997286/">Genetically Modified Organisms Act</a> passed in 1997 does little to ensure biosafety. In effect it opened the door to the import and release of GM seed and enabled GM seed experimentation and bulking in South Africa. Instead of a strict impartial assessment of applications by the gene companies, the act allows for self-regulated risk assessments to be submitted to the regulator based entirely on in-house tests conducted by the GMO-purveying corporates themselves.</p>
<p>Nine years ago the state was forced, for the first time, to provide the public with information on GM permits after it was challenged by Biowatch, a South African <a href="http://www.biowatch.org.za/docs/misc/2013/A%20Landmark%20Victory%20for%20Justice.pdf">food sovereignty non-profit group</a>. </p>
<p>But the power of the large corporations has intensified in the intervening years. In 2012 South Africa’s Competition Appeal Court <a href="https://www.comptrib.co.za/assets/Uploads/113CACNov11-Pioneer-Pannar.pdf">allowed</a> for the largest remaining local crop seed company, Pannar, to be purchased by DuPont’s subsidiary, Pioneer Hi-Bred. This signalled the beginning of foreign monopoly control over local crop seed. This is now dominated by transnationals Monsanto, DuPont, Dow and Syngenta.</p>
<p>The country’s drive to adopt GMOs has resulted in some spectacular failures. One involved Monsanto attempting to persuade small-scale farmers at the Makhathini Flats, a floodplain on the Phongola River in KwaZulu-Natal, to plant their proprietary GM cotton. The project was an attempt to convince the world that GM crops were suited to farmers like this. Monsanto flew representative Makhathini farmers around the world to advocate the corporation’s position. But within only a few years the farmers found themselves deeply in debt and the GM cotton project <a href="http://rajpatel.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Can-the-Poor-help-GM-Crops_final-printed-version.pdf">was abandoned</a>.</p>
<p>In the Eastern Cape province small-scale farmers were initially given free Monsanto GM and hybrid seed. Traditional farming practices were abandoned in favour of mechanical tilling and monocropping of maize. Called the Massive Food Production Programme, it failed to meet any of its key objectives over five years and swallowed R570 million <a href="https://www.tips.org.za/research-archive/inequality-and-economic-inclusion/second-economy-strategy-project/item/2991-review-of-the-eastern-cape-s-siyakhula-massive-maize-project">in state funds</a>. Productivity hardly improved and small-scale farmers where left with unpayable debts.</p>
<h2>Support for small scale farmers</h2>
<p>Helping small-scale farmers requires a number of interventions. The first is practical support. South Africa used to provide extension services to farmers, which consisted of independent advice. But budget cuts have reduced the quality of the service and opened the way for corporate agents to take on the roll. For example, in the Hlabisa district, KwaZulu-Natal, the state and Monsanto have combined efforts to influence the GM crops <a href="http://bio-economy.org.za/2017/11/27/growing-gm-maize-outcomes-for-small-scale-farmers-in-hlabisa-kzn/">that farmers plant</a>.</p>
<p>As part of the land debate, South Africans should be calling on government to abandon its bias towards monopoly agribusiness. The first step would be to reverse the measures that favour international agribusiness interests. Secondly, biosafety regulations should be tightened. </p>
<p>And significant resources should be diverted to support small-scale farmers. In doing so it will be minimising land and seed contamination, honouring traditional practices of seed saving and exchange, reviving and building sustainable employment opportunities, guaranteeing soil quality and food sovereignty. It will be a positive contribution to reducing carbon emissions and sustainable water usage. </p>
<p>It is time to reduce the policy influence of agribusiness interests and answer the call for land with practical agrarian reform measures.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/96661/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Fig chairs the Biowatch South Africa Trust, which has sponsored the writing of this article. </span></em></p>South Africa urgently needs to rethink its existing agricultural model.David Fig, Honorary Research Associate, University of Cape TownLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/960022018-05-22T10:45:04Z2018-05-22T10:45:04ZThese CRISPR-modified crops don’t count as GMOs<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/219842/original/file-20180521-14981-wcgftr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The lighter citrus plants have been edited using CRISPR to alter the phytoene desaturase (PDS) gene which gives them a white color. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Yi Li</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>To feed the burgeoning human population, it is vital that the world figures out ways to boost food production. </p>
<p>Increasing crop yields through conventional plant breeding is inefficient – the outcomes are unpredictable and it can take years to decades to create a new strain. On the other hand, powerful genetically modified plant technologies can quickly yield new plant varieties, but their adoption has been controversial. Many consumers and countries have rejected GMO foods even though <a href="https://www.nap.edu/catalog/23395/genetically-engineered-crops-experiences-and-prospects">extensive studies</a> have proved they are safe to consume. </p>
<p>But now a new genome editing technology known as CRISPR may offer a good alternative.</p>
<p>I’m a plant geneticist and one of my top priorities is developing tools to engineer woody plants such as citrus trees that can resist the greening disease, Huanglongbing (HLB), which has devastated these trees around the world. First detected in Florida in 2005, the disease has decimated the state’s <a href="http://www.baynews9.com/fl/tampa/news/2013/2/5/florida_citrus_indus.html">US$9 billion</a> citrus crop, leading to a <a href="https://fruitworldmedia.com/index.php/featured/citrus-greening-currently-dangerous-disease-citrus/">75 percent decline</a> in its orange production in 2017. Because citrus trees take five to 10 years before they produce fruits, <a href="http://doi.org/10.1038/s41438-018-0023-4">our new technique</a> – which has been nominated by many editors-in-chief as one of the <a href="https://www.springernature.com/gp/researchers/campaigns/change-the-world/life-sciences-biomedicine?from=message&isappinstalled=0">groundbreaking approaches of 2017</a> that has the potential to change the world – may accelerate the development of non-GMO citrus trees that are HLB-resistant. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/219234/original/file-20180516-155573-1a0qi1p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/219234/original/file-20180516-155573-1a0qi1p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/219234/original/file-20180516-155573-1a0qi1p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219234/original/file-20180516-155573-1a0qi1p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219234/original/file-20180516-155573-1a0qi1p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219234/original/file-20180516-155573-1a0qi1p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219234/original/file-20180516-155573-1a0qi1p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219234/original/file-20180516-155573-1a0qi1p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">HLB yellow dragon citrus greening disease has infected orchards in Florida and around the world devastating the citrus crops.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/orange-citrus-infected-hlb-yellow-dragon-1069345184?src=dkzHFhmHr50WYZRN9J-JMw-1-3">By Edgloris Marys/shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Genetically modified vs. gene edited</h2>
<p>You may wonder why the plants we create with our new DNA editing technique are not considered GMO? It’s a good question. </p>
<p>Genetically modified refers to plants and animals that have been altered in a way that wouldn’t have arisen naturally through evolution. A very obvious example of this involves transferring a gene from one species to another to endow the organism with a new trait – like pest resistance or drought tolerance. </p>
<p>But in our work, we are not cutting and pasting genes from animals or bacteria into plants. We are using genome editing technologies to introduce new plant traits by directly rewriting the plants’ genetic code. </p>
<p>This is faster and more precise than conventional breeding, is less controversial than GMO techniques, and can shave years or even decades off the time it takes to develop new crop varieties for farmers.</p>
<p>There is also another incentive to opt for using gene editing to create designer crops. On <a href="https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2018/03/28/secretary-perdue-issues-usda-statement-plant-breeding-innovation">March 28, 2018</a>, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue announced that the USDA wouldn’t regulate new plant varieties developed with new technologies like genome editing that would yield plants indistinguishable from those developed through traditional breeding methods. By contrast, a plant that includes a gene or genes from another organism, such as bacteria, is considered a GMO. This is another reason why many researchers and companies prefer using CRISPR in agriculture whenever it is possible. </p>
<h2>Changing the plant blueprint</h2>
<p>The gene editing tool we use is called CRISPR – which stands for “Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats” – and was adapted from the defense systems of bacteria. These bacterial CRISPR systems have been modified so that scientists like myself can edit the DNA of plants, animals, human cells and microorganisms. This technology can be used in many ways, including to correct genetic errors in humans that cause diseases, to engineer animals bred for disease research, and to create novel genetic variations that can accelerate crop improvement.</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/219835/original/file-20180521-14960-zyvgs4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/219835/original/file-20180521-14960-zyvgs4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=732&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219835/original/file-20180521-14960-zyvgs4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=732&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219835/original/file-20180521-14960-zyvgs4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=732&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219835/original/file-20180521-14960-zyvgs4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=920&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219835/original/file-20180521-14960-zyvgs4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=920&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219835/original/file-20180521-14960-zyvgs4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=920&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Yi Li inspects his CRISPR altered plants in his lab.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Xiaojing Wang</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>To use CRISPR to introduce a useful trait into a crop plant, we need to know the genes that control a particular trait. For instance, <a href="https://bigpictureeducation.com/dwarf-breeds-plants">previous studies</a> have revealed that a natural plant hormone called gibberellin is essential for plant height. The GA20-ox gene controls the quantity of gibberellin produced in plants. To create a breed of “low mowing frequency” lawn grass, for example, we are editing the DNA – changing the sequence of the DNA that makes up gene – of this plant to reduce the output of the GA20-ox gene in the selected turf grass. With lower gibberellin, the grass won’t grow as high and won’t need to be mowed as often. </p>
<p>The CRISPR system was derived from bacteria. It is made up of two parts: Cas9, a little protein that snips DNA, and an RNA molecule that serves as the template for encoding the new trait in the plant’s DNA. </p>
<p>To use CRISPR in plants, the standard approach is to insert the CRISPR genes that encode the CRISPR-Cas9 “editing machines” into the plant cell’s DNA. When the CRISPR-Cas9 gene is active, it will locate and rewrite the relevant section of the plant genome, creating the new trait. </p>
<p>But this is a catch-22. Because to perform DNA editing with CRISPR/Cas9 you first have to genetically alter the plant with foreign CRISPR genes – this would make it a GMO.</p>
<h2>A new strategy for non-GMO crops</h2>
<p>For annual crop plants like corn, rice and tomato that complete their life cycles from germination to the production of seeds within one year, the CRISPR genes can be easily eliminated from the edited plants. That’s because some seeds these plants produce do not carry CRISPR genes, just the new traits. </p>
<p>But this problem is much trickier for perennial crop plants that require up to 10 years to reach the stage of flower and seed production. It would take too long to wait for seeds that were free of CRISPR genes. </p>
<p>My team at the University of Connecticut and my collaborators at <a href="http://english.njau.edu.cn/">Nanjing Agricultural University</a>, <a href="http://en.jaas.ac.cn/">Jiangsu Academy of Agricultural Sciences</a>, <a href="http://www.ufl.edu/">University of Florida</a>, <a href="http://en.changsha.gov.cn/study/Universities/201407/t20140717_612425.html">Hunan Agricultural University</a> and <a href="https://ucsd.edu/">University of California-San Diego</a> have recently developed a convenient, new technique to use CRISPR to reliably create desirable traits in crop plants without introducing any foreign bacterial genes. </p>
<p>We first engineered a naturally occurring soil microbe, <em>Agrobacterium</em>, with the CRIPSR genes. Then we take young leaf or shoot material from plants and mix them in petri dishes with the bacteria and allow them to incubate together for a couple of days. This gives the bacteria time to infect the cells and deliver the gene editing machinery, which then alters the plant’s genetic code. </p>
<p>In some <em>Agrobacterium</em> infected cells, the <em>Agrobacterium</em> basically serves as a Trojan horse, bringing all the editing tools into the cell, rather than engineering plants to have their own editing machinery. Because the bacterial genes or CRISPR genes do not become part of the plant’s genome in these cells – and just do the work of gene editing – any plants derived from these cells are not considered a GMO.</p>
<p>After a couple of days, we can cultivate plants from the edited plant cells. Then it take several weeks or months to grow an edited plant that could be planted on a farm. The hard part is figuring out which plants are successfully modified. But we have a solution to this problem too and have developed a method that takes only two weeks to identify the edited plants. </p>
<h2>Genetically designed lawns</h2>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/219785/original/file-20180521-14974-4wfuub.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/219785/original/file-20180521-14974-4wfuub.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=206&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219785/original/file-20180521-14974-4wfuub.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=206&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219785/original/file-20180521-14974-4wfuub.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=206&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219785/original/file-20180521-14974-4wfuub.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=259&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219785/original/file-20180521-14974-4wfuub.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=259&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219785/original/file-20180521-14974-4wfuub.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=259&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The shorter lawn grasses on the left (perennial ryegrass) need to be mowed less frequently than their conventional counterpart, shown on the right. The shorter grasses were produced using a traditional plant breeding technique. Yi Li is currently using the CRISPR technique to create grasses of other species that require less maintenance.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Yi Li</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>One significant difference between editing plants versus human cells is that we are not as concerned about editing typos. In humans, such errors could cause disease, but off-target mutations in plants are not a serious concern. A number of <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2014.11.007">published studies</a> reported low to negligible off-target activity observed in plants when compared to animal systems. </p>
<p>Also, before distributing any plants to farmers for planting in their field, the edited plants will be carefully evaluated for obvious defects in growth and development or their responses to drought, extreme temperatures, disease and insect attacks. Further, DNA sequencing of edited plants once they have been developed can easily identify any significant undesirable off-target mutations. </p>
<p>In addition to citrus, our technology should be applicable in most perennial crop plants such as apple, sugarcane, grape, pear, banana, poplar, pine, eucalyptus and some annual crop plants such as strawberry, potato and sweet potato that are propagated without using seeds. </p>
<p>We also see a role for genome editing technologies in many other plants used in the agricultural, horticultural and forestry industries. For example, we are creating lawn grass varieties that require less fertilizer and water. I bet you would like that too.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/96002/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Yi Li receives funding from USDA and Citrus Research and Development Foundation. </span></em></p>GMO crops have been rejected by many countries and consumers. Now, an international team of researchers are creating better crops using DNA editing–without inserting foreign genes into the plant.Yi Li, Professor of Plant Science, University of ConnecticutLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/821242017-08-25T01:24:16Z2017-08-25T01:24:16ZAmericans are confused about food and unsure where to turn for answers, survey shows<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182633/original/file-20170818-7965-iudoll.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Trying to sort truth about food from fiction can be overwhelming.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/Planking_in_supermarket.jpg">TheeErin</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>More than one-third of Americans do not know that foods with no genetically modified ingredients contain genes, according to the new nationally representative <a href="http://food.msu.edu/articles/msu-food-literacy-and-engagement-poll">Food Literacy and Engagement Poll</a> we recently conducted at Michigan State University. For the record, all foods contain genes, and so do all people. </p>
<p>The majority of respondents who answered this question incorrectly were young and affluent, and also more likely than their peers to describe themselves as having a higher-than-average understanding of the global food system. The full survey revealed that much of the U.S. public remains disengaged or misinformed about food. These findings are problematic because food shapes our lives on a personal level, while consumer choices and agricultural practices set the course for our collective future in a number of ways, from food production impacts to public health.</p>
<h2>Informing food discussions</h2>
<p>The Food Literacy and Engagement Poll, which we plan to conduct annually, is part of <a href="http://food.msu.edu/">Food@MSU</a>, a new initiative based in Michigan State University’s <a href="https://www.canr.msu.edu/">College of Agriculture and Natural Resources</a>. Food@MSU’s mission is to listen to consumers, promote dialogue and help the public make more informed choices about food. </p>
