tag:theconversation.com,2011:/fr/topics/gm-3918/articlesGM – The Conversation2024-03-27T23:28:32Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2267242024-03-27T23:28:32Z2024-03-27T23:28:32ZAustralia must wean itself from monster utes – and the federal government’s weakening of vehicle emissions rules won’t help one bit<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/584679/original/file-20240327-24-tmdd5x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C5810%2C3867&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>The federal government has bowed to pressure from the car industry, announcing it will relax proposed emissions rules for utes and vans and delay enforcement of the new standards by six months.</p>
<p>The legislation was introduced to parliament on Wednesday. The government <a href="https://minister.infrastructure.gov.au/c-king/media-release/new-vehicle-efficiency-standard-tailored-australia">says</a> the new rules give Australian motorists a greater choice of electric vehicle models and insists the policy is “good for the environment”. </p>
<p>But on the latter point, the government is mistaken. The amended rules will slow the reduction in emissions from Australia’s polluting road transport sector. And they reflect domestic and international trends that, taken together, increase the risk Australia, and the world, will fail to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australian-passenger-vehicle-emission-rates-are-50-higher-than-the-rest-of-the-world-and-its-getting-worse-222398">Australian passenger vehicle emission rates are 50% higher than the rest of the world – and it's getting worse</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>What are the changes?</h2>
<p>Vehicle emissions standards set a limit on grams of CO₂ that can be emitted for each kilometre driven, averaged across all new cars sold. Carmakers failing to meet the standards will incur financial penalties.</p>
<p>The federal government released its <a href="https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/department/media/publications/cleaner-cheaper-run-cars-australian-new-vehicle-efficiency-standard-consultation-impact-analysis">initial version</a> of proposed vehicle emissions standards in February.</p>
<p>Under the changes announced this week, some 4WD wagons – such as the Toyota LandCruiser and Nissan Patrol – will be reclassified from “passenger car” to “light commercial vehicle”. The change means less stringent emissions standards will apply to those models.</p>
<p>In a <a href="https://minister.infrastructure.gov.au/c-king/media-release/new-vehicle-efficiency-standard-tailored-australia">statement</a>, the government justified the change by saying some off-road wagons have a similar chassis and towing capacity to vehicles in the light-commercial category, and so should be subject to the same standards.</p>
<p>The government will also give more favourable treatment to heavier vehicles. And manufacturers will not be penalised under the scheme until July 2025 – six months later than the government originally proposed. </p>
<h2>The global picture</h2>
<p>The government’s decision to weaken the standards is a response to pressure from the domestic vehicle industry, and a concession to the Opposition which falsely claims the new standards are a “<a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-15/fact-check-vehicle-missions-standard-ute-family-car-tax/103587622">ute tax</a>”.</p>
<p>But the watering-down also reflects a broader international trend in which the legacy vehicle industry is backing away from its <a href="https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2021/09/27/ford-to-lead-americas-shift-to-electric-vehicles.html">earlier</a> <a href="https://www.gm.com/commitments/electrification">commitments</a> to a rapid transition to electric vehicles. </p>
<p>For example, in the United States Ford and GM have both cut back production of some models, <a href="https://www.axios.com/2024/01/19/ev-cars-ford-lightning-gm-chevy-blazer-cuts">reportedly due to</a> lower-than-expected consumer demand.</p>
<p>Also in the US, carmakers this month <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/20/bidens-regulators-poised-to-issue-rule-meant-to-drive-electric-car-sales-00148019">secured a relaxation</a> of the Biden administration’s fuel efficiency targets for new vehicle sales.</p>
<p>US politicians are also pushing for <a href="https://www.hawley.senate.gov/hawley-introduces-new-bill-raise-tariffs-chinese-evs-protect-american-autoworkers">increased tariff protection</a> from imports, already taxed at 27.5%. This would make US producers even more competitive against big Chinese electric vehicle brands such as BYD.</p>
<p>Toyota, the world’s largest car maker, has gone all-in on hybrid electric vehicles, beginning with the highly successful Prius. But as the global market has shifted to fully electric cars, Toyota has <a href="https://electrek.co/2023/10/30/why-is-toyota-anti-ev-it-lost-the-race-to-compete-ev-council/">fought against</a> further tightening of standards. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="three large utes under US flag and Ford sign" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/584688/original/file-20240327-26-ws6hhg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/584688/original/file-20240327-26-ws6hhg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/584688/original/file-20240327-26-ws6hhg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/584688/original/file-20240327-26-ws6hhg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/584688/original/file-20240327-26-ws6hhg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/584688/original/file-20240327-26-ws6hhg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/584688/original/file-20240327-26-ws6hhg.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">US carmakers secured a relaxation on fuel efficiency targets.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Pressures in Australia</h2>
<p>Australia no longer has a domestic car manufacturing industry. But global carmakers continue to exert powerful influence through the Federated Chamber of Automotive Industries, Australia’s peak industry body for manufacturers and importers of passenger and light-commercial vehicles. The chamber has consistently <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/inside-the-car-industry-s-climate-lobbying-push-20230522-p5da61.html">lobbied against</a> effective climate action. </p>