<p>Many factors make those decisions challenging for today’s consumers. Rapid scientific innovation has made it possible to engineer crops that can <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aal1000">grow without fertilizer</a>, <a href="http://www.cropgeneticsinnovation.org/new-flood-tolerant-rice-offers-relief-for-worlds-poorest-farmers/">survive flooding</a> and <a href="http://www.goldenrice.org/">supply vital nutrients</a> to communities in the developing world. But further progress may be limited without public awareness and support for research on urgent food and agriculture challenges.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, the proliferation of online content with conflicting messages makes it hard for Americans to <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2017.01.011">separate valid nutritional information from fads and fraud</a>. Influential multinational corporations push <a href="https://www.consumerreports.org/food-safety/peeling-back-the-natural-food-label/">ideas</a> that aren’t always based in science, but rather intended to promote their own products.</p>
<p>Our inaugural poll reveals that the public lags far behind current scientific understanding when it comes to food. Equally troubling, Americans aren’t turning to scientists for answers. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/MaCKn-m1-Mk?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Late-night TV host John Oliver critiques misleading food label claims.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Disconnected from farms</h2>
<p>Today <a href="http://www.fb.org/newsroom/fast-facts">fewer than 2 percent of Americans</a> live on farms. As the U.S. population continues to shift away from rural areas into cities and suburbs, we are ever more removed from the agricultural practices that sustain us. </p>
<p>We sampled over 1,000 Americans age 18 and over online. Results were weighted to reflect U.S. census demographics for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, region and household income to bring them into line with their actual proportions in the population. Our survey revealed that 48 percent of Americans say they never or rarely seek information about where their food was grown or how it was produced. </p>
<p>As we grapple with energy and resource conservation challenges in the United States and around the world, it is more important than ever to recognize how we use limited resources – and <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es100310d">what we waste</a> along the way. Agriculture is a major source of pollutants that produce <a href="https://theconversation.com/nutrient-pollution-voluntary-steps-are-failing-to-shrink-algae-blooms-and-dead-zones-81249">algae blooms and dead zones</a> in the Great Lakes, Gulf of Mexico and other water bodies. Large livestock farms generate <a href="https://theconversation.com/court-ruling-is-a-first-step-toward-controlling-air-pollution-from-livestock-farms-76443">air pollution</a> that can be hazardous to human health. More than half of respondents in our survey (51 percent) were willing to pay higher prices for foods with a less damaging impact on the environment, but consumers need to know how food is produced before they can take action.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182637/original/file-20170818-20193-1xitb3g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182637/original/file-20170818-20193-1xitb3g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182637/original/file-20170818-20193-1xitb3g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=296&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182637/original/file-20170818-20193-1xitb3g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=296&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182637/original/file-20170818-20193-1xitb3g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=296&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182637/original/file-20170818-20193-1xitb3g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=372&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182637/original/file-20170818-20193-1xitb3g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=372&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182637/original/file-20170818-20193-1xitb3g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=372&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Nutrient pollution from Midwest farms washes into the Gulf of Mexico every spring, creating algae blooms and an oxygen-free dead zone where fish cannot survive. This year’s zone covers 8,776 square miles – the largest ever measured.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.noaa.gov/media-release/gulf-of-mexico-dead-zone-is-largest-ever-measured">N. Rabalais, LSU/LUMCON</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Food safety</h2>
<p>Half of respondents in the poll (50 percent) expressed concern over the safety of food available for purchase in their community. This included 56 percent of those earning an annual household income of US$75,000 or more and 46 percent of those earning less than $75,000.</p>
<p>They are right to be worried. According to the <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/foodborne-germs.html">U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention</a>, 48 million Americans become sick from food-borne illnesses every year. These events lead to 128,000 hospitalizations and 3,000 deaths from viruses such as hepatitis A and norovirus, and bacteria such as Salmonella and Campylobacter. The more we understand about how these bugs are transmitted, and how to store and handle food safely, the better we can protect our families and ourselves.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182632/original/file-20170818-22783-1qspf9z.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182632/original/file-20170818-22783-1qspf9z.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182632/original/file-20170818-22783-1qspf9z.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=459&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182632/original/file-20170818-22783-1qspf9z.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=459&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182632/original/file-20170818-22783-1qspf9z.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=459&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182632/original/file-20170818-22783-1qspf9z.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=577&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182632/original/file-20170818-22783-1qspf9z.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=577&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182632/original/file-20170818-22783-1qspf9z.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=577&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Younger and older Americans have different attitudes about choosing organic food.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Michigan State University</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Global food security</h2>
<p>The United Nations currently projects that the world’s population will rise from 7.5 billion today to <a href="https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Publications/Files/WPP2017_KeyFindings.pdf">9.7 billion people by 2050</a>. If food production fails to keep pace with anticipated growth, billions of people will go hungry. The biggest 21st-century agricultural challenge we face will be to produce more grains, fruits and vegetables on less land with fewer resources in the face of climate change. </p>
<p>The vast majority of scientists agree that one tool for meeting growing global food demand will be developing <a href="https://theconversation.com/new-report-on-ge-crops-avoids-simple-answers-and-thats-the-point-study-members-say-59289">genetically modified crops</a> that can survive with less fertilizer or water, promote disease resistance, improve yield or add vitamins for malnourished communities in the developing world.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the poll found that much of the public does not embrace the promise of transgenic agriculture. Although genetically modified organisms are currently found in over <a href="http://ucbiotech.org/answer.php?question=15">75 percent of packaged food</a> in the United States, and we encounter them daily in corn, sugar and soy, most Americans remain unaware of their potential. Forty-six percent of poll respondents either don’t know whether they consume GMOs or believe they rarely or never do. </p>
<p>While the Food and Drug Administration has said that <a href="https://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/GEPlants/ucm461805.htm">genetically modified foods are safe</a>, large and vocal advocacy groups continue to stoke public fears and influence consumer choices <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/08/11/amid-debate-over-labeling-gm-foods-most-americans-believe-theyre-unsafe/">away from their adoption</a>. The result is widespread misinformation and mistrust, which ultimately sets back progress toward allowing the technology to meet its full potential domestically and internationally.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182631/original/file-20170818-22783-4zi3rw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182631/original/file-20170818-22783-4zi3rw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182631/original/file-20170818-22783-4zi3rw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182631/original/file-20170818-22783-4zi3rw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182631/original/file-20170818-22783-4zi3rw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182631/original/file-20170818-22783-4zi3rw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=532&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182631/original/file-20170818-22783-4zi3rw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=532&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182631/original/file-20170818-22783-4zi3rw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=532&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">One-third of Americans believe (incorrectly) that only genetically modified foods contain genes.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Michigan State University</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Mistrustful of experts</h2>
<p>When it comes to food, many Americans do not trust experts. Just 59 percent of respondents in our survey said that they trusted information from academic scientists on nutrition and food safety. Less than half (49 percent) trusted government scientists, and only one-third (33 percent) trusted industry scientists. </p>
<p>Instead, consumers wade through conflicting recommendations from friends, relatives and celebrities that compete with fake news online for attention. Meanwhile, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/wellness/how-many-of-these-6-foods-have-marketers-tricked-you-into-thinking-are-healthy/2017/08/11/87cfc832-70bd-11e7-9eac-d56bd5568db8_story.html">advertisements</a> and talking heads argue over the health benefits of staples like <a href="http://elle.in/beauty/chocolate-for-health/">chocolate</a> and <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/pros-cons-coffee-benefits-health-634452">coffee</a>. This may explain why a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/07/05/upshot/is-sushi-healthy-what-about-granola-where-americans-and-nutritionists-disagree.html?em_pos=small&emc=edit_up_20170807&nl=upshot&nl_art=3&nlid=72576127&ref=headline&te=1">2016 Morning Consult/New York Times survey</a> found that nutritionists and Americans have vastly different ideas about what kinds of foods can be called “healthy.”</p>
<p>Consumers face the exhausting task of sifting through the noise for reliable and accurate information on food. Unfortunately, it’s often difficult to find objective experts to listen to their concerns and provide answers that are grounded in science and easy to understand and put into practice.</p>
<h2>Food for thought, and conversation</h2>
<p>Our Food Literacy and Engagement Poll is intended to provide baseline data for what Americans know about a variety of food topics. A centerpiece of <a href="http://food.msu.edu/">Food@MSU</a>, called <a href="http://msutoday.msu.edu/feature/2017/setting-the-table/">Our Table</a>, will bring scientists, farmers, consumers and policy experts together to explore issues ranging from organic farming and health to GM crops and sustainability. Over time, the poll will track public attitudes to guide research, as well as allow us to listen to consumers in order to help them make informed decisions about food.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/82124/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sheril Kirshenbaum is affiliated with Science Debate, a nonprofit organization working to improve communication between scientists, policymakers and the public.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Douglas Buhler receives funding from the US government, foundations and industry entities. </span></em></p>When the United States was settled, nearly everyone was a farmer. Today only 2 percent of Americans live on farms, and many of us are illiterate about where food comes from or what kinds are healthy.Sheril Kirshenbaum, Food@MSU, Michigan State UniversityDouglas Buhler, Director of AgBioResearch and Assistant Vice President of Research and Graduate Studies, Michigan State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/719162017-01-26T18:25:34Z2017-01-26T18:25:34ZScientists have unlocked the secret of making tomatoes taste of something again<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/154388/original/image-20170126-30424-1annqdy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>If you shop in a supermarket you may well have asked why the fruit and veg you buy there is so tasteless, especially if you’ve also tried homegrown alternatives. Traditional breeds of tomatoes usually grown in gardens, known as heirloom tomatoes, for example, are often small and strangely shaped and coloured but renowned for their delicious taste. Those in the supermarkets, meanwhile, are often pumped up in size but somewhat insipid to eat.</p>
<p>This is because plants used by most tomato farms have gone through an intensive artificial selection process to breed fruit that are big, red and round – but at the expense of taste. Now a 20-strong international research team <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi/10.1126/science.aal1556">have identified</a> the chemical compounds responsible for the rich flavour of heirloom tomatoes and the genes that produce them. This information could provide a way for farmers to grow tomatoes that taste of something again.</p>
<p>The unique flavour of a tomato is determined by specific airborne molecules called volatiles, which emanate from flavour chemicals in the fruit. By asking a panel of consumers to rate over a hundred varieties of tomato, the researchers identified 13 volatiles that play an important role in producing the most appealing flavours. They also found that these molecules were significantly reduced in modern tomato varieties compared to the heirloom ones. And they found that bigger tomatoes tended to have less sugar, another reason why large supermarket fruits often fail to inspire.</p>
<p>Tomatoes <a href="https://academic.oup.com/aob/article/100/5/1085/136832/Domestication-and-Breeding-of-Tomatoes-What-have">originally hail</a> from the Andean region of South America and belong to the Solanaceae family, making them relatively close relations of potatoes and peppers. The original, ancestral tomato was very small, more like a pea, showing just how much human intervention has swollen the fruit. We don’t know how long they have been grown for human consumption but they had reached an advanced stage of domestication by the 15th century when they were taken to Europe.</p>
<p>Before the 20th century, tomato varieties were commonly developed in families and small communities (which <a href="http://www.salon.com/2015/06/14/heirloom_tomatoes_bizarre_evolution_the_secret_history_of_the_tastiest_summer_treat/">explains the name “heirloom</a>”). With the industrialisation of farming, the <a href="http://www.actahort.org/members/showpdf?booknrarnr=100_1">serious business of tomato breeding</a> began with intensive selection for fruit size and shelf life. </p>
<p>Some <a href="https://academic.oup.com/aob/article/100/5/1085/136832/Domestication-and-Breeding-of-Tomatoes-What-have">more recent effort</a> has been put into improving the flavour of tomatoes through breeding. But the new research appears to indicate that this has ultimately been unsuccessful and that earlier breeding efforts have doomed modern commercial varieties to mediocrity. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/154391/original/image-20170126-30413-1r3vpik.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/154391/original/image-20170126-30413-1r3vpik.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154391/original/image-20170126-30413-1r3vpik.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154391/original/image-20170126-30413-1r3vpik.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154391/original/image-20170126-30413-1r3vpik.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154391/original/image-20170126-30413-1r3vpik.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154391/original/image-20170126-30413-1r3vpik.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Family heirlooms.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The new paper, <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi/10.1126/science.aal1556">published in Science</a>, emphasises what seems to be a constant conflict between the food industry’s desire for profit and what the public actually want. The researchers tactfully excuse the way tomatoes have been bred for size and shelf-life at the expense of taste as being down to breeders’ inability to analyse the fruit’s chemical composition and find the right volatiles.</p>
<p>But many people will find this hard to swallow. After all, the new research itself used the most ancient volatile analysis system there is: the human taster. It wouldn’t have taken much for farmers to incorporate taste trials into their breeding programmes.</p>
<p>Because modern farmed tomatoes have only lost their flavour in the last hundred years or so and varieties are still available that produce the tasty volatiles, it should be possible to reinsert the crucial taste genes back into commercial varieties. This could be done by genetic modification or conventional breeding. Just as we are seeing a resurgence in <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/ed0edb8e-d9ab-11e5-a72f-1e7744c66818">organic and artisan growing</a>, it would be great to see a new generation of tomato breeders interested in returning flavour to the fruit using wild and heirloom varieties, while maintaining other commercially desirable traits. </p>
<p>There is significant <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-scientists-failure-to-understand-gm-opposition-is-stifling-debate-and-halting-progress-62142">public opposition</a> to the idea of genetically modifying foods by inserting genes into a plant’s DNA in the lab. But the idea of reinserting lost genes <a href="https://theconversation.com/all-our-food-is-genetically-modified-in-some-way-where-do-you-draw-the-line-56256">may be more palatable</a> to the public than introducing completely new ones. Either way, it shows how perverse the food industry’s methods are that we may need to use one of the world’s most advanced technologies to give an inherently delicious food some flavour.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/71916/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Colin Tosh receives funding from the UK Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) and previously has recived grants from the UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC). He is active at a local level with the Green Party, England and Wales. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Niall Conboy receives funding from BBSRC</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Thomas McDaniel receives funding from BBSRC. </span></em></p>New research pinpoints the genes that could counteract decades of bland breeding.Colin Tosh, Lecturer in Ecology, Evolution and Computational Biology, Newcastle UniversityNiall Conboy, PhD candidate, Newcastle UniversityThomas McDaniel, PhD candidate, Newcastle UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/681152017-01-24T16:34:58Z2017-01-24T16:34:58ZResearch shows how to grow more cassava, one of the world’s key food crops<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/148470/original/image-20161202-25663-1thhg8v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Cassava makes up nearly 50 percent of the diet in parts of sub-Saharan Africa, where populations are projected to increase by more than 120 percent in the next 30 years.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/ciat/7489599668/sizes/o/in/photostream/"> CIAT International Center for Tropical Agriculture</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>What root vegetable is toxic eaten raw but a hunger quencher when cooked, and provides both tapioca flour and the pearls in bubble tea? This question probably will stump many Americans, but is easy for people in the developing world. </p>
<p>The answer is cassava, a woody shrub also known as manioc, yuca, tapioca and mandioca. Originally from Brazil, cassava is the <a href="http://www.fao.org/ag/agp/agpc/gcds/">third most important</a> source of calories in the tropics, behind rice and corn, and sustains an estimated <a href="http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3278e.pdf">800 million</a> throughout Africa, Asia and Latin America. In sub-Saharan Africa, it provides 30 to 50 percent of all calories consumed. </p>
<p>Cassava is one of the most efficient producers of carbohydrates and energy among all food crops. It can produce more than <a href="http://eol.org/pages/1154718/hierarchy_entries/46213115/details">250,000 calories</a> per hectare per day, compared to 176,000 for rice, 110,000 for wheat and 200,000 for corn.</p>
<p>But despite its widespread consumption, cassava yields have not improved in a quarter of a century. In a recently published <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nph.14250">study</a>, our research group identified 14 paths for improving cassava yield potential through genetic modifications, both engineered and bred. Each route could increase yield by as much as 25 to 100 percent, while also improving how efficiently the plant uses precious resources such as water and fertilizer. </p>
<p>Many of these routes are believed to be “synergistic improvements” – opportunities to increase cassava yield that, when combined, increase the yield of the plant even more. In particular, we know that cassava is photosynthesizing far below its theoretical limit. If we can improve photosynthesis, we might gain substantial, sustainable increases in the yield of this important crop. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/148463/original/image-20161202-25674-vij85u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/148463/original/image-20161202-25674-vij85u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148463/original/image-20161202-25674-vij85u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148463/original/image-20161202-25674-vij85u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148463/original/image-20161202-25674-vij85u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148463/original/image-20161202-25674-vij85u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148463/original/image-20161202-25674-vij85u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The roots of cassava are a primary source of calories for millions of people throughout the world.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">from www.shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Versatile and hardy</h2>
<p>Cassava’s edible roots grow in clusters of four to eight, each roughly the size of a bowling pin. These tubers are often steamed, fried or roasted, much like potatoes, but can also be ground up into flour or a starchy meal that is used as a condiment or side dish. The leaves can be cooked like spinach. Cassava is mainly grown for human consumption, but is also used for animal feed, biofuel production and other products such as fabric starch and paper. </p>
<p>All parts of the cassava plant naturally contain cyanide, a poisonous compound. Toxic, or “bitter,” cultivars contain as much as <a href="https://plants.usda.gov/plantguide/pdf/cs_maes.pdf">50 times</a> more cyanide as less toxic “sweet” varieties. Peeling and then cooking cassava neutralizes the cyanide in most sweet cultivars, while bitter cultivars need to soak or ferment for at least eight hours to make the plant edible.</p>
<p>Cassava thrives in poor soil with little water, so it is an ideal crop to grow on marginal land in sub-Saharan Africa and other developing regions. Farmers can harvest parts of the perennial plant as needed for food or to sell as a cash crop. </p>
<h2>Stagnant yields</h2>
<p>According to our <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nph.14250/full">review</a>, cassava yields per acre in Nigeria – the major producer in Africa – have flatlined since 1961. By contrast, corn yields in Nigeria, as in the United States, have more than doubled over the same period.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149482/original/image-20161209-31383-17ar5hw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149482/original/image-20161209-31383-17ar5hw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149482/original/image-20161209-31383-17ar5hw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149482/original/image-20161209-31383-17ar5hw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149482/original/image-20161209-31383-17ar5hw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=506&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149482/original/image-20161209-31383-17ar5hw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=506&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149482/original/image-20161209-31383-17ar5hw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=506&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">The RIPE Project</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>One solution would be to introduce alternative crops with higher yields. But respecting people’s food preferences is a key tenet of food security. And although cassava is not native to Africa, it has become an integral part of many people’s diets. It is also resilient to tough environments, and so is well-adapted to deal with climate change – particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, where <a href="https://ccafs.cgiar.org/blog/crops-under-changing-climate-what-are-impacts-africa#.WE6-Y1zig0g">heat and drought stress events are forecast to increase</a>. </p>
<p>Most published research on cassava to date has focused on improving its nutritional value or disease resistance. But even with these improvements, its current yield potential creates a ceiling that limits how much food farmers can produce. Yield potential is the yield that a given cultivar or genetic form of a crop will achieve under ideal growth conditions and in the absence of pests and diseases. Although crops rarely grow under such conditions, increasing yield potential generally results in increased yields under most conditions. </p>
<h2>Hacking photosynthesis to increase cassava yields</h2>
<p>Hacking photosynthesis has long been considered to be a holy grail of plant biology. Photosynthesis is the process in which green plants use the energy of sunlight to synthesize food from carbon dioxide and water, fueling their growth. It is directly or indirectly the source of all of our food, as well as many of our fibers and most of our fuel. By simulating the process on supercomputers, we identified points where we might intervene to <a href="http://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/Improving_Photosynthetic_Efficiency_of_Crops">speed up the process</a>. </p>
<p><a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aai8878">Our research</a> demonstrates that this theory can now be translated into real productivity increases in crops, and that the potential payoff is significant. By genetically modifying tobacco plants, we increased the amount of plant tissue that they produced by 14 to 20 percent in real-world, replicated field trials where light, rainfall and other factors are unpredictable. We used tobacco because it is easily modified, but also produces many layers of leaves, making it a good proxy for other crops. The process we modified is common to all plants, which strongly suggests that this approach should work just as effectively in cassava and other food crops. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/148466/original/image-20161202-25669-1ozwonk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/148466/original/image-20161202-25669-1ozwonk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=429&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148466/original/image-20161202-25669-1ozwonk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=429&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148466/original/image-20161202-25669-1ozwonk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=429&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148466/original/image-20161202-25669-1ozwonk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=539&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148466/original/image-20161202-25669-1ozwonk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=539&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148466/original/image-20161202-25669-1ozwonk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=539&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">As computer models predicted, genetically modified plants are better able to make use of the limited sunlight available when their leaves go into the shade, researchers report.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">University of Illinois/Julie McMahon</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Here’s how our approach works: In full sun, plants receive more energy than they can use. If they can’t get rid of this excess energy, it will bleach their leaves. <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2005/01/too-much-good-thing">To protect themselves</a>, plants induce a process called photoprotection, which converts this excess energy harmlessly to heat. </p>
<p>But when a cloud passes overhead, it can take minutes to hours for the plant to fully recover and begin photosynthesizing at maximum capacity again. In the shade, lack of light limits photosynthesis and photoprotection causes the plant to waste precious light energy as heat. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Av0dTk9KzlY?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">A small change to recovery mechanism means big change in crop output. Genetically modified tobacco plants turn on photosynthesis faster when shade follows dangerous sunlight.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Using a supercomputer, we predicted exactly how much slow recovery from photoprotection reduces crop productivity over the course of a day. Our calculations revealed a <a href="http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/55/400/1167">7.5 percent to 40 percent yield hit</a>, depending on the type of plant and prevailing temperature. </p>
<p>Teaming up with <a href="http://niyogilab.berkeley.edu/">key collaborators</a> at the University of California, Berkeley, we developed a “cassette” of genes to speed up plant recovery from photoprotection by boosting the amount of three proteins involved in photosynthesis. Two of our modified plant lines consistently achieved 20 percent higher productivity than unaltered tobacco plants, while the third was 14 percent higher.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/148469/original/image-20161202-25689-1bffclh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/148469/original/image-20161202-25689-1bffclh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=410&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148469/original/image-20161202-25689-1bffclh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=410&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148469/original/image-20161202-25689-1bffclh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=410&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148469/original/image-20161202-25689-1bffclh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=515&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148469/original/image-20161202-25689-1bffclh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=515&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148469/original/image-20161202-25689-1bffclh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=515&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Three plants genetically altered to improve photoprotection recovery are visibly larger than the normal (wildtype) tobacco plant on the right.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">RIPE Project</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Engineering the future today</h2>
<p>Now we are using this same cassette of genes to improve how quickly cassava recovers from photoprotection. Other “synergistic improvements” on our radar include steps such as <a href="http://ripe.illinois.edu/news/soybean-plants-with-fewer-leaves-yield-more1">engineering plants to produce fewer leaves</a>; <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12567">improving the way leaves are arranged</a> to better capture light; and <a href="http://ripe.illinois.edu/news/lighter-colored-upper-leaves-may-be-crop-photosynthesis-hack">altering leaf color</a> to reduce shading of lower leaves. We are also working to <a href="http://ripe.illinois.edu/objectives/photorespiratory-bypass">reduce losses from photorespiration</a>, a parasitic process that occurs during photosynthesis when oxygen is accidentally used instead of carbon dioxide. Photorespiration causes plants to burn as much as 40 percent of the energy they have produced through photosynthesis. This problem will increase along with rising temperatures from climate change. </p>
<p>It typically takes 15 to 20 years to move advances like these from the lab to farmers’ fields at scale. Because of that lag, in a world with a fast-growing population, we are just <a href="http://ripe.illinois.edu/news/one-crop-breeding-cycle-from-starvation">one crop breeding cycle</a> away from starvation. It is therefore essential to start improving yields of staple crops like cassava now, so that we will have these solutions when we need them.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/68115/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephen P. Long receives funding from the Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy; Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; National Science Foundation; Institute for Sustainability, Energy and Environment; and University of Illinois Office of Technology Management.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lynnicia Massenburg receives funding from the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program under Grant Number DGE-1144245. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Amanda P. De Souza does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Cassava is a key food source in tropical countries, but yields have been flat for decades. New genetic research is identifying many options for boosting production of this valuable staple crop.Stephen P. Long, Professor of Crop Sciences and Plant Biology, University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignAmanda P. De Souza, Postdoctoral Research Associate, University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignLynnicia Massenburg, Graduate Student, Department of Plant Biology, University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/665082016-11-09T19:07:09Z2016-11-09T19:07:09ZShould genetically modified organisms be part of our conservation efforts?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/144341/original/image-20161103-25322-15p8m1s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Genetically modified crops.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock/science photo</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Biotechnology is rapidly evolving through developments in <a href="http://feldan.com/news/a-beginners-guide-to-genome-editing/">genome editing</a> and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rD5uNAMbDaQ">synthetic biology</a>, giving birth to new forms of life. </p>
<p>This technology has already given us genetically modified (GM) plants that produce bacterial pesticides, GM mosquitos that are sterile and GM mice that develop human cancers.</p>
<p>Now, new biotechnological techniques are promising to deliver <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/welcome-to-the-crispr-zoo-1.19537">a whole host of new lifeforms</a> designed to serve our purposes – pigs with human organs, chickens that lay eggs containing cholesterol controlling drugs, and monkeys that develop autism. The possibilities seem endless. </p>
<p>But do these genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have conservation value? </p>
<p>The biodiversity of life on earth is <a href="https://www.cbd.int">globally recognised as valuable</a> and in need of protection. This includes not just wild biodiversity but also the biodiversity of agricultural crop plants that humans have developed over thousands of years. </p>
<p>But what about the synthetic forms of biodiversity we are now developing through biotechnologies? Does anyone care about this synbiodiversity?</p>
<p>It’s a question I was compelled to ask while conducting research into the Svalbard Global Seed Vault (<a href="http://biodiverseedy.com">SGSV</a>).</p>
<h2>A frozen ‘Noah’s Ark’ for seeds</h2>
<p>The SGSV is the global apex of agricultural biodiversity conservation, an approach to conservation where collections of diverse seed samples are kept in frozen storage in genebanks for future use by plant breeders.</p>
<p>The SGSV is a frozen cavern in a mountain on the arctic island of Svalbard, halfway between mainland Norway and the North Pole. It has been called a <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/3323301/Noahs-Ark-for-plants-to-store-worlds-seeds.html">Noah’s Ark for crop plants</a> (also the “<a href="http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/conservation/frozen-doomsday-vault-containing-almost-every-seed-on-earth-has-been-opened/news-story/9c38a4ae6e481315b05d6ddfe8648f6c">doomsday vault</a>”) because it is the place where genebanks from all around the world send backup copies of their seed collections for safe-keeping. </p>
<p>Here the seeds are sealed inside bags sealed inside boxes locked in a freezer locked in a mountain. They are sent there to be kept safe from the threats genebanks can face, such as energy shortages, natural disasters and war.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/144342/original/image-20161103-25322-1uqn7qq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/144342/original/image-20161103-25322-1uqn7qq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/144342/original/image-20161103-25322-1uqn7qq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/144342/original/image-20161103-25322-1uqn7qq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/144342/original/image-20161103-25322-1uqn7qq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/144342/original/image-20161103-25322-1uqn7qq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/144342/original/image-20161103-25322-1uqn7qq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/144342/original/image-20161103-25322-1uqn7qq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Svalbard Global Seed Vault.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/landbruks-_og_matdepartementet/4186766563/">Flickr/Landbruks og matdepartementet</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Seeds in the SGSV can only be accessed by the genebank that deposited them and only one withdrawal has been made so far, <a href="http://www.icarda.org/update/icarda%E2%80%99s-seed-retrieval-mission-svalbard-seed-vault#sthash.NDlVJRLR.dpbs">by researchers from the International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas</a> (<a href="http://www.icarda.org">ICARDA </a>) seeking to restore their collections after the destruction of Aleppo in war-torn Syria.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.croptrust.org/what-we-do/svalbard-global-seed-vault/">SGSV</a> is managed through a collaborative agreement between the Norwegian government, the <a href="https://www.croptrust.org">Crop Trust</a> and the Nordic Genetic Resource Center (<a href="http://www.nordgen.org/index.php/en/content/view/full/2/">NordGen</a>).</p>