<p>The government’s agreement to weaken standards also reflects the prevailing assumption, apparently shared by both major parties, that tradespeople comprise the majority of the “working class” voters for whom they are vying.</p>
<p>But it’s an out-of-date assumption. In the 1980s, the occupations fitting a broad interpretation this term (trades and technical workers, machinery operators and labourers) <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/employment-and-unemployment/labour-force-australia-detailed/latest-release">accounted for 40%</a> of all employed workers, and a majority of full-time non-managerial workers. </p>
<p>But today, <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/employment-and-unemployment/labour-force-australia-detailed/latest-release">only 28%</a> of workers fit this description. Workers with professional qualifications, such as teachers and nurses, <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/employment-and-unemployment/labour-force-australia-detailed/latest-release">outnumber</a> trades and technical workers two to one. But their concerns are frequently dismissed by some politicians as those of a woke, inner-city minority. </p>
<h2>Utes are changing</h2>
<p>The shift from substance to symbol in regards to the working class is mirrored in the transformation of utes themselves. </p>
<p>Until relatively recently – and as the name implies – utes were utilitarian vehicles designed for the practical tasks of carrying a farming couple “<a href="https://hidrive.com.au/a-brief-history-of-the-ute/#:%7E:text=In%20one%20version%20of%20the,pigs%20to%20market%20on%20Mondays.">to church on Sundays and the pigs to market on Mondays</a>”. But over time, this has been replaced by various forms of cosplay. </p>
<p>Utes have been tricked out with sports bars and fancy wheels, metallic paint and so on. More recently, the traditional ute has been replaced by US-style pickups, typically sold in dual-cab configurations. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/labors-fuel-efficiency-standards-may-settle-the-ute-dispute-but-there-are-still-hazards-on-the-road-222875">Labor's fuel-efficiency standards may settle the ute dispute – but there are still hazards on the road</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Most models of the market-leading Ford Ranger <a href="https://www.ford.com.au/showroom/trucks-and-vans/ranger/specs/">don’t even offer</a> a single-cab version, though such versions are sold overseas.</p>
<p>These vehicles are massive, but many have far less carrying capacity than a traditional ute. For example, the Ram 1500 has a tub length of <a href="https://www.news.com.au/technology/motoring/motoring-news/2023-ram-1500-big-horn-has-arrived-in-australia/news-story/f84366c4e20c57d6a25201cc52440062">1.7 metres</a>, compared to about 2.4 metres for the tray of a standard single-cab ute. </p>
<p>Unless the growth in the size of passenger vehicles is stopped and reversed, Australia’s task of meeting our net-zero target will be even more difficult.</p>
<p>It’s unlikely the two big parties will act on this issue any time soon. But as climate change worsens, the need to wean ourselves from monster cars and internal-combustion engines will demand the attention of our political leaders.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/226724/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Quiggin is a former Member of the Climate Change Authority, which recommended fuel efficiency standards in 2014</span></em></p>The amended rules will slow the reduction in emissions from Australia’s polluting road transport sector and reflect alarming trends, here and abroad.John Quiggin, Professor, School of Economics, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2195792023-12-29T11:42:01Z2023-12-29T11:42:01ZWhy some people don’t trust science – and how to change their minds<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/567234/original/file-20231222-23-r02y8p.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=26%2C15%2C1421%2C1035&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Nasa/wikipedia</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>During the pandemic, a third of people in the UK reported that their trust in science had increased, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278169">we recently discovered</a>. But 7% said that it had decreased. Why is there such variety of responses?</p>
<p>For many years, it was thought that the main reason some people reject science was a simple deficit of knowledge and a mooted fear of the unknown. Consistent with this, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506070159">many surveys</a> reported that attitudes to science are more positive among those people who know more of the textbook science. </p>
<p>But if that were indeed the core problem, the remedy would be simple: inform people about the facts. This strategy, which dominated science communication through much of the later part of the 20th century, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/097172180901400202">has, however, failed</a> at multiple levels. </p>
<p>In <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1023695519981">controlled experiments</a>, giving people scientific information was found not to change attitudes. And in the UK, scientific messaging over genetically modified technologies <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/097172180901400202">has even backfired</a>. </p>
<p>The failure of the information led strategy may be down to people discounting or avoiding information if it contradicts their beliefs – also known as <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175">confirmation bias</a>. However, a second problem is that some trust neither the message nor the messenger. This means that a distrust in science isn’t necessarily just down to a deficit of knowledge, but a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/097172180901400202">deficit of trust</a>. </p>
<p>With this in mind, many research teams including ours decided to find out why some people do and some people don’t trust science. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278169">One strong predictor</a> for people distrusting science during the pandemic stood out: being distrusting of science in the first place. </p>
<h2>Understanding distrust</h2>
<p>Recent evidence has revealed that people who reject or distrust science are not especially well informed about it, but more importantly, they typically <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0520-3">believe that they do understand</a> the science. </p>