<p>It opened in 2008 and <a href="http://www.nordgen.org/sgsv/">currently houses</a> 870,971 different samples of 5,340 species from 233 countries, deposited by 69 institutes.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/144343/original/image-20161103-25322-b0ukir.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/144343/original/image-20161103-25322-b0ukir.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/144343/original/image-20161103-25322-b0ukir.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/144343/original/image-20161103-25322-b0ukir.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/144343/original/image-20161103-25322-b0ukir.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/144343/original/image-20161103-25322-b0ukir.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/144343/original/image-20161103-25322-b0ukir.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/144343/original/image-20161103-25322-b0ukir.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Inside the frozen Svalbard Global Seed Vault.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/landbruks-_og_matdepartementet/25957064790/">Flickr/Landbruks og matdepartementet</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Are there any GMOs frozen in the vault?</h2>
<p>During my research into the SGSV I asked if it held any GM seeds.</p>
<p>Despite initially receiving conflicting responses, the formal answer was ultimately “no”. But different reasons were given for this and all are open to change. </p>
<h3>The vault is not a certified facility for GMO storage</h3>
<p>Facilities working with GMOs require certification to do so. </p>
<p>While the SGSV is not currently certified, it could be since requirements typically relate to ensuring strict containment and the SGSV is already oriented towards this goal.</p>
<p>Also, since no analysis of seeds is performed at the SGSV or required for deposits, the collections may actually be unintentionally (and unwittingly) contaminated. This is because a mixing with GM crops could have happened via seed or pollen flow before the material was sent to the vault. </p>
<h3>There is no political will to include GM crops</h3>
<p>Currently, no one in the SGSV management wants to become (any further) entangled in the controversy surrounding GM crops.</p>
<p>They already face what they see as false conjectures about the role of the biotechnology industry (fuelled no doubt by the fact that organisations involved in the biotechnology industry have <a href="https://www.croptrust.org/about-crop-trust/donors/">donated funds to the Crop Trust</a>).</p>
<p>Several of the depositing genebanks also <a href="http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/abdc/documents/cgiar.pdf">actively support biotechnology research</a>. Therefore, if they wanted to store GMOs in the future, the will to seek certification may certainly change. </p>
<p>Norway has a <a href="https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/gene-technology-act/id173031/">strict GMO policy</a> that requires not just evidence of safety but also of social utility and contribution to sustainable development. This means no GM crop has yet been approved for either cultivation or import.</p>
<p>But this is currently being challenged by a government committed to speeding up assessments and advocating for weakened interpretations of the law. This further indicates the potential for political will to change.</p>
<h3>GM crops do not meet the requirements for multilateral access</h3>
<p>The <a href="http://www.fao.org/plant-treaty/en/">International Plant Treaty</a> is a crucial foundation for the SGSV. As such, depositing genebanks are required to agree to multilateral access to their collections if they wish to deposit backup copies in the SGSV.</p>
<p>But GM crops are not freely accessible to all as part of the common heritage of humanity. They are patented inventions owned by those claiming to have created them. The SGSV requirement that deposits be available for multilateral access <a href="http://www.nordgen.org/sgsv/scope/sgsv/files/SGSV_Deposit_Agreement_until150101.pdf">can be waived</a> though. </p>
<p>But if GM crops are not in the SGSV, should they be? </p>
<h2>Do GMOs have conservation value?</h2>
<p>Very little work has examined the moral status and conservation value of GM crops. </p>
<p>As the fields of genome editing and synthetic biology are now undergoing rapid development though, we have an important opportunity to consider how we relate to biotechnological forms of biodiversity. We can also think about whether it might be possible to <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10806-016-9634-7">navigate through syn- to symbiodiversity</a>. </p>
<p>That is, instead of focusing on these life forms as synthetic human inventions, we could begin to think about them as co-creations of human-nature interactions. In doing so, we may then shift the focus away from how to make synthetic organisms to satisfy our needs and place more emphasis on how to interact with other life forms to establish symbiotic relations of mutual benefit. </p>
<p>The French sociologist of science and anthropologist Bruno Latour has urged us to <a href="http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/journal/past-issues/issue-2/love-your-monsters">love our monsters</a>, to take responsibility for our technologies and care for them as our children. </p>
<p>Certainly it seems fair to argue that if we don’t care for our biotechnological co-creations with a sense of (parental) responsibility, perhaps we shouldn’t be bringing them to life. </p>
<h2>How do we care for GM crops?</h2>
<p>The model of freezing seeds in genebanks and backing up those collections at the SGSV is one way to conserve biodiversity. Another, however, is the approach of continuing to cultivate them in our agricultural landscapes. </p>
<p>While this model of conservation has generated and maintained the biodiversity of traditional crop varieties for thousands of years, there is now a significant shift taking place. <a href="http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5609e/y5609e02.htm">More than 90% of traditional crop varieties</a> have now disappeared from our fields and been replaced by genetically uniform modern varieties cultivated in large-scale monocultures. Meaning, there may be no GM crops frozen in the SGSV, but there are plenty in the ground. </p>
<p>So this leaves me questioning what it is we really cherish? Are we using our precious agricultural resources to expand the diversity of humanity’s common heritage?</p>
<p>Or are we rather placing our common heritage on ice while we expand the ecological space occupied by privately owned inventions? And who cares about synbiodiversity anyway?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/66508/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Fern Wickson receives funding from the Research Council of Norway and the European Commission. </span></em></p>Genome editing and synthetic biology are giving rise to new forms of life. But do these organisms have conservation value as part of earth’s biodiversity?Fern Wickson, Senior Scientist & Program Coordinator, GenØk - Centre for BiosafetyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/595642016-06-03T01:02:21Z2016-06-03T01:02:21ZMoving beyond pro/con debates over genetically engineered crops<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124694/original/image-20160601-1425-1v3ghax.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Field tests of flood-tolerant 'scuba rice.'</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/ricephotos/9203724733/in/photolist-afTW1Z-f2iuHc-73nSmq-77bi3g-bAzz6P-dbSJ5C-9y4Bmy-uv8LUu">International Rice Research Institute/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Since the 1980s biologists have used genetic engineering to express novel traits in crop plants. Over the last 20 years, these crops have been grown on more than one billion acres in the United States and globally. Despite their rapid adoption by farmers, genetically engineered (GE) crops remain controversial among many consumers, who have sometimes found it hard to obtain accurate information. </p>
<p>Last month the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine released a <a href="https://nas-sites.org/ge-crops/">review</a> of 20 years of data regarding GE crops. The report largely confirms findings from <a href="https://nas-sites.org/ge-crops/2014/06/05/related-reports/">previous National Academies reports</a> and reviews produced by other major scientific organizations around the world, including the <a href="http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/">World Health Organization</a> and the <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf">European Commission</a>. </p>
<p>I direct a <a href="http://www.cropgeneticsinnovation.org/">laboratory</a> that studies rice, a staple food crop for half the world’s people. Researchers in my lab are identifying genes that control tolerance to environmental stress and resistance to disease. We use genetic engineering and other genetic methods to understand gene function. </p>
<p>I strongly agree with the NAS report that each crop, whether bred conventionally or developed through genetic engineering, should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Every crop is different, each trait is different and the needs of each farmer are different too. More progress in crop improvement can be made by using both conventional breeding and genetic engineering than using either approach alone.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124704/original/image-20160601-1955-1afxcez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124704/original/image-20160601-1955-1afxcez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=390&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124704/original/image-20160601-1955-1afxcez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=390&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124704/original/image-20160601-1955-1afxcez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=390&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124704/original/image-20160601-1955-1afxcez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=490&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124704/original/image-20160601-1955-1afxcez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=490&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124704/original/image-20160601-1955-1afxcez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=490&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Modern cultivated corn was domesticated from teosinte, an ancient grass, over more than 6,000 years through conventional breeding.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_images.jsp?cntn_id=104207&org=NSF">Nicole Rager Fuller, National Science Foundation</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Convergence between biotech and conventional breeding</h2>
<p>New molecular tools are blurring the distinction between genetic improvements made with conventional breeding and those made with modern genetic methods. One example is marker assisted breeding, in which geneticists identify genes or chromosomal regions associated with traits desired by farmers and/or consumers. Researchers then look for particular markers (patterns) in a plant’s DNA that are associated with these genes. Using these genetic markers, they can efficiently identify plants carrying the desired genetic fingerprints and eliminate plants with undesirable genetics. </p>
<p>Ten years ago my collaborators and I isolated <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature04920">a gene, called Sub1</a>, that controls tolerance to flooding. Million of rice farmers in South and Southeast Asia grow rice in flood prone regions, so this trait is extremely valuable. Most varieties of rice will die after three days of complete submergence but plants with the Sub1 gene can withstand two weeks of complete submergence. Last year, nearly five million farmers grew Sub1 rice varieties developed by my collaborators at the <a href="http://irri.org/">International Rice Research Institute</a> using marker assisted breeding.</p>
<p>In another example, researchers identified genetic variants that are associated with hornlessness (referred to as “polled”) in cattle – a trait that is common in beef breeds but rare in dairy breeds. Farmers routinely dehorn dairy cattle to protect their handlers and prevent the animals from harming each other. Because this process is painful and frightening for the animals, <a href="https://www.avma.org/KB/Policies/Pages/Castration-and-Dehorning-of-Cattle.aspx">veterinary experts</a> have called for research into alternative options.</p>
<p>In a <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3560">study</a> published last month, scientists used genome editing and reproductive cloning to produce dairy cows that carried a naturally occurring mutation for hornlessness. This approach has the potential to improve the welfare of millions of cattle each year.</p>
<h2>Reducing chemical insecticides and enhancing yield</h2>
<p>In assessing how GE crops affect crop productivity, human health and the environment, the NAS study primarily focused on two traits that have been engineered into plants: resistance to insect pests and tolerance of herbicides. </p>
<p>The study found that farmers who planted crops engineered to contain the insect-resistant trait – based on genes from the bacterium <em>Bacillus thuringiensis</em>, or Bt – generally experienced fewer losses and applied fewer chemical insecticide sprays than farmers who planted non-Bt varieties. It also concluded that farms where Bt crops were planted had more insect biodiversity than farms where growers used broad-spectrum insecticides on conventional crops. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124852/original/image-20160601-1943-fpfb7g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124852/original/image-20160601-1943-fpfb7g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=351&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124852/original/image-20160601-1943-fpfb7g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=351&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124852/original/image-20160601-1943-fpfb7g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=351&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124852/original/image-20160601-1943-fpfb7g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=441&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124852/original/image-20160601-1943-fpfb7g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=441&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124852/original/image-20160601-1943-fpfb7g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=441&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Genetically modified crops currently grown in the United States (IR=insect resistant, HT=herbicide tolerant, DT=drought tolerant, VR=virus resistant).</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://extension.colostate.edu/topic-areas/agriculture/genetically-modified-gm-crops-techniques-and-applications-0-710/">Colorado State University Extension</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The committee found that herbicide-resistant (HR) crops contribute to greater yields because weeds can be controlled more easily. For example, farmers that planted HR canola reaped greater yields and returns, which led to wide adoption of this crop variety. </p>
<p>Another benefit of planting of HR crops is reduced tillage – the process of turning the soil. Before planting, farmers must kill the weeds in their fields. Before the advent of herbicides and HR crops, farmers controlled weeds by tilling. However, tilling causes erosion and runoff, and requires energy to fuel the tractors. Many farmers prefer reduced tillage practices because they enhance sustainable management. With HR crops, farmers can control weeds effectively without tilling. </p>
<p>The committee noted a clear association between the planting of HR crops and reduced-till agricultural practices over the last two decades. However, it is unclear if the adoption of HR crops resulted in decisions by farmers to use conservation tillage, or if farmers who were using conservation tillage adopted HR crops more readily.</p>
<p>In areas where planting of HR crops led to heavy reliance on the herbicide glyphosate, some weeds evolved resistance to the herbicide, making it difficult for farmers to control weeds using this herbicide. The NAS report concluded that sustainable use of Bt and HR crops will require use of <a href="https://www.epa.gov/managing-pests-schools/introduction-integrated-pest-management">integrated pest management strategies</a>. </p>
<p>The report also discusses seven other GE food crops grown in 2015, including apple (<em>Malus domestica</em>), canola (<em>Brassica napus</em>), sugar beet (<em>Beta vulgaris</em>), papaya (<em>Carica papaya</em>), potato, squash (<em>Cucurbita pepo</em>) and eggplant (<em>Solanum melongena</em>). </p>
<p>Papaya is a particularly important example. In the 1950s, papaya ringspot virus wiped out nearly all papaya production on the Hawaiian island of Oahu. As the virus spread to other islands, many farmers feared that it would wipe out the Hawaiian papaya crop. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124854/original/image-20160601-1425-wyxz7d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124854/original/image-20160601-1425-wyxz7d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124854/original/image-20160601-1425-wyxz7d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124854/original/image-20160601-1425-wyxz7d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124854/original/image-20160601-1425-wyxz7d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=507&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124854/original/image-20160601-1425-wyxz7d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=507&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124854/original/image-20160601-1425-wyxz7d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=507&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Papaya infected with ringspot virus.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/scotnelson/5681077107/in/photolist-9E4VGu-r5tSJK-9E22DT-pcrCVd-peSWEi-9TvjyV-9E21ii-9TyaqA-9TvjKa-9E21oR-9E4V9L-nebFBZ-og5rNM-nebYHJ-pfWd1W-FL2ujx-9E21uD-9E4VZA-9TvjGF-yVpSFH-9E4UDh-9E4UwS-9E4UKm-FEasxn-9TvjJg-qnSQFu-Ai8Lnm-9E22tv-9E4UTy-9E219a-9E4UZY-wpcb1n-wYHSbx-A2HwF9-Ah2E6L-vHM2mi-vZCYc5-zpBqR5-A54833-qRJN5f-syUv1x-shmYZN-swD3Bs-9E4TVo-znTbzD-cNNCAS-D9UBYa-oxEBJF-ovGKvm-w267Pq">Scot Nelson/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In 1998 Hawaiian plant pathologist <a href="http://hawaiitribune-herald.com/sections/news/local-news/papaya-gmo-success-story.html">Dennis Gonsalves</a> used genetic engineering to splice a small snippet of ringspot virus DNA into the papaya genome. The resulting genetically engineered papaya trees were immune to infection and produced 10-20 fold more fruit than infected crops. Dennis’ pioneering work <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1999/07/20/science/stalked-by-deadly-virus-papaya-lives-to-breed-again.html?pagewanted=all">rescued the papaya industry</a>. Twenty years later, this is still the <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PHI-I-2010-1004-01">only method</a> for controlling papaya ringspot virus. Today, despite <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/us/on-hawaii-a-lonely-quest-for-facts-about-gmos.html?_r=0">protests by some consumers</a>, 80 percent of the Hawaiian papaya crop is genetically engineered. </p>
<p>Scientists have also used genetic engineering to combat a pest called the fruit and shoot borer, which preys on eggplant in Asia. Farmers in Bangladesh often spray insecticides every 2-3 days, and sometimes as often as twice daily, to control it. The World Health Organization <a href="http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide/en/PesticidesHealth2.pdf">estimates</a> that some three million cases of pesticide poisoning and over than 250,000 deaths occur worldwide every year. </p>
<p>To reduce chemical sprays on eggplant, scientists at Cornell University and in Bangladesh engineered Bt into the eggplant genome. Bt <em>brinjal</em> (eggplant) was introduced in Bangladesh in 2013. Last year <a href="http://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/bt-brinjal-beyond-boundaries">108 Bangladeshi farmers grew it</a> and were able to drastically reduce insecticides sprays. </p>
<h2>Feed the world in an ecologically based manner</h2>
<p>Genetically improved crops have benefited many farmers, but it is clear that genetic improvement alone cannot address the wide variety of complex challenges that farmers face. Ecologically based farming approaches as well as infrastructure and appropriate policies are also needed. </p>