<p>This result has, over the past five years, been found over and over in studies investigating attitudes to a plethora of scientific issues, including <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.06.032">vaccines</a> and <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0520-3">GM foods</a>. It also holds, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001915">we discovered</a>, even when no specific technology is asked about. However, they may not apply to certain politicised sciences, such as <a href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abo0038">climate change</a>.</p>
<p>Recent work also found that overconfident people who dislike science tend to <a href="https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/d5fz2">have a misguided belief</a> that theirs is the common viewpoint and hence that many others agree with them. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/564799/original/file-20231211-29-fgl8fe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C162%2C3721%2C2329&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Image of a protest of protest by covid-19 sceptics." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/564799/original/file-20231211-29-fgl8fe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C162%2C3721%2C2329&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/564799/original/file-20231211-29-fgl8fe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/564799/original/file-20231211-29-fgl8fe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/564799/original/file-20231211-29-fgl8fe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/564799/original/file-20231211-29-fgl8fe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/564799/original/file-20231211-29-fgl8fe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/564799/original/file-20231211-29-fgl8fe.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">Covid protest in London.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/london-uk-april-24-2021-unite-1966630096">Devis M/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Other evidence suggests that some of those who reject science also gain psychological satisfaction by framing their alternative explanations in a manner that <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/info/live-work-travel-eu/coronavirus-response/fighting-disinformation/identifying-conspiracy-theories_en">can’t be disproven</a>. Such is often the nature of conspiracy theories – be it microchips in vaccines or COVID being caused by 5G radiation. </p>
<p>But the whole point of science is to examine and test theories that can be proven wrong – theories scientists call falsifiable. Conspiracy theorists, on the other hand, often reject information that doesn’t align with their preferred explanation by, as a last resort, questioning instead the <a href="https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/coronavirus-response/fighting-disinformation/identifying-conspiracy-theories_en">motives of the messenger</a>. </p>
<p>When a person who trusts the scientific method debates with someone who doesn’t, they are essentially playing by different rules of engagement. This means it is hard to convince sceptics that they might be wrong. </p>
<h2>Finding solutions</h2>
<p>So what we can one do with this new understanding of attitudes to science?</p>
<p>The messenger is every bit as important as the message. Our work confirms many prior surveys showing that politicians, for example, aren’t trusted to communicate science, whereas university professors <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3001915">are</a>. This should be kept in mind.</p>
<p>The fact that some people hold negative attitudes reinforced by a misguided belief that many others agree with them suggests a further potential strategy: tell people what the consensus position is. The advertising industry got there first. Statements such as “eight out ten cat owners say their pet prefers this brand of cat food” are popular.</p>
<p>A recent <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976221083219">meta-analysis</a> of 43 studies investigating this strategy (these were “randomised control trials” – the gold standard in scientific testing) found support for this approach to alter belief in scientific facts. In specifying the consensus position, it implicitly clarifies what is misinformation or unsupported ideas, meaning it would also address the problem that <a href="https://www.sfi.ie/resources/SFI-Science-in-Ireland-Barometer.pdf">half of people</a> don’t know what is true owing to circulation of conflicting evidence. </p>
<p>A complementary approach is to prepare people for the possibility of misinformation. Misinformation spreads fast and, unfortunately, each attempt to debunk it acts to bring the misinformation more into view. Scientists call this the “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612451018">continued influence effect</a>”. Genies never get put back into bottles. Better is to anticipate objections, or <a href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abo6254">inoculate people</a> against the strategies used to promote misinformation. This is called “prebunking”, as opposed to debunking. </p>
<p>Different strategies may be needed in different contexts, though. Whether the science in question is established with a consensus among experts, such as climate change, or cutting edge new research into the unknown, such as for a completely new virus, matters. For the latter, explaining what we know, what we don’t know and what we are doing – and emphasising that results are provisional – <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03189-1">is a good way to go</a>. </p>
<p>By emphasising uncertainty in fast changing fields we can prebunk the objection that a sender of a message cannot be trusted as they said one thing one day and something else later.</p>
<p>But no strategy is likely to be 100% effective. We found that even with widely debated <a href="https://genetics.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Copy-of-Public-Perception-of-Genetics.pdf">PCR tests for COVID</a>, 30% of the public said they hadn’t heard of PCR. </p>
<p>A common quandary for much science communication may in fact be that it appeals to those already engaged with science. Which may be why you read this.</p>
<p>That said, the new science of communication suggests it is certainly worth trying to reach out to those who are disengaged.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/219579/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Laurence D. Hurst receives funding from The Evolution Education Trust. He is affiliated with The Genetics Society.
Dr Cristina Fonseca also contributed to this article as well as to some of the research mentioned that was funded by The Genetics Society.</span></em></p>People who are suspicious of science often assume they are understand it well – and that others agree with them.Laurence D. Hurst, Professor of Evolutionary Genetics at The Milner Centre for Evolution, University of BathLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1734632021-12-10T16:32:25Z2021-12-10T16:32:25ZWhy Nissan is probably the most serious threat to Tesla out of the traditional automakers<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/436943/original/file-20211210-68670-ve1moz.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Getting into gear</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.alamy.com/ukraine-kyiv-20-april-2021-blue-nissan-leaf-car-moving-on-the-street-editorial-image425031447.html?pv=1&stamp=2&imageid=177179B2-A2DF-49A9-992E-E97F63E55AB1&p=184237&n=0&orientation=0&pn=1&searchtype=0&IsFromSearch=1&srch=foo%3dbar%26st%3d0%26pn%3d1%26ps%3d100%26sortby%3d2%26resultview%3dsortbyPopular%26npgs%3d0%26qt%3dnissan%2520leaf%25202021%26qt_raw%3dnissan%2520leaf%25202021%26lic%3d3%26mr%3d0%26pr%3d0%26ot%3d0%26creative%3d%26ag%3d0%26hc%3d0%26pc%3d%26blackwhite%3d%26cutout%3d%26tbar%3d1%26et%3d0x000000000000000000000%26vp%3d0%26loc%3d0%26imgt%3d0%26dtfr%3d%26dtto%3d%26size%3d0xFF%26archive%3d1%26groupid%3d%26pseudoid%3d196110%26a%3d%26cdid%3d%26cdsrt%3d%26name%3d%26qn%3d%26apalib%3d%26apalic%3d%26lightbox%3d%26gname%3d%26gtype%3d%26xstx%3d0%26simid%3d%26saveQry%3d%26editorial%3d%26nu%3d%26t%3d%26edoptin%3d%26customgeoip%3dGB%26cap%3d1%26cbstore%3d1%26vd%3d0%26lb%3d%26fi%3d2%26edrf%3d0%26ispremium%3d1%26flip%3d0%26pl%3d">iurii Vlasenko</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Nissan <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nissan-to-invest-billions-in-sunderland-plant-to-drive-electric-car-revolution-j70j95fmn">recently announced</a> a new £13 billion investment to help transition its business to being focused around electric vehicles (EVs). The investment is centred around its Sunderland plant in the north east of England, which already makes the popular Nissan Leaf, and a plan to build 23 new electric models by 2030. </p>
<p>But Nissan, like most traditional automakers, has a long way to go if it wants to catch Tesla. Elon Musk’s company <a href="https://autobala.com/these-are-the-top-10-best-selling-evs-in-the-world/220082/">is easily</a> the biggest seller of EVs in the world, with the Model 3 and Model Y shifting around <a href="https://ir.tesla.com/press-release/tesla-q3-2021-vehicle-production-deliveries">230,000 vehicles</a> per quarter between them worldwide. China’s SAIC is in second place thanks to its Wuling Hingguang Mini, which is the best selling EV in China. After that come Volkswagen, BYD and Hyundai. </p>
<p>So why are many of the traditional players that have built their businesses on internal combustion engines so far behind Musk, and can Nissan buck the trend?</p>
<h2>Why some have struggled</h2>
<p>Tesla created the first serial production EV with lithium-ion batteries in 2008 with the launch of the Roadster sports car. It has gone on to evolve a suite of vehicles whose range, performance and efficiency are arguably the best in the business – as reflected by <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58993848">the company’s impressive</a> growth and profitability.</p>
<p>It makes sense that if you have been making EVs for the last decade, you’re probably more successful at making them now. You will have vastly more data in terms of how drivers use your vehicles, what goes wrong with them, and how to best manage suppliers of motors and batteries. </p>
<p>Nissan has certainly served its time, having debuted the Leaf in 2011, which is one of the best selling EVs of all time, having sold <a href="https://insideevs.com/news/443096/500000th-nissan-leaf-produced-sunderland-uk/">half a million</a> units over a decade. But if there has been a lesson in this sector, it’s that being successful at making vehicles with internal combustion engines does not guarantee success at making EVs. </p>
<p>An example is General Motors (GM). GM was there all the way back in the late 1990s with its ground-breaking EV1. These little cars, loved by their owners, showed how an all-electric future could look. But GM went on to crush the EV1s en-masse, saying <a href="https://www.nextpit.com/tbt-general-motors-ev1-controversy-and-crushed-innovation">they were</a> insufficiently popular, though conspiracy theorists have questioned whether it was ever serious about taking them to mass market. In the process, EV1s became the star of their <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0489037/">own documentary</a>. </p>
<p>GM tried again to crack EVs with its Volt in 2010, which was also popular until being killed in 2018 (the demise was blamed on an ageing production facility). It also launched the Bolt in 2017, which was designed to be a relatively cheap, long range EV. But while it achieves this, it has been plagued with battery issues. The knowledge that Bolt packs can catch fire has become so pervasive that car parks in the US <a href="https://insideevs.com/news/543282/parking-lots-ban-chevy-bolts/">have reportedly</a> been banning them from entering. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.electrive.com/2021/09/21/gm-declares-bolt-battery-problems-solved/">GM says</a> it now has a solution, and has recalled tens of thousands of Bolts to have their battery packs replaced. But as a result, production of new Bolts <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2021/12/02/gm-delays-production-of-new-chevy-bolt-evs-until-end-of-january/">is currently suspended</a> until late January. GM also promises some 20 new EV models by 2023, but recently came in <a href="https://electrek.co/2021/11/18/gm-promised-20-new-evs-by-2023-they-brought-zero-to-the-la-auto-show/">for criticism</a> after displaying no EVs at the 2021 LA Auto Show (whose theme was electrification). Given that President Biden <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-24/biden-s-praise-for-gm-overlooks-tesla-s-actual-ev-leadership-kwdh01el">recently credited GM</a> with leading the industry in EV manufacture, this surely raises eyebrows. </p>
<p>Toyota was also a key player in moving the industry to greener vehicles with its hybrid cars of the late 1990s, but is now also playing catch up. It has only just, in December 2021, released its first volume production EV, <a href="https://www.toyota.co.uk/electric/bZ">the bZ</a>, after going much further than others with developing hydrogen-powered vehicles. Toyota’s hydrogen-powered Mirai failed to gain market share in the way that EVs with batteries have, <a href="https://newsroom.toyota.eu/toyotas-first-half-year-sales-growth-maintains-record-market-66-share/">selling just 316</a> in Europe in the first half of 2021. Toyota is <a href="https://electrek.co/2021/12/02/toyota-partners-byd-affordable-electric-car/">reportedly also</a> teaming up with China’s BYD to launch a US$30,000 EV in 2022. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, Volkswagen is the legacy automaker seen as most likely to catch up with Tesla’s EV production rate – <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/7e32dfb1-2282-40fa-9b10-181c01272ba3">potentially by 2024</a>. The German giant <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/398513ce-fc3e-4901-9670-382151acbb9c">is spending</a> some €35 billion (£29 billion) on the sector. But Volkswagen acknowledges that it takes them three times as long as Tesla to make its flagship EVs, making the gap in capabilities painfully apparent. It aims to narrow the gap to double in 2022. </p>