<p>Instead of worrying about the genes in our food, we need to focus on ways to help families, farmers and rural communities thrive. We must be sure that everyone can afford the food and we must minimize environmental degradation. I hope that the NAS report can help move the discussions beyond distracting pro/con arguments about GE crops and refocus them on using every appropriate technology to feed the world in an ecologically based manner.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/59564/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Pamela Ronald is a professor in the dept of Plant Pathology and the Genome Center at UC Davis. She also serves as Director of Grass Genetics at the Joint Bioenergy Institute. She serves on the scientific advisory board of the non profit Boyce Thompson institute and the non profit Donald Danforth Center. She lectures widely and occasionally receives speaking fees. Her speaking schedule is listed here: <a href="http://www.cropgeneticsinnovation.org/speaking-schedule-and-recent-apeearances/">http://www.cropgeneticsinnovation.org/speaking-schedule-and-recent-apeearances/</a>. She is coauthor of "Tomorrows Table: Organic Farming, Genetics and the Future of Food. Twenty years ago she received research funding from Monsanto to study the genetic basis of disease resistance in rice.</span></em></p>Advocates have argued for years about whether genetically engineered crops are safe to grow and eat. Plant pathologist and geneticist Pamela Ronald calls for a more nuanced discussion.Pamela Ronald, Professor of Plant Pathology, University of California, DavisLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/592892016-05-17T22:36:27Z2016-05-17T22:36:27ZNew report on GE crops avoids simple answers – and that’s the point, study members say<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/122891/original/image-20160517-9487-2d6068.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-408837589/stock-photo-scientist-research-genetic-improvement-jasmine-rice-in-lab.html?src=7HMh4Dc6vOfwNY6F1BagdA-1-38">from www.shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Editor’s note: In a <a href="http://www.nap.edu/catalog/23395/genetically-engineered-crops-experiences-and-prospects">new report</a>, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine have provided a broad review of available information on genetically engineered (GE) crops and their impacts on the environment and human health.</em></p>
<p><em>The study, produced by a <a href="http://www.nap.edu/read/23395/chapter/1#v">committee of 20 experts</a> from diverse fields, found “no conclusive evidence of cause-and-effect relationships between GE crops and environmental problems,” such as reduced biodiversity in areas where GE crops are planted. Similarly, it found “no substantiated evidence” that foods from GE crops are less safe than foods from non-GE crops.</em> </p>
<p><em>However, the report also concluded that although planting crops engineered to resist pests and/or herbicides generally has paid off economically for farmers, damaging levels of resistance have evolved in some targeted pests and weeds. And it found that regulations governing GE crops in some countries, including the United States, should be updated to reflect advances in genetic engineering.</em></p>
<p><em>Here we offer perspectives from three members of the study committee. Their comments underline a major theme of the report: discussions about GE crops need to move past broad pro/con statements and address the complexities of this fast-evolving field.</em></p>
<hr>
<h2>Peter Kareiva</h2>
<p><strong>Director, Institute of the Environment and Sustainability, University of California, Los Angeles</strong></p>
<p>There is no denying the impassioned public controversy surrounding GE crops and food. Somehow, the scientific community has been largely caught off guard by this debate – perhaps by not fully appreciating how deeply people relate to their food and how it is produced. </p>
<p>Given the swirl of public misgivings, I am proud of what is a profoundly sensible report, and a process that really listened to the public. Our committee held three public meetings and heard from 80 invited speakers. We received over 700 public comments and read every one of them. We trudged our way through hundreds of published scientific articles. </p>
<p>I know many people want a definitive unqualified “thumbs up” or thumbs down" from our committee. They are not going to find it in this report. Because GE crops are developed in so many different ways, with so many different traits, and in so many different plant species or varieties, we cannot give a one-size-fits-all verdict. Hoping for a simple yes or no in this matter is akin to expecting a committee of experts to conclude “men are good” or “men are bad.” However, setting aside absolutes, we can say some things that should be useful to the public dialogue.</p>
<p>The adoption of GE crops has yielded generally positive economic benefits (but not always), and in some cases clear environmental benefits. For instance, the widespread planting of crops with insect-resistant traits has reduced the spraying of insecticides. While there is some evidence of yield increases due to GE crops when simultaneous field-to-field comparisons are made, it is hard to attribute global improvements in crop production to GE technology at a time when many aspects of the farming system are changing, and when conventional breeding is also making improvements. </p>
<p>Many people worry that GE foods may have adverse effects on human health. I personally found this literature challenging (it is not my field) and fascinating. We went back to original studies in which animals were fed GE foods, and also looked at epidemiological data for humans. We found no solid evidence that foods from GE crops were less safe than foods from non-GE crops. </p>
<p>Promises have been made about GE crops addressing world hunger. GE crops alone cannot do this, and there are major challenges in fitting them into local environments, averting the evolution of resistance in the case of anti-pest modifications, and making GE seeds available and helpful to smallholders (small farmers). </p>
<p>Emerging technologies and new traits may hold great future promise. For example, research is underway around the world to develop crops that use nutrients more efficiently and increase their drought tolerance and disease resistance. It is too early, however, to predict what results will come from this work.</p>
<p>Continued regulatory vigilance is warranted. Any new crop variety with novel traits – whether genetically engineered or conventionally bred – should be subjected to safety testing, but in a tiered fashion so that testing is directed where it is most needed. Our report calls for increased transparency and public participation, and as a researcher in the field I personally hope that it catalyzes the establishment of open data bases tracking GE adoption and impacts.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/122897/original/image-20160517-9491-7ghfva.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/122897/original/image-20160517-9491-7ghfva.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122897/original/image-20160517-9491-7ghfva.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122897/original/image-20160517-9491-7ghfva.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122897/original/image-20160517-9491-7ghfva.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=603&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122897/original/image-20160517-9491-7ghfva.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=603&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122897/original/image-20160517-9491-7ghfva.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=603&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Adoption of insect-resistant (Bt) and herbicide-tolerant (Ht) crops in the United States.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-us/recent-trends-in-ge-adoption.aspx">U.S. Department of Agriculture</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<h2>Leland Glenna</h2>
<p><strong>Associate Professor of Rural Sociology and Science, Technology, and Society, Pennsylvania State University</strong></p>
<p>There are several valuable insights in this report. It avoids making simplistic and authoritative pronouncements about GE crop technologies. People should avoid viewing GE crops as a single thing that is either beneficial or harmful. </p>
<p>Herbicide-resistant, insect-resistant and virus-resistant crops, for example, are three very different technologies and have had different social, economic and environmental impacts. New and emerging technologies and applications, such as <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/crispr-the-disruptor-1.17673">CRISPR-Cas9</a>, add further nuance and complexity. </p>
<p>As a sociologist, I think the report’s most important finding is that the social and economic effects of GE crops will vary by the type of GE crop developed, the economic and environmental contexts of the farms that adopt them, and the social and economic contexts. For example, studies show that benefits to small-scale farmers in developing countries from planting <em>Bt</em> (insect-resistant) cotton <a href="http://www.nap.edu/read/23395/chapter/8#183">have varied widely</a>, depending on factors including seed prices, availability of credit and farmers’ access to markets. </p>
<p>It is very important to avoid thinking about GE crop controversies as two groups of people pitted against each other – one group in favor, the other against – or that GE crops are either good or bad. Many perspectives are relevant, and GE crop technologies are complex and varied. </p>
<p>These technologies and applications are changing very quickly, and I found myself hustling to comprehend those changes as a participant in this study. But I learned something more profound in the process. New knowledge emerges when people from different disciplines and subdisciplines exchange their research and expertise in an engaging and constructive way. The <a href="http://nas-sites.org/ge-crops/category/pastevents/public-meetings/">public presentations and public comments</a> that the National Academy organized in connection with this report stimulated our research and discussions. As a result, the report represents something more than the sum of its parts. </p>
<p>I sincerely hope that this study expands the conversation beyond technological determinism and the tired, old, two-sides-to-every-argument approach to discussing GE crops. It is common for GE crops to be portrayed either as solutions to social and economic problems or as causes of them. GE crops are also commonly presented as though there were only two sides to this debate: either you are for it or against it. </p>
<p>New technologies bring both promises and perils, and aspects that are promising to some people are perilous to others. The report makes it very clear that assessing the experiences of and prospects for GE crops is about more than merely evaluating technical risks. Legal, economic, social, cultural and individual factors are also relevant. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/122895/original/image-20160517-9476-18q12b0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/122895/original/image-20160517-9476-18q12b0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=459&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122895/original/image-20160517-9476-18q12b0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=459&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122895/original/image-20160517-9476-18q12b0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=459&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122895/original/image-20160517-9476-18q12b0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=577&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122895/original/image-20160517-9476-18q12b0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=577&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122895/original/image-20160517-9476-18q12b0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=577&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Protest against GE Crops.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/infomatique/17910597440/in/photolist-9U1cDu-6WEnKJ-tznDmP-thQc5M-thGwiJ-sCs7ZP-tzhGug-tzhE3H-sCgzFs-twWNFN-tznsPM-thFqMU-thGuC9-thFkqw-tyZ2aA-thGyxd-tzhEhF-thQ5Wz-tyYUX5-twWNrQ-etSuxf-etPeEz-etPmN2-gKx6Kk-thFrMu-7TXhXi-etSBLo-6kUJaL-etSAyC-92uJmR-quKZPq-8RXn3m-gKw5LR-9FQtS6-9FQukH-rnpyxQ-YvDZU-CgscWj-tzny4V-tzhz2R-thGxxY-tznAPe-tyYWey-tznwYZ-thGwJJ-thQ1or-thGzRq-tznz1z-tyWYHj-x1xptS">William Murphy/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<h2>Michael A. Gallo</h2>
<p><strong>Emeritus Professor of Environmental and Occupational Medicine, Rutgers University</strong></p>
<p>As a toxicologist, my major concerns with respect to GE crops are impacts on human and animal health. We reviewed approximately 400 to 500 studies, starting from before genetically modified organisms were commercialized. Our general conclusion was that the GE crops tested were no more harmful than non-GE versions.</p>
<p>Many of these studies evaluated animals through their lives and then did <a href="https://www.rcpath.org/discover-pathology/i-want-a-career-studying/human-tissue/histopathology-careers.html">histopathology</a> and clinical chemistry workups on most of the animals’ organs. In almost every case, the range of changes they found, in animals fed GE and non-GE foods, were within normal ranges. Studies done on pigs were especially interesting because pigs are physiologically similar to humans in many ways. Many studies have been done, but they have not found significant differences between pigs fed GE and non-GE foods.</p>
<p>We also reviewed numerous human health studies. For example, we looked for associations between GE crops and the incidence of various types of cancer by reviewing epidemiological studies that were conducted by the National Institutes of Health. There is no obvious correlation or association between cancer incidence and the introduction of GE crops in the United States. </p>
<p>To look for connections with digestive diseases, especially <a href="http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/celiac-disease/basics/definition/con-20030410">celiac</a> – an immune reaction to eating gluten, a protein found in wheat, barley and rye – we consulted a large database at the Mayo Clinic. Celiac disease is on the rise in the United States, but again, we found no discernible connection with the introduction of GE foods. It’s <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/health-27339919">also on the rise in the United Kingdom</a>, where people do not typically eat GE foods.</p>
<p>We recommend more public funding for follow-up studies in areas where early studies produced ambiguous results. This is often an issue in studies where the sample sizes are relatively small. We need public support to develop better toxicological methods in general, for both GE and non-GE foods. Our approach should be that if a food is novel, you test it. <a href="http://www.nap.edu/read/23395/chapter/11#322">That’s how Canada regulates food</a>, and it’s the approach that this report recommends. Test the product, not the process that created it.</p>
<p>I would like to see this report move the discussion away from polemics. It’s a living document. People should look at the <a href="http://nas-sites.org/ge-crops/">website</a> and <a href="http://nas-sites.org/ge-crops/2014/06/15/provide-comments/">contribute their ideas.</a> Let’s have a discussion about these issues.</p>
<hr><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/59289/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Kareiva has received funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the National Science Foundation. He is currently senior science advisor to the President of The Nature Conservancy, in addition to his faculty appointment at UCLA. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Leland Glenna has received funding from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and the Africa Rice Center.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael A. Gallo has received funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the National Institutes of Health.</span></em></p>Are genetically engineered crops safe for human health and the environment? A new report says yes but points out problems and regulatory gaps. Three members of the study panel offer their takeaways.Peter Kareiva, Director, Institute of the Environment and Sustainability, University of California, Los AngelesLeland Glenna, Associate Professor of Rural Sociology and Science, Technology, and Society, Penn StateMichael A. Gallo, Emeritus Professor of Environmental and Occupational Medicine, Rutgers UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/547952016-02-16T16:45:37Z2016-02-16T16:45:37ZScientists report breakthrough in the quest for obese plants<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/111673/original/image-20160216-19245-x7su0a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/jennifrog/57252925/">Jenny Mealing</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Unlike us, plants have ample self-control when it comes to choosing how much they eat. Ironically, as humanity struggles with an obesity epidemic, plant breeders are trying to make crops eat more.</p>
<p>When you see a field of wheat in summer, the spikes of grain rippling gracefully in the breeze, you probably won’t have guessed that the plants are fat. Yet, compared to the wild grasses they are bred from, the ears of modern cereal plants are grotesquely obese. They have larger and more numerous grain, laden with vast reserves of starch, way in excess of what they actually need. This excess weight is our food.</p>
<p>With year-on-year gains from conventional breeding <a href="http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v3/n12/full/ncomms2296.html">beginning to peter out</a> and an ever-expanding human population to feed, the race is on to find new ways to persuade plants to put on <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-we-wont-be-able-to-feed-the-world-without-gm-54442">even more weight</a>. And it turns out that an effective way to do this is to interfere with the signalling systems that control the rate at which plants synthesise their food.</p>
<h2>Appetite control systems</h2>
<p>For plants, “food” means carbon dioxide from the atmosphere which they turn into sugars by photosynthesis, and nitrates in the soil which are metabolised to form amino acids. Plants then monitor the concentration of sugars and amino acids in their tissues and grow more rapidly when they “sense” that food is available. This is a “feed-forward” control system.</p>
<p>But that’s not the whole story. Plants also have genetically programmed limits on growth. These limits ensure they produce the right tissues, of the right size, at the right time. They also stop the plant trying to grow when it is damaging to do so, for example when the weather turns bad. </p>
<p>When a plant comes up against its growth limits, food begins to accumulate and this generates a “feedback” signal causing the plant to turn down the food production systems. Effectively the plant realises it is full and stops eating.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/111674/original/image-20160216-19232-z8mzya.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/111674/original/image-20160216-19232-z8mzya.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111674/original/image-20160216-19232-z8mzya.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111674/original/image-20160216-19232-z8mzya.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111674/original/image-20160216-19232-z8mzya.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111674/original/image-20160216-19232-z8mzya.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111674/original/image-20160216-19232-z8mzya.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Obese – at least compared to wild wheat.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/mprinke/2733009302/">m.prinke</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But what if we could tweak the controls? Could we then make crops even more obese? Experiments with the sugar control system suggests that the answer is a resounding yes. </p>
<p>A team of researchers from agrochemists Syngenta and <a href="http://www.rothamsted.ac.uk/">Rothamsted Research</a> made a single genetic modification to maize plants to prevent the accumulation of trehalose-6-phosphate, a key sugar monitored by the plant. Essentially, the plants were tricked into “thinking” that they were not producing enough sugar and as a result <a href="http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v33/n8/abs/nbt.3277.html">they increased production</a>. This, in turn, seems to have triggered the feed-forward system because the genetically-modified plants produced up to 50% more grain in well-watered conditions and outperformed unmodified plants by 123% in drought conditions.</p>
<h2>Gorging on nitrogen</h2>
<p>If the same changes could be engineered for the nitrogen control system, then not only might we achieve even higher yields, but we could also address the agricultural run-off problem at the same time. <a href="https://www.agindustries.org.uk/latest-documents/aic-fertiliser-statistics-report-2015/">Millions of tonnes</a> of nitrate fertiliser are applied to fields every year but much of it remains unconsumed by crops. And when it rains, the excess runs off the fields, <a href="https://theconversation.com/agricultures-hunger-for-nitrogen-oversteps-planetary-boundaries-10182">polluting nearby rivers and lakes</a>.</p>
<p>The difficulty is that, despite decades of research, the signalling system that underpins nitrogen appetite control has remained something of a mystery.</p>
<p>Until now. In a study recently published in <a href="http://www.plantcell.org/content/early/2016/02/08/tpc.15.01033.abstract">Plant Cell</a>, a Swiss-German team describe how they uncovered part of the system lurking in a surprising place. </p>
<p>Quite by accident, they found out that a specific form of vitamin B6 (known as a vitamer) tells the plant when it is full of nitrogen. The first clue was that the vitamer accumulates in plants in parallel with ammonium, one of the immediate products of nitrate metabolism. The second was that plants with unusually high amounts of the vitamer had impaired growth that could be overcome by supplying ammonium. </p>
<p>Although not all the details are yet clear, the most telling observation was that the accumulation of the specific B6 vitamer led to the nitrate metabolism system being turned down – it works as an appetite control system.</p>
<h2>Evolutionary mismatch</h2>
<p>Perhaps the main reason we are having to retune the settings on the appetite systems of crop plants is that they are held back by their evolutionary history. The grass species that were domesticated to form cereal crops such as maize, rice and wheat are likely to have grown in poor soils – and plants that have adapted to such soils generally have conservative food strategies. This means they take up only as much as they need to grow and produce seed for the next generation. So it’s not surprising that when we throw nitrogen fertiliser at their cultivated descendants, they don’t gorge themselves on the unexpected feast.</p>
<p>A mismatch between evolutionary history and modern conditions is also behind the human obesity epidemic. Just as with crops, the solution could lie in tweaking appetite systems; we just need to work out how to go in the opposite direction.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/54795/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lee Sweetlove receives funding from BBSRC. </span></em></p>We can tweak levels of a special vitamin that acts as an appetite control system.Lee Sweetlove, Professor of Plant Sciences, University of OxfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/539062016-02-05T04:26:47Z2016-02-05T04:26:47ZLessons to be learnt from Burkina Faso’s decision to drop GM cotton<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/110288/original/image-20160204-3024-1lqxxqa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Bt cotton is the most widely grown GM crop by poor farmers in Africa.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The thorny topic of genetically modified (GM) crops was recently thrust into the global spotlight again. Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, <a href="http://www.wsj.com/video/bill-gates-gmos-will-end-starvation-in-africa/3085A8D1-BB58-4CAA-9394-E567033434A4.html">Bill Gates</a> said that GM crops are a necessary tool to fight hunger and poverty in Africa.</p>
<p>But something Gates did not discuss was the news that the largest and most significant African adopter of GM crops – Burkina Faso – recently began a <a href="http://afraf.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/01/04/afraf.adv063.extract">phase out</a> of Bt cotton. Bt cotton is the most <a href="http://isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/49/executivesummary/default.asp">widely grown GM crop</a> by poor farmers in Africa.</p>
<p>Why would Burkina Faso, a nation that struggles with hunger and poverty, turn its back on the very tools Gates and others so ardently support?</p>
<h2>How Burkina Faso came to be an early adopter</h2>
<p>In 2003 Burkina Faso became one of the first African countries to begin field trials of Bt cotton. This was done in partnership with the agriculture company <a href="https://www.google.co.za/search?q=Monsanto&oq=Monsanto&aqs=chrome..69i57.218j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8">Monsanto</a>. Bt refers to a toxin – <em>Bacillus thuringiensis</em> – that kills one of the world’s most common and pernicious cotton pests, the <a href="http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/r114300511.html">bollworm</a>. Monsanto agreed to backcross the Bt gene onto local Burkinabè varieties, which were subsequently released to farmers in 2008. </p>
<p>Burkina Faso’s adoption of Bt cotton made big news. Not only is Burkina Faso consistently one of Africa’s <a href="http://en.starafrica.com/news/burkina-faso-is-africas-leading-cotton-producer.html">largest cotton producers</a>, but cotton is also seen as the <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03066150.2013.824425?journalCode=fjps20#.VrI-GTYrI6g">engine driving rural development</a> throughout large parts of the country. </p>
<p>The introduction of Bt cotton has reportedly <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/burkina-cotton-production-idUSL5N0B0G2W20130131">boosted total cotton production</a>. In 2014, Burkina Faso had the largest number of total GM crop producers on the African continent. It has <a href="https://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/biotech_country_facts_and_trends/download/Facts%20and%20Trends%20-%20Burkina%20Faso.pdf">more than 140,000</a> smallholder farmers cultivating Bt cotton.</p>
<p>Burkina Faso’s success story has been <a href="http://www.brookings.edu/%7E/media/Research/Files/Reports/2014/foresight-africa-2014/06-foresight-african-agriculture-juma-gordon.pdf?la=en">celebrated</a> as an example of how GM crops can help poor farmers. Many farmers have enthusiastically adopted the technology, and for good reason. <a href="http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-55262-5_11">Studies</a> show that Bt cotton has increased yields and profits. The average Bt cotton farming family gained 50% more profit than from conventional cotton. This is despite the <a href="http://pdj.sagepub.com/content/11/1/63.short">very high cost</a> of Bt cotton seed.</p>
<p>Bt cotton growers also use <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016718513000456">significantly less pesticide</a>. The total number of sprayings has gone down from six to two, reducing exposure of damaging chemicals and saving valuable labour time.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/110289/original/image-20160204-2993-q5ufek.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/110289/original/image-20160204-2993-q5ufek.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/110289/original/image-20160204-2993-q5ufek.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110289/original/image-20160204-2993-q5ufek.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110289/original/image-20160204-2993-q5ufek.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110289/original/image-20160204-2993-q5ufek.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110289/original/image-20160204-2993-q5ufek.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110289/original/image-20160204-2993-q5ufek.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Cotton companies in Burkina Faso are not impressed with the quality of cotton produced from GM cotton crops.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Why the reversal</h2>
<p>But Bt cotton hasn’t been a blessing for everyone. </p>
<p>The inferior lint <a href="http://afraf.oxfordjournals.org/content/115/458/161.short">quality</a> of Bt cotton has caused severe economic losses for Burkinabè cotton companies. This has prompted a complete phase out of all Bt cotton production over the next two years. Company officials and Monsanto representatives cite two problems with lint quality. </p>
<ol>
<li><p>Bt varietals produce shorter, less desirable lint. The shorter length means poorer quality, which in turn means a lower price on the international market. </p></li>
<li><p>Even though cotton yields are up, the amount machines are able to extract from the picked cotton has diminished. In other words, Bt cotton produces both less cotton lint, and lint of an inferior quality.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Inferior lint quality is not a big deterrent for farmers, who sell their cotton at a guaranteed price to the cotton companies. But it is a critical issue for the companies themselves. The combination of shorter staples and lower lint quantities substantially undermines profits. </p>
<p>These cotton companies also control the provision of seeds and inputs to farmers and were able to unilaterally phase out Bt cotton. This is much to the dismay of many Bt cotton farmers.</p>
<h2>Complex debates</h2>
<p>The story of Bt cotton in Burkina Faso underlines the complex nature of debates around the potential for GM crops to help poor farmers. In this case the technology does what it is supposed to do: confers pest resistance, reduces pesticide use and increases yield. Many farmers like it, and want more of it. </p>
<p>But an unexplained impact on staple length means the cotton companies are shifting away from this technology. This technical hurdle will need to be overcome for Bt cotton to continue as a success story in Burkina Faso.</p>
<p>Burkina Faso’s reversal on GM cotton also raises some worrying questions for the future of GM crops on the continent. Will different GM crops also have unintended and detrimental consequences? Can the institutions and companies in charge of their development be trusted to transparently show both the pros and cons to their adoption?</p>
<p>This case also calls into question the philosophy behind GM crop introductions – that genetically engineered scientific breeding programmes can address farmer needs. </p>
<p>The Burkina Faso case demonstrates the perils of such a narrow, trait specific approach to addressing agricultural development. Sometimes focusing on a single trait – in this case pest resistance – can have unintended and harmful consequences for other important traits – in this case, cotton quality.</p>
<p>At Davos, Gates said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Africans I think will choose to let their people have enough to eat.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This suggested that the inevitable advance of GM crops across the continent. Meanwhile, after several years of producing GM crops, Burkina Faso looks ready to abandon this technology.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/53906/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matthew Schnurr receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Brian Dowd-Uribe does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Burkina Faso, one of the largest GM cotton producers in the world, has begun a phase out of all Bt cotton production.Brian Dowd-Uribe, Assistant Professor, International Studies Department, University of San FranciscoMatthew Schnurr, Associate Professor Department of International Development Studies, Dalhousie UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/513182015-12-08T19:08:34Z2015-12-08T19:08:34ZGM crops can benefit organic farmers too<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/104785/original/image-20151208-3139-cekgah.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Genetically modified soybeans.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Reuters/Bogdan Cristel</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Have you eaten organic food today? If you have eaten anything, then technically you’ve eaten organic. By definition, all food is organic, it just may not have been grown under industry standards, such as Australian Certified Organic (<a href="http://aco.net.au/">ACO</a>).</p>
<p>Most people who choose to eat certified organic do so because they believe it is cleaner and greener, or chemical free. But the most modern cultivated plants are genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and so are precluded from being certified organic.</p>
<p>The Australian Organic organisation <a href="http://austorganic.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Consumer_Standards_Final_21.pdf">says</a> that’s because there are no long-term studies on human health. </p>
<p>Prince Charles <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/3349308/Prince-Charles-warns-GM-crops-risk-causing-the-biggest-ever-environmental-disaster.html">has warned</a> that the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops is the biggest environmental disaster of all time.</p>
<p>The Australian Greens <a href="http://greens.org.au/GMO">argue that</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[…] genetically modified foods have still not been proven safe […] Crop yields have not increased, but the use of pesticides on our food has. The only ones profiting from GM are the large GM companies.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>But the research says different</h2>
<p>Perhaps the Greens need to brush up on the science behind their claims. In the most comprehensive meta-analysis (of 147 publications) to date, researchers from Goettingen University <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25365303">have concluded</a> that the adoption of GM technology has:</p>
<ul>
<li>Reduced pesticide use by 37%</li>
<li>Increased crop yield by 22%</li>
<li>Increased farmer profits by 68%.</li>
</ul>
<p>The yield and profit gains are considerably higher in developing countries than in developed countries, and 53% of GM crops are grown in developing countries. </p>
<p>A <a href="http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nicholas_Piggott/publication/237717600_THE_NET_BENEFITS_INCLUDING_CONVENIENCE_OF_ROUNDUP_READY_SOYBEANS_RESULTS_FROM_A_NATIONAL_SURVEY/links/5410fc760cf2df04e75d6c58.pdf">survey</a> in the United States uncovered great difference in motivation among farmers who adopted GM herbicide-resistant soybean. Farmers like the no-till and low chemical use attributes. Even when it did not increase profitability, they enjoyed the increase in farm safety and particularly the safety of their families when using less herbicide with very low toxicity.</p>
<p>A similar <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0169-5150.2005.00006.x/abstract">study</a> of the same soybeans in Argentina showed that total productivity increased by 10%, and more than half of the benefit had gone to the consumer.</p>
<p>In 2012, a joint Chinese-French <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7407/full/nature11153.html">study</a> on GM cotton showed that insecticide usage more than halved, and the survival of beneficial insects had a positive impact on pest control. Since they adopted genetically modified <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bt_cotton">Bt cotton</a>, India has been producing twice as much cotton from the same land area with 65% less insecticide.</p>
<h2>What do organic farmers really want?</h2>
<p>Organic farmers really do care for their land and want to balance their impact on the land with producing healthier foods and improving the health of the soil. </p>
<p>But organic farms use <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v485/n7397/full/nature11069.html">more land and labour</a> to produce the same amount of produce as conventional agriculture. That’s the major reason you <a href="http://www.news.com.au/finance/money/we-plough-millions-into-expensive-organic-food/story-fnagkbpv-1226578226483">pay more</a> for organic products. </p>
<p>Organic farmers will maintain that if you can improve soil health, you can reduce the impact of pests and diseases. In fact, most farmers in Australia will say that, organic or not. </p>
<p>It works for some of the soil-borne problems but, not surprisingly, weeds really like healthy soils too. And fungal spores, plant-eating insects and aphids harbouring pathogenic viruses can and will travel a long way to get a piece of those healthy plants.</p>
<p>With all crop production, there is an element of biological warfare. No matter how hard any farmer tries, her crop will often need a little help to fight back.</p>
<h2>All farmers use some ‘inputs’</h2>
<p>So reluctantly, there will come a time when a farmer will have to use chemicals, or allowed “inputs” (remember that organic agriculture is chemical-free). They include things such as copper, rotenone, acetic acid, light petroleum derivatives, sodium chloride, boric acid and sulfur. </p>
<p>Different organic certifiers allow different “inputs”. Let’s use the case of the potato, which infamously succumbed to potato blight and precipitated the great Irish diaspora of the 19th century. </p>
<p>Potato blight is still around and organic potatoes succumb just like others, so farmers are allowed to apply copper sprays to control the fungus. After repeated applications, some soils accumulated toxic levels of copper, hence in 2001 the European Union (EU) and Australian organic certifiers limited application to 8kg/ha annually. </p>
<p>In 2006, the EU dropped this to 6kg/ha, and subsequently Germany and Switzerland cut further to 3-4kg/ha while Scandinavian countries banned the use of copper in agriculture, organic or conventional. Organic potato yields remain at 50% that of conventional yields.</p>
<p>In 2011, BASF launched a potato (Fortuna) that was totally <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/2a1906dc-98f7-11e3-a32f-00144feab7de.html">resistant to potato late blight</a>, and it could be cultivated without the need for fungicidal sprays, including copper. The potato contained two genes from a wild Mexican potato relative, and except for the fact that it was a GMO, it would be perfect as a clean and green organic potato crop. </p>
<p>Sadly, European agriculture <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-21294487">rejected</a> Fortuna potatoes.</p>
<h2>Reduced emissions</h2>
<p>There can be other benefits in GM crops, beyond yield and resistance. Rice produces 10% of the world’s methane emissions so imagine if somebody could reduce emissions by 90%, and make plants with larger seeds containing more energy. </p>
<p>Chuangxin Sun’s group at Swedish Agricultural University has done <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v523/n7562/full/nature14673.html">precisely that</a> by transferring a single gene from barley to rice.</p>
<p>If all the world’s rice used this technology, it would be the equivalent of closing down 150 coal-fired power stations or removing 120 million cars from the road annually.</p>
<p>With many other plant scientists, I propose that the case-by-case scrutiny of GM crops would allow the organic industry to show it is willing to use the smartest technologies for improving the sustainable productivity of food and fibre production.</p>
<p>Many labs around the world, including those in my building, are full of bright young innovative scientists who want to make the world cleaner and greener. </p>
<p>We have GM crop plants with enhanced nutritional qualities, pest and disease resistance, larger grain sizes and the ability to produce more food with lower fertiliser inputs. Many of these plants have been modified with only a few DNA letters altered from the “wild” genes. </p>
<p>Adoption would massively improve the productivity of organic agriculture, and the productivity boost would help make organic food price competitive. So let’s talk about GM organics.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/51318/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ian Godwin receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Grains R&D Corporation, Rural Industries R&D Corporation, Qld Government, Chinese Academy of Sciences.