<h2>Nissan’s advantage</h2>
<p>If we have learnt anything from Tesla and also <a href="https://theconversation.com/china-is-on-course-to-build-the-best-cars-in-the-world-167661">Chinese EV entrants</a> such as NIO, BYD and XPeng, it’s that bespoke electric chassis make better electric cars. For example, Tesla’s Model 3 rival, the Polestar 2, was originally meant to be a petrol <a href="https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1122902_6-things-you-need-to-know-about-polestar">Volvo S40</a>, but adapting an internal combustion engine vehicle to be electric just doesn’t work as well. You end up with cars with <a href="https://cleantechnica.com/2021/12/08/what-is-the-key-difference-between-the-polestar-2-and-the-tesla-model-3-efficiency/">less range on the battery</a> and often less space inside. </p>
<p>Fortunately for Nissan and its alliance partner Renault, they already have such a bespoke EV platform. Known as <a href="https://www.renaultgroup.com/en/news-on-air/news/the-cmf-ev-platform-advances-the-new-generation-of-electric-vehicles/">CMF-EV</a>, it allows the group to share a number of components across different EVs and maximise the efficiency of manufacturing them.</p>
<p>From observing Tesla, the second vital factor to producing EVs at scale (and profitably) is to make your battery packs as <a href="https://electrek.co/2017/05/08/tesla-battery-director-gigafactory-supply-chain/">close to</a> the final assembly factory as possible, reducing transport cost and time. Again, Nissan ticks this box. Its Sunderland plant, which not only produces the Leaf but will also produce its successor, is situated very close to the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/oct/25/uk-battery-gigafactory-electric-car-sunderland-envision-nissan">Envision battery “gigafactory”</a> that supplies it. Chinese-owned Envision plans to produce 38GWh of batteries a year – enough to power 500,000 new cars, which would put Nissan on par with Tesla’s factories in the US and China.</p>
<p>So with its years of EV knowledge, efficient battery supply chains and bespoke EV platform, Nissan could very well be the legacy automaker that ends up being able to compete with the new kids on the block. But if it fails to capitalise on its advantages to reinvent itself as an EV-first company, we have seen from numerous other companies that being an early runner is certainly not enough on its own.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/173463/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tom Stacey receives funding from ERDF. </span></em></p>Elon Musk’s dedicated EV maker is miles ahead, but Nissan has several advantages over its legacy rivals.Tom Stacey, Senior Lecturer in Operations and Supply Chain Management, Anglia Ruskin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1599762021-06-27T19:50:34Z2021-06-27T19:50:34ZFrom this week, every mainland Australian state will allow genetically modified crops. Here’s why that’s nothing to fear<p>On July 1, the New South Wales government will <a href="https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/about-us/media-centre/releases/2021/ministerial/nsw-lifts-ban-on-gm-crops">lift a ban</a> on genetically modified (GM) crops after an 18-year moratorium. It will mean GM crops can now be grown in every Australian state except Tasmania.</p>
<p>Major farming groups have <a href="https://7news.com.au/business/nsw-lifting-long-ban-on-gm-crops-c-2267856">welcomed</a> the move. GM proponents say the biotechnology leads to better crop yields and may solve food shortages and reduce infestations of weeds and pests. </p>
<p>But opponents <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3558185/">say</a> GM crops are a potential threat to the environment and human health. They fear the technology will encourage superweeds, increase antibiotic resistance and food allergies in humans and may have other unintended effects. </p>
<p>So where does the truth lie? Academic research suggests GM crops are generally safe for humans and the environment, and so I believe the NSW government’s decision should be welcomed.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="protesters in front of sign" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/408303/original/file-20210625-22-1kfgz4t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/408303/original/file-20210625-22-1kfgz4t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408303/original/file-20210625-22-1kfgz4t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408303/original/file-20210625-22-1kfgz4t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408303/original/file-20210625-22-1kfgz4t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408303/original/file-20210625-22-1kfgz4t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408303/original/file-20210625-22-1kfgz4t.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">GM crops will be allowed in all mainland states, despite opposition from some.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Greenpeace/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What is genetic modification?</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/genetically-modified-organisms-gmos-transgenic-crops-and-732/">Genetic modification</a> is the use of technology to change the genes of living things. It involves scientists injecting one organism’s DNA with genes from another, to give it a desirable trait such as resistance to drought, extreme temperature or pests.</p>
<p>Genetically modified crops were introduced commercially in the 1990s. The NSW moratorium began in 2003 following concerns from some importers and manufacturers. For example, countries in the Middle East and Southeast Asia had been <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp0001/01RP17#Obstacles">refusing</a> GM grain, and Canada and Saudi Arabia had indicated they did not want GM-fed livestock.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/about-us/media-centre/releases/2021/ministerial/nsw-lifts-ban-on-gm-crops">Announcing</a> the lifting of the ban in March, NSW Agriculture Minister Adam Marshall said his government had been working to ensure trade and marketing issues surrounding GM food were well managed. He said the Commonwealth Gene Technology Regulator will assess all applications to grow GM crops, ensuring they are safe for people and the environment. </p>
<p>The NSW decision follows similar moves by other mainland states in recent years, including South Australia, which lifted the GM ban in 2020 (with an exemption for Kangaroo Island). A moratorium remains in the ACT.</p>