In addition he has previously received funding from a seed company Advanta Seeds as part of ARC Linkage grants. He was once awarded an ARC Linkage grant with BASF as industrial partner to produce starch polymers for industrial use but after a change in personnel, BASF withdrew from the grant, hence $0 was received. In the past he has received research funding from the OECD, SIDA (Swedish AID), AusAID, Sugar Research Australia, Dairy Innovation Australia, SEQ Council of Mayors, CSIRO and DAAD (German International Academic Exchange).
He is a current member of the Gene Technology Technical Advisory Committee of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, Department of Health.</span></em></p>Scientists are developing GM crops that don’t need pesticides and other chemicals to help them grow. Isn’t that what organic farmers want too?Ian Godwin, Professor in Plant Molecular Genetics, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/519412015-12-08T12:37:03Z2015-12-08T12:37:03Z‘Kill switches’ could make genetically modified food more palatable<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/104868/original/image-20151208-32368-whnhjw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/evilpics/12214290974/in/photolist-jBkraG-emqKsV-6a3Toz-fghGJ-5ziMj8-7eKXWM-dVjuop-aF3vFP-dHnPMt-pWg9Pm-ogX8oc-6ZMjcL-5w5xM2-6ZKhWe-35483D-dVq5WW-nqxTYN-9NBBMn-6enjRC-8w5ywj-9NGKrb-2hYsBf-9NFVNX-mgn3y-b8oLA6-tEW8fC-dVq5uy-dxoALp-95YWPY-bBmd4y-9NKJWL-7YTECo-9NDZCz-5vDSaf-d6Yph3-6ayiWo-9NGabs-65AwKS-9NJKMw-9NEwpU-9NH11D-4vMh8G-7LfjKr-9VPR5A-7frJet-cxDWXE-znA9GW-9m3DNK-9NC5eF-8myfDR">Scott Hart/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In the US you can buy and eat genetically modified apples that <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/16/health/apples-genetically-modified-usda/">don’t go brown</a>, potatoes that are less likely to <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/u-s-oks-genetically-modified-potato-with-lower-cancer-risk/">cause cancer</a>, and – as of recently – salmon that <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34869556">grow faster</a>. But in Europe, <a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28283-more-than-half-of-european-union-votes-to-ban-growing-gm-crops/">19 out of 28</a> member states have banned the growing of genetically modified crops altogether due to public concerns.</p>
<p>Selective breeding to produce crops and animals with desirable characteristics has been around for centuries. But in each case we don’t know which parts of the organism’s genetic code are responsible for the improvements. <a href="http://www.gov.scot/Topics/farmingrural/Agriculture/Environment/15159/definition">Genetic modification</a>, on the other hand, allows us to breed organisms with specific characteristics by precisely inserting sections of DNA into their genetic code.</p>
<p>Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) offer a <a href="https://classes.soe.ucsc.edu/cmpe080e/Spring05/projects/gmo/benefits.htm">number of advantages</a> to farmers and crop growers. But there are also public concerns about GMOs, ranging from their potential effects on human health to their dominance by large corporations. When <a href="https://tickets.edfringe.com/whats-on/gm-bacteria-could-save-your-life">I debated</a> the use of <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-well-all-learn-to-love-genetically-modified-salmonella-in-the-end-45850">genetically modified bacteria</a> this summer at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival, for example, I found the audience’s main concern was the potential for GMOs to escape and contaminate the environment.</p>
<p>So what if science could fix this? Recent progress in GM technology has seen scientists engineer “kill switches” that are designed to act as an emergency stop mechanism for GMOs. These are pieces of inserted genetic code that create characteristics intended to prevent a GMO from surviving and reproducing if they “escape” from a contained site, such as a field of GM crops, into the wild.</p>
<h2>No survival in the wild</h2>
<p>One type of kill switch involves making GMOs dependent on nutrients not found in nature. <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4422498/pdf/nihms684575.pdf">Two independent</a> <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4590768/pdf/nihms643350.pdf">pieces of research</a> published in early 2015 essentially redesigned <em>Escherichia coli</em> bacteria to require synthetic versions of nutrients essential for survival and growth. If these genetically recoded organisms (GROs) were to escape into the “non-contained” environment, they would be unable to get the nutrients they needed, effectively activating the kill switch causing them to die.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/104852/original/image-20151208-32402-7sqp32.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/104852/original/image-20151208-32402-7sqp32.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104852/original/image-20151208-32402-7sqp32.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104852/original/image-20151208-32402-7sqp32.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104852/original/image-20151208-32402-7sqp32.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104852/original/image-20151208-32402-7sqp32.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104852/original/image-20151208-32402-7sqp32.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Deadly trap in the genetic code.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/home_of_chaos/3808496018/in/photolist-6Nxxbs-e5grRc-bhhmCr-zjwDKs-C7G5s-ckViqS-ceHMo5-nkmZoh-87ZJkY-9H1YHE-4ySHZE-4imES3-5SMzkY-atptQC-6DvXp6-8r7QPe-8JuAQ5-Ae5X4-jbEnK-8raXUj-8JuCp9-6DvXx8-p6NDsT-cSJ8Bm-7zdpRZ-8JrTcF-87ZtSh-889NjN-6iuJrn-33XD5k-46Kn8v-65qHH4-rn32Bi-8DEbx6-jbZx6-63gk9t-xbGMnm-knsWc-8wJam2-7AP557-7JMe3g-7zdFrt-4i3QFK-5SJnWV-81FAAs-nnpZe2-bmmxWa-f9GFy-5SMcvH-87Wwyv">thierry ehrmann/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In another <a href="http://nature.com/articles/doi:10.1038/nchembio.1979">elegant approach</a>, researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) have developed two new kill switches known as “Deadman” and “Passcode”. The system uses both switches to control the organism. Passcode allows the organism to detect specific changes in the environment. This then activates Deadman, which causes the organism to start producing a potent toxin that kills its cells. </p>
<p>The authors have demonstrated that different environmental signals, such as the gain or loss of a particular sugar nutrient source, can act as the control mechanism. This gives scientists some design flexibility when creating new kill switch systems for GMOs. The current research is based on bacteria, but in practical terms this technology could allow us to programme any GMO to “self-destruct”. For example, it might be possible to design GM crops that were programmed to die if they escaped from the growing area. </p>
<h2>Wiping out the DNA</h2>
<p>One issue still to be addressed though is that when some organisms die, their DNA can <a href="http://www.ebr-journal.org/articles/ebr/abs/2007/01/ebr0608/ebr0608.html">persist in the environment</a>. In bacteria this can be a problem because certain bacteria can take up DNA from the environment by a process called <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC372978/">natural genetic transformation</a>. If the DNA led to beneficial characteristics, it could be assimilated into the bacteria’s genome to create a natural GMO. The answer to this particular issue may lie in other recent work that described a kill switch based on <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-crispr-technology-brings-precise-genetic-editing-and-raises-ethical-questions-39219">CRISPR technology</a>. </p>
<p><a href="http://gizmodo.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-crispr-the-new-tool-1702114381">CRISPRs are</a> short sequences of DNA found in bacteria that are the remnants of a previous viral infection used to help the immune system. If a bacterium encounters the same infection again, the CRISPR system can recognise the virus and recruit a DNA-degrading enzyme that cuts up and destroys the invading viral DNA.</p>
<p>Researchers from MIT have used the CRISPR concept to create a kill switch that effectively <a href="http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150519/ncomms7989/full/ncomms7989.html">erases DNA</a> from GM bacteria. In this case, the code inserted into the GMO included the short sequences recognised by the CRISPR system. When the input signal for the kill switch was activated, CRISPR targeted and destroyed the inserted DNA, essentially returning the organism to its former non-GM state. Combining this system with other kill switches could allow scientists to be confident that neither a GMO nor its DNA could persist outside of a contained environment.</p>
<p>These developments demonstrate that scientists designing GMOs have taken on board public feedback. The question remains whether kill switch technology will address the concerns about the “escape” of GMOs and “contamination of the wild”. It is certainly a step in the right direction.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/51941/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Clare Taylor does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>New research suggests how we could prevent genetically modified organisms from surviving - and potentially spreading - in the wild.Clare Taylor, Senior Lecturer in Medical Microbiology, Edinburgh Napier UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/504812015-12-08T10:31:55Z2015-12-08T10:31:55ZFarmers would do better to understand the land than grow GM crops<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/103301/original/image-20151126-28284-1m2lnas.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">GM: often assumed to be better</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&autocomplete_id=&searchterm=farm%20land&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=158579138">Guo Yu</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Suppose your relationship is falling apart and you want to save it. To find the best counsellor, you might search online or ask your friends. It’s no different in agriculture. The rational response to any food or farming dilemma is to test and compare different options to see which is most effective as a solution. </p>
<p>Except when it comes to genetic modification (GM). I have yet to hear of a research trial where a newly developed GM crop has been compared with other approaches to address the problem it claims to solve. If the goal was to identify the most effective solution, this would be very odd – but if the real goal is to find a use for the technology, it makes perfect sense. </p>
<p>Here’s <a href="https://www.socla.co/wp-content/uploads/2014/Transgenicos_2009-11-04.pdf">an example</a> from my work in the subtropics (I better not name the country). In the 2000s, one region experienced several consecutive years of severe drought. The worst affected area saw over 3,000 wells dry up, and over 2,000 of its cattle lost. Many farmers were unable to sow their staple maize crop. The easy culprit was climate change, since temperatures had risen half a degree in recent years. What was less frequently pointed out was the poor condition of the soils: 60% suffered from erosion, 40% had low water retention, and 45% had low fertility – all the result of several decades of industrial agriculture. </p>
<p>The mainstream agricultural sector proposed constructing a large water pipeline from the wetter part of the country to the drier parts. Yet the government didn’t have the funds. A GM drought-tolerant maize was also suggested, but thankfully wasn’t yet available.</p>
<p>I started working with a local research team to develop a low-cost pilot in two communities with a very different approach. It sought to help farmers understand the water cycle and manage water sustainably; and also to experiment with simple techniques to improve soil fertility. These included planting <a href="http://www.rodalesorganiclife.com/garden/cover-crop-basics">cover crops</a>, which are crops put there primarily to protect the bare soil from high temperatures and from water escaping through plants and Earth (evapotranspiration); as well as adding organic fertilisers; <a href="http://www.savetherain.info/rainwater-harvesting-faqs.aspx">rainwater harvesting</a> and testing numerous crop varieties to see which worked best. Farmers and households were particularly supported to share their own local knowledge and experiences.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/103303/original/image-20151126-28272-benp4a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/103303/original/image-20151126-28272-benp4a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/103303/original/image-20151126-28272-benp4a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/103303/original/image-20151126-28272-benp4a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/103303/original/image-20151126-28272-benp4a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/103303/original/image-20151126-28272-benp4a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/103303/original/image-20151126-28272-benp4a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/103303/original/image-20151126-28272-benp4a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Seeds of a new approach.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&autocomplete_id=&search_tracking_id=mPaKBUSsLkIiZJ9wBLauCQ&searchterm=seeds%20handful&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=342188120">MrMohock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Reaping benefits</h2>
<p>After just one year, <a href="https://www.socla.co/wp-content/uploads/2014/Transgenicos_2009-11-04.pdf">we saw</a> various intended and unintended results. There was much more crop diversity, and yields and production had increased across the board. Manure had become a valuable resource, which farmers were collecting systematically from livestock. There was more water available for these animals, and the soil’s capacity for water retention had improved too. The farmers were widely using biological fertilisers, and had generally become better at working together and experimenting. </p>
<p>Above all, the first vegetable market had opened – previously there had never been any surplus to sell – along with an informal seed market. Family incomes had gone up and there were more nutritious foods for everyone. For an investment of just £15,000, the project seemed to tick all the development boxes. </p>
<p>Most telling were the responses from community members who were asked what had changed: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>A year ago drought was a worry to us, but now we don’t rate this as important as other concerns.</p>
<p>The main change? Now we can afford for all the children in our village to wear shoes. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Suppose instead that a GM drought-tolerant maize had been available at the time. Farmers would have had to buy patented seed every year. At best, the crop would have needed slightly less water and the yield might have been maintained or even increased a little. No other crops could have been grown since the soil would have remained degraded, and irrigation would have still been required. (This kind of GM maize has since been developed, <a href="http://www.monsanto.com/improvingagriculture/pages/water-efficient-maize-for-africa.aspx">at a</a> cost of millions of pounds.)</p>
<p>I’m not the only one with these sorts of findings. Previous studies have <a href="http://www.doria.fi/handle/10024/104258">shown that</a> this kind of agroecological approach produces better results than GM in terms of environmental impact, human health and societal benefits; while it has been convincingly <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/node/1263/pdf">argued that</a> using GM varieties does nothing for biodiversity in agriculture. </p>
<h2>The industrialised mindset</h2>
<p>The conventional corporate model legally obliges chief executives – on behalf of shareholders – to prioritise profits over ethics and sustainability, whatever their personal inclination. It is a manifestation of an underlying mindset. This can be seen in Cuba, where until recently there was no private corporate sector, and where the government <a href="https://www.socla.co/wp-content/uploads/2014/Transgenicos_2009-11-04.pdf?iv=40">made several varieties of GM maize available</a> to some parts of the country in 2006. Cuba inherited its agricultural approach from the former Soviet Union, which unwittingly shared a mindset with Western countries that has been dominant for over 300 years. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/101461/original/image-20151110-21190-l12lgw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/101461/original/image-20151110-21190-l12lgw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/101461/original/image-20151110-21190-l12lgw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=858&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/101461/original/image-20151110-21190-l12lgw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=858&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/101461/original/image-20151110-21190-l12lgw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=858&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/101461/original/image-20151110-21190-l12lgw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1079&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/101461/original/image-20151110-21190-l12lgw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1079&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/101461/original/image-20151110-21190-l12lgw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1079&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Blame Descartes.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&autocomplete_id=&search_tracking_id=sCvJs-b5gHbkzm9EQVNNuA&searchterm=descartes&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=122675578">Brendan Howard</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Borrowing from the French philosopher <a href="http://www.britannica.com/topic/Cartesianism">Descartes</a>, this world view breaks down complex processes into smaller parts to be analysed in isolation, and sees nature as a resource to be exploited and conquered. It wasn’t and isn’t always so – as indigenous communities continue to demonstrate with their reverence for nature and their sense of inter-connectedness. The organic and regenerative farming movements attempt to take a similar approach, as did the “drought-proofing” project that I outlined above. </p>