<p>The NSW government says allowing cultivation of GM crops will increase agricultural competitiveness and productivity, and bring up to A$4.8 billion in benefits over the next decade. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/battling-misinformation-wars-in-africa-applying-lessons-from-gmos-to-covid-19-156183">Battling misinformation wars in Africa: applying lessons from GMOs to COVID-19</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="woman in lab coat" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/408301/original/file-20210625-25-rg3don.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/408301/original/file-20210625-25-rg3don.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408301/original/file-20210625-25-rg3don.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408301/original/file-20210625-25-rg3don.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408301/original/file-20210625-25-rg3don.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408301/original/file-20210625-25-rg3don.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408301/original/file-20210625-25-rg3don.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">Genetic modification involves injecting one organism’s DNA with genes from another.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Aleksandar Plavevski</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Benefits of lifting of the GM ban</h2>
<p>So are the benefits of GM crops real? To answer this question, we can look to three precedents: GM canola, cotton and safflower, which have been grown in Australia for many years. These crops were exempt from the moratoria in NSW and other states, and evidence suggests their cultivation has been a success.</p>
<p>GM cotton has been modified with insecticidal genes, which research shows makes it <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=KDMcEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA53&dq=pesticides+gm+cotton+australia&ots=328XANATOj&sig=JyElhcWlDyAfhaXg7K5hVdXYr2E#v=onepage&q=pesticides%20gm%20cotton%20australia&f=false">more resistant</a> to pests. The modified cotton also requires less <a href="https://cottonaustralia.com.au/fact-sheet">insecticide use</a>.</p>
<p>GM canola has been transformed to make it resistant to herbicides, which enables <a href="http://www.ogtr.gov.au/internet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/Content/9AA09BB4515EBAA2CA257D6B00155C53/$File/12%20-%20Genetically%20modified%20(GM)%20canola%20in%20Australia.pdf">better weed control</a>.</p>
<p>State moratoria delayed the introduction of GM canola, including in NSW. <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5927647/">Research</a> in 2018 found, across Australia, the environmental costs of the delay included an extra 6.5 million kilograms of active ingredients applied to canola land, and an extra 24.2 million kg of greenhouse gas and other emissions released. Economic costs included a net loss to canola farmers of A$485.6 million.</p>
<p>In recent years, Australian regulators <a href="https://blog.csiro.au/omega-omega-3-canola-gets-green-light/">allowed</a> cultivation of canola modified to contain long-chain omega-3 fatty acids, prized for their <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21645698.2018.1429876">health benefits</a>. The canola variety was hailed as the world’s first plant-based source of omega-3 and may reduce reliance on fish stocks. </p>
<p>Safflower has been genetically modified to contain higher amounts of oleic acid. These renewable oils can be used <a href="https://www.csiro.au/en/research/plants/crops/oil-crops/sho-safflower">in place of petroleum</a>, a finite resource, in products <a href="http://www.ogtr.gov.au/internet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/Content/9AA09BB4515EBAA2CA257D6B00155C53/$File/24%20-%20Genetically%20modified%20(GM)%20safflower%20in%20Australia.pdf">such as</a> fuels, plastics and cosmetics. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-quest-for-delicious-decaf-coffee-could-change-the-appetite-for-gmos-153032">The quest for delicious decaf coffee could change the appetite for GMOs</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Crop with farm machinery" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/408302/original/file-20210625-26-1bgt41k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/408302/original/file-20210625-26-1bgt41k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408302/original/file-20210625-26-1bgt41k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408302/original/file-20210625-26-1bgt41k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408302/original/file-20210625-26-1bgt41k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408302/original/file-20210625-26-1bgt41k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408302/original/file-20210625-26-1bgt41k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">GM crops can be made resistant to herbicides.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Greenpeace/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What are the risks?</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.nap.edu/read/23395/chapter/8">Experts concede</a> there are limits to what can be known about the health effects of any food over the long term. However, <a href="https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/gm-plants/is-it-safe-to-eat-gm-crops/">scientists</a> <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24041244/">broadly</a> agree the evidence so far suggests GM crops are <a href="https://doi.org/10.2777/97784">safe to eat</a>. This view is backed by the World Health Organization. </p>
<p>Foods derived from GM plants are consumed by millions of people in many countries. And in Australia, authorities <a href="https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/code/changes/pages/applicationshandbook.aspx">rigorously assess</a> all GM foods before they’re sold to <a href="https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/gmfood/safety/Pages/default.aspx">consumers</a>.</p>
<p>However many countries <a href="https://geneticliteracyproject.org/gmo-faq/where-are-gmo-crops-and-animals-approved-and-banned/">still ban</a> the the cultivation of GM foods. And some people remain worried about the effects on human health. Concerns <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2408621/">include</a> that antibiotic resistance may be transferred from plants to humans, or that GM foods will trigger <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15813800/">allergic reactions</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/gm-crops-to-ban-or-not-to-ban-thats-not-the-question-122202">GM crops: to ban or not to ban? That's not the question</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Experts have concluded the risk of antibiotic resistance is not substantial. There is <a href="https://www.annallergy.org/article/S1081-1206(17)30550-1/fulltext">some</a> evidence of a small number of GM crops being allergenic. But since GM crops undergo extensive allergen testing, they should not be riskier than conventional crops once cleared for market release.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.nap.edu/catalog/23395/genetically-engineered-crops-experiences-and-prospects">Other GM opponents say</a> the technology poses environmental risks – for example that herbicide-resistant GM crops can become “superweeds”. </p>
<p>Research <a href="https://www.nap.edu/read/23395/chapter/4">has found</a> weed resistance to the herbicide glyphosate is a problem, and there is <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167880915302061?casa_token=wTDDiciXRPAAAAAA:XLiEIzHzYCYY5sW-zp5i3H6NFD4JJ5aOdF0-Ls1NPaCmo8pHdaO_KlWGluWbDiuoTH6nFyI6Yw">some evidence</a> of glyphosate-resistant canola persisting outside farms in Australia. Management strategies <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03650340.2019.1624726">can reduce</a> the chance of superweeds developing, but more research is needed.</p>
<p>And it should be noted that while the use of herbicide-resistant crops sometimes leads to less herbicide use, the decrease is often not sustained. Researchers <a href="https://www.nap.edu/read/23395/chapter/7">also say</a> a reduction in the kilograms of pesticides used does not necessarily predict environmental or health effects.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="people spray field" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/408331/original/file-20210625-19-59mtfx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/408331/original/file-20210625-19-59mtfx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408331/original/file-20210625-19-59mtfx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408331/original/file-20210625-19-59mtfx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408331/original/file-20210625-19-59mtfx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408331/original/file-20210625-19-59mtfx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408331/original/file-20210625-19-59mtfx.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">More research is needed into preventing herbicide-resistant superweeds.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Some critics oppose GM crops on the basis that they allow a few large companies – which breed and commercialise seeds – to control food supplies. For example, in 2015 it was <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-32901834">reported</a> the GM maize seed sector in South Africa was owned by just two companies, which meant small farmers could not compete. </p>
<p>Researchers have <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-021-00297-7">proposed measures</a> to counter this corporate concentration of power, by strengthening competition policies, boosting public sector support for diverse food systems and curbing corporate influence in the policy process.</p>
<p>The issue of cross-contamination is also a concern for organic farmers and consumers. In a well-known case from Western Australia, organic farmer Steve Marsh’s crop was <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-03/organic-farmer-steve-marsh-loses-gm-appeal/6746108">contaminated</a> in 2010 with GM canola, causing him to lose his organic certification.</p>
<h2>Looking ahead</h2>
<p>The lifting of the NSW ban on GM crops means Australian mainland states have a consistent approach, and provides new opportunities for Australian growers and consumers. </p>
<p>There are still issues with GM crops to be ironed out, and there’s a need for continued stringent regulation to ensure human and environmental safety. Opposition to the practice will no doubt remain in some quarters. However this may lessen over time as the technology develops and long-term outcomes become clearer.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/159976/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Daniel Tan receives funding from the Cotton Research and Development Corporation, the Grain Research and Development Corporation and the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research. He is Fellow of Ag Institute Australia and a Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy, UK.</span></em></p>GM proponents say the technology leads to better crop yields and may solve food shortages and reduce pests. Opponents say GM is a threat to the environment and humans. So where does the truth lie?Daniel Tan, Professor of Agronomy (Agriculture), University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1594682021-04-23T05:03:11Z2021-04-23T05:03:11ZNatural GM: how plants and animals steal genes from other species to accelerate evolution<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/396277/original/file-20210421-15-8cq4uj.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C10%2C3456%2C2571&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Grassland in Uganda.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Luke Dunning</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Little did biologist <a href="https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/gregor-mendel-a-private-scientist-6618227/">Gregor Mendel</a> know that his experiments with sweet peas in a monastery garden in Brno, Czech Republic, would lay the foundations for our understanding of modern genetics and inheritance. His work in the 19th century helped scientists to establish that parents <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z2296yc/revision/5">pass their genetic information</a> onto their offspring, and in turn, they pass it on to theirs. </p>
<p>Indeed, this premise forms the basis of much of our understanding of evolution. But we now know that this process is not sacrosanct and some of our most widely grown crops may be fiddling the system by supplementing their genetic information with stolen genetic secrets. Our new study, <a href="https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/nph.17328">published in New Phytologist</a>, shows that this does in fact happen in grasses. </p>
<p>Grasses aren’t the only culprits, however. Bacteria are the master criminals in this regard. They are able to freely absorb genetic information from their environment. This process is termed lateral or horizontal gene transfer, and is thought to <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2019.01933/full">play an important role</a> in the spread of traits such as antibiotic resistance. </p>
<p>Although scientists originally thought this process was restricted to bacteria, it has since been documented in a broad range of animals and plants. Examples include aphids that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1187113">can synthesise a red fungal pigment</a> to avoid predation, mushrooms that have <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/evl3.42">shared the genetic instructions</a> to assemble psychoactive compounds, and whiteflies that have <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2021.02.014">turned their host plants’ defences against them</a>.</p>
<h2>Mysterious gene transfer</h2>
<p>Grasses are the most ecologically and economically important group of plants. Grasslands cover between <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.org/article/grasslands-explained/">20% and 40% of the world’s landmass</a>, and several of the most widely grown global crops are grasses, including rice, maize, wheat and sugar cane. Our new study is the first to show that lateral gene transfer is widespread in this important plant group, and it occurs in wild and cultivated species alike. </p>