<p>GM is simply a manifestation of the same misguided industrial mindset, a mindset that tries to control nature rather than work with it. From a psychological perspective, the need to control is driven by fear, as I found from years of interviewing farmers about why they felt they needed to continue with industrial agriculture rather than switch to organic.</p>
<p>Allowing private companies to peddle their wares in the name of development or to “feed the world” is arguably immoral when there are alternatives that can bring much wider benefits. If GM were banned, though, similar problematic technologies would continue to present themselves. It is the mindset from which they emerge that needs reprogrammed. Its not as if there aren’t better ways of achieving the same result.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/50481/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Julia has in the past received funding from DFID and Oxfam</span></em></p>The solutions presented by GM crops are rarely tested against the other options. Take a look at our philosophy of farming and it all starts to make sense.Julia Wright, Senior Research Fellow, Agroecological Futures, Coventry UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/508732015-11-30T11:03:23Z2015-11-30T11:03:23ZWhy Europe will let member states opt out of GM crops<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/102612/original/image-20151120-10412-r5i67k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/uw67/19018074593/in/photolist-phKBsY-7h4Qjb-uYyAZP-7g2umr-fPfkgD-9miLgr-2VSayT-cy1P67-yPRfUs-81jyTq-rpbQTQ-ip7gr-bzmqna-7BZZ9a-9MaDwE-bzmqBn-bmrybL-ajoFMC-gPtXWs-f7SXhV-81qdxj-9Pzpca-eQUNvf-bq4YAC-6Nrzn7-81n3eD-br1GSg-gjcsCd-buYi9B-ovvDBA-9PD7xB-7h4Pzm-c3v5J7-89bjde-oJ7WzV-crTTPw-bkZhpH-88tGZb-9rhaXV-qXHJsM-r2Wxw-nQa3s-8jTKEA-6mGeA-bEQ9Si-9fhfJe-bu2Bhe-9wk1pa-oyqDr6-7ay9Y6">Uwe Potthoff/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In the US, farmers have been cultivating crops with genetically engineered traits since the 1990s, and their use – and consumption – is <a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-us/">widespread</a>. </p>
<p>That’s not the case in Europe. In fact, a <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:JOL_2015_068_R_0001">directive</a> passed by the European Parliament in April 2015 gave member states (MS) freedom to decide for themselves whether or not to cultivate genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in their territory. </p>
<p>Under the new directive, by October over half of the European countries have now opted out of genetically modified (GM) crop cultivation.</p>
<p>But what exactly have they opted out of, and why? </p>
<h2>Checkered map</h2>
<p>Under previous regulations, any approval given for cultivation applied Europe-wide. This meant countries that opposed the cultivation of GMOs regularly worked to block authorization procedures. </p>
<p>Several national bans were also implemented. These bans were based on the <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/embor.2011.254/full">only grounds available at the time</a> – new (or reinterpreted) scientific evidence demonstrating a risk to human or environmental health. The legitimacy of these bans was, however, regularly contested and in some cases legally challenged within both <a href="https://www.rt.com/news/court-overturns-french-monsanto-ban-930/">national</a> and <a href="http://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/court-of-justice-of-the-european-union-france-preliminary-ruling-finds-frances-ban-on-genetically-modified-corn-illegal/">European courts</a>. </p>
<p>The European Commission recognized that this situation was undesirable, and for the last five years, negotiations have been taking place on how to reform the system to allow EU member states to decide for themselves on GMO cultivation. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/102532/original/image-20151119-18436-ylox4m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/102532/original/image-20151119-18436-ylox4m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=547&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/102532/original/image-20151119-18436-ylox4m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=547&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/102532/original/image-20151119-18436-ylox4m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=547&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/102532/original/image-20151119-18436-ylox4m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=687&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/102532/original/image-20151119-18436-ylox4m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=687&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/102532/original/image-20151119-18436-ylox4m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=687&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Mapping GMO cultivation opt-out in Europe. Source: Greenpeace.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>However, there seems to be confusion about these reforms, as recently demonstrated in an opinion <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/25/opinion/sunday/with-gmo-policies-europe-turns-against-science.html">piece in The New York Times </a> that presented the new directive as “anti-GMO policy” and suggested that countries were adopting blanket bans. </p>
<p>In what follows, we clarify what the new European directive entails. We also explain why we think it is a positive move for shifting GMO politics away from the unproductive and deeply polarized pro-anti trench warfare of recent decades. </p>
<h2>The opt-out process</h2>
<p>Under the new directive, a member state can now ask that all or part of its territory not be included in the geographical area for which a GMO is approved for cultivation. This request is submitted after the European Food Safety Authority has completed its scientific assessment of potential risks to human and environmental health: it in no way challenges or changes this assessment. </p>
<p>The applicant seeking approval for cultivation – primarily biotechnology companies – can actually then choose to accept or deny this request. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/103246/original/image-20151125-23856-1ujf640.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/103246/original/image-20151125-23856-1ujf640.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/103246/original/image-20151125-23856-1ujf640.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=481&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/103246/original/image-20151125-23856-1ujf640.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=481&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/103246/original/image-20151125-23856-1ujf640.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=481&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/103246/original/image-20151125-23856-1ujf640.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=605&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/103246/original/image-20151125-23856-1ujf640.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=605&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/103246/original/image-20151125-23856-1ujf640.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=605&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">GM corn is widely planted in the US, unlike Europe, which now has rules allowing members states to opt out of GMO cultivation.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/16502322@N03/4806634131/in/photolist-8jKfSg-fEhza6-fEzabq-5Gqiu1-pyDYmz-wPDMba-Wak1r-PWSSN-wQauXe-k47GFH-abesfe-zyehHa-fNNuF7-eg9W5v-csdWMf-dcvG6F-fa9S2g-uZSZ36-fEhzAg-8kTXVW-yeC7np-arutzU-dtjNHJ-9SrTph-votfbA-f3Gn3E-oio6EE-7ZZwbW-8PHfGb-aiycb8-9ZW6Bx-rGUEYY-5f6XzW-uQWxEK-53ty7C-xgURCE-fr4S7B-3KpNra-xWj5q5-xWjanE-6mAojo-akjAi3-6f8wf6-chxnf7-5vjpuQ-5pbmhw-5dw1We-f6LoSS-doXpPe-59B5J">fishhawk/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>If the applicant (or “economic operator”) denies the request to exclude a certain country or region from the introduction of the approved GM crop, the member state can then formally implement restrictions based on a broader range of justifications than was previously allowed. </p>
<p>Beyond human and environmental health risks, these justifications can now be based on environmental, agricultural or public policy objectives, socioeconomic impacts, town and country planning, land use and concerns regarding the possibility for organic, conventional and GM agriculture to coexist. </p>
<p>Importantly, countries can also choose to opt back in at any time by simply submitting a request to have their territory included again. </p>
<h2>Flexibility</h2>
<p>What this means is that countries (or regions) are not opting out of GMO cultivation in general. That is, they are not declaring an “anti-GMO” position. Rather, opt-out requests are submitted in relation to specific crops and are decided on a case-by-case basis.</p>
<p>Member states can choose to opt out of either the cultivation of individual GM crops or groups of GM crops modified to express the same trait. For example, due to a desire to try to advance sustainable agriculture, MS may choose to opt out of all GM crops designed to tolerate the use of herbicides. But they could remain open to crops modified to resist disease. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/103248/original/image-20151125-23861-1xchnyh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/103248/original/image-20151125-23861-1xchnyh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/103248/original/image-20151125-23861-1xchnyh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/103248/original/image-20151125-23861-1xchnyh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/103248/original/image-20151125-23861-1xchnyh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/103248/original/image-20151125-23861-1xchnyh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/103248/original/image-20151125-23861-1xchnyh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/103248/original/image-20151125-23861-1xchnyh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The new EU directive allows member states to opt out for reasons other than human and environmental health.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/swalophoto/9548263366/in/photolist-fxKm3s-pb8KbY-8SjYsh-iSGSBu-o84LE3-6RBEQF-pULMU5-4KjepK-bCjYvm-uQhuK9-ejvkif-kevGC9-fNfaMA-6nyxtC-71Z5AC-odnfMz-hgtu5a-vzbh7U-ztJN8R-4SD8Qv-4Ue95g-cwWPed-emGXBV-z14Pfc-yGBmqU-6E9gSG-b8RZn2-dVVbXo-yGGqCv-iFLSHm-y1nn1h-aeJxtz-6DRB7P-rpfmxr-mxCxyX-7ctCuL-yYf8V1-eQJKc8-aeeUUh-cr4mzh-yWXnRw-cZ2UmG-fjahb3-i3xEa-cqEPoL-hQEPbf-4XcssU-frn6Re-dpqGRo-dbm9QA">swalophoto/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This new directive therefore creates a more flexible form of regulation. It is not about member states taking a pro or anti position on GMOs in general, which they then hold forever. Rather, it allows for more differentiated assessment of desirability regarding both different forms of the technology and across different cultures. </p>
<p>Flexibility on what type of genetic modification is deemed acceptable is particularly important now. Biotechnology continues to evolve, and techniques like <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marker-assisted_selection">marker-assisted breeding</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombinant_DNA">recombinant DNA</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRISPR">CRISPR</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_biology">synthetic biology</a> give people more tools for modifying genes. These may legitimately be judged to have different levels of acceptability by different individuals and/or member states.</p>
<p>Under the new directive, different countries and cultures are therefore being given the possibility to break the straight jacket of a pro-anti dichotomy and adopt a more nuanced position on what types of crops are desirable. Far from being “anti-GMO” legislation, this new directive actually opens the way for more approvals (for those countries wanting them) by breaking the political deadlock that has stalled authorization procedures for years. </p>
<h2>Not all about human health</h2>
<p>This enhanced flexibility and freedom to decide is important. </p>
<p>The European approach to GM crops, food and feed supports <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32003R1830&from=EN">traceability and labeling</a>, and emphasizes the importance of having in place measures that allow <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/gmo/coexistence/index_en.htm">organic, conventional and GM agriculture to coexist</a>. This represents a commitment to transparency and is designed to give both consumers and farmers the rights to know and choose. </p>
<p>Now countries and regions are also being given the right to choose how they want to practice agriculture. </p>
<p>The connection between food and culture is widely recognized, but how we go about producing that food is also deeply cultural. Both food and agriculture are connected to beliefs, values and ways of life. Views on how we should feed ourselves involve much more than just questions of safety. They include questions of how we want to live on this planet, how we want our societies to be structured and how we want to relate to all the other species our survival depends upon. </p>
<p>Furthermore, GMOs are not just technical devices. As all technologies, <a href="http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/7/8/11321">they are a package</a> involving particular sociopolitical beliefs and leading to particular socioecological systems. </p>
<p>This is clear in the controversy around GMOs, which is not limited to questions of the health impacts of this technology but is also connected to a number of other issues, including patents on living organisms, monopoly ownership rights, concentrations of power and the socioeconomic implications of trying to control that other systems are not contaminated with GMOs. </p>
<p>All this means that we should approach GMOs from a systems perspective and assess the whole package – something we are currently working toward in Spain and South Africa through <a href="http://blogscat.com/agricultures/">The Agri/Cultures Project</a> (funded by the <a href="http://www.forskningsradet.no/en/Home_page/1177315753906">Norwegian Research Council</a> under their <a href="http://www.forskningsradet.no/prognett-fripro/Home_page/1226994096426">FRIPRO program</a>). </p>
<p>The new era for GMOs brought on by this directive in Europe is only just beginning, and many questions and challenges remain, such as the question of whether supporting evidence for the new opt-out justifications is available and necessary. </p>
<p>However, we believe that giving member states the freedom to adopt more nuanced positions, and the ability to make choices based on social, ethical, environmental and health grounds, is a positive move for the future of GMOs in Europe.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/50873/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rosa Binimelis receives funding from the Comissionat per a Universitats i Recerca del Departament d’Innovació, Universitats i Empresa de la Generalitat de Catalunya and the COFUND programme-Marie Curie Actions under the FP7 of the European Community. She is affiliated with the Chair on Agroecology of the University of Vic and ENSSER. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Amaranta Herrero receives funding from the Norwegian Research Council.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Fern Wickson receives funding from the Norwegian Research Council and the seventh framework program of the European Union. She is affiliated with the Norwegian Biotechnology Advisory Board and the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER). </span></em></p>Why are half of European Union members opting out of GMO crops? Hint: it’s not about food and environmental safety.Rosa Binimelis, Postdoctoral Researcher, Universitat de Vic – Universitat Central de CatalunyaAmaranta Herrero, Postdoctoral Researcher, GenØk - Centre for BiosafetyFern Wickson, Senior Scientist & Research Leader, GenØk - Centre for BiosafetyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.