<p>Our discovery is based on genetic detective work, helping us trace the origin of each gene in the genomes of 17 grass species from around the world. As expected, an overwhelming majority of genes had the same evolutionary history as that of the species they were found in – indicating they were passed down through the generations from parent to offspring. However, we found over a hundred examples where the evolutionary history of the species and genes did not tell the same story. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/jl1bhv73iWo?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>The results showed that these genes had a past life in another distantly related grass species before being transferred into the recipient’s genome.<br>
We know that species boundaries are porous in nature, and that <a href="https://www.gardeningknowhow.com/garden-how-to/info/plant-hybridization-info.htm">hybrid can occur</a> as a result of reproduction between closely related organisms. Hybridisation and lateral gene transfer ultimately have similar effects generating novel combinations of genes that may or may not be advantageous. </p>
<p>However, lateral gene transfer is not a reproductive process and therefore has the potential to connect deeper branches within the tree of life, facilitating the movement of genetic material across much broader evolutionary distances. The genes transferred between grass species have functions relating to energy production, stress tolerance and disease resistance, potentially giving them an evolutionary advantage by allowing them to grow bigger, taller and stronger. </p>
<p>Foreign DNA was detected in the genomes of 13 of the 17 grasses sampled, including crops such as maize, millet and wheat. The million-dollar question is, how are these genes moving between species? In truth, we don’t know and we may never know for certain as there are several potential mechanisms and more than one may be involved. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Image of the author investigating grass in Sri Lanka." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/396279/original/file-20210421-15-6d08z0.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/396279/original/file-20210421-15-6d08z0.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/396279/original/file-20210421-15-6d08z0.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/396279/original/file-20210421-15-6d08z0.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/396279/original/file-20210421-15-6d08z0.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/396279/original/file-20210421-15-6d08z0.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/396279/original/file-20210421-15-6d08z0.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Luke Dunning investigating grass in Sri Lanka.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>After all, evolution is studying events that happened thousands and even millions of years ago. But there is a significant statistical increase in the number of transferred genes present today in grass species with <a href="https://www.thespruce.com/rhizomes-definition-examples-2131103">rhizomes</a> – modified roots that allow plants to propagate themselves asexually (a process in which part of a plant can be used to generate a new plant). The transfer of DNA into the rhizome could be facilitated via direct contact between species underground, possible through root fusion. Interestingly, scientists have recently <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abd8215">observed DNA moving between tobacco plants that have been</a> grafted together, further supporting this hypothesis. </p>
<p>Any foreign DNA transferred into the rhizome would then be replicated in all the cells in the daughter clone that arises from this tissue as the plant reproduces asexually. This foreign DNA would subsequently make its way into the germline (cells that pass on their genetic material to offspring) and future generations when the daughter clone flowers and produces seed. </p>
<h2>GM debate</h2>
<p>The results of this study show that grasses have been genetically engineering themselves. Whether this is ammunition for the pro- or anti-GM lobby depends on your existing preconceptions in this debate. </p>
<p>It could be argued that if grasses are already doing this naturally, then why shouldn’t we? Conversely, this research shows that genes can freely move between grass species regardless of how closely related they are. Therefore, any gene inserted into a modified grass crop may eventually escape into wild species generating so-called superweeds.</p>
<p>Ultimately, if we can determine how lateral gene transfer is happening in grasses it may allow us to harness the process so we can naturally modify crops and make them more resistant to the effects of climate change.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/159468/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Luke Dunning receives funding from The Natural Environment Research Council. </span></em></p>If species already modify their genes, why shouldn’t we?Luke Dunning, Natural Environment Research Council Independent Research Fellow, University of SheffieldLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1222022019-08-22T20:05:36Z2019-08-22T20:05:36ZGM crops: to ban or not to ban? That’s not the question<p>The South Australian government recently announced its intention to lift the long-standing statewide moratorium on genetically modified (GM) crops, following a <a href="https://pir.sa.gov.au/primary_industry/genetically_modified_gm_crops/gm_review">statutory six-week consultation period</a>. </p>
<p>A <a href="https://pir.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/339225/Independent_Review_of_the_South_Australian_GM_Food_Crop_Moratorium.pdf">government-commissioned independent review</a> had estimated the cost of the moratorium at A$33 million since 2004 for canola alone. The review concluded there was no clear market incentive to uphold the ban, except on Kangaroo Island.</p>
<p>In contrast, the <a href="https://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/agriculture/2018-review-of-tasmanias-gmo-moratorium">Tasmanian government announced that its GM moratorium would be extended for 10 years</a>. It cited the state’s GM-free status as an important part of the “Tasmanian brand”, representing a market advantage, particularly for food exports. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/safety-first-assessing-the-health-risks-of-gm-foods-26099">Safety first – assessing the health risks of GM foods</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Research and commercial growing of GM crops in Australia is <a href="https://theconversation.com/setting-the-standards-who-regulates-australian-gm-food-25533">regulated under a national scheme</a>, but governed by individual states. These recent and mooted changes leave Tasmania as the only state with a blanket ban on GM organisms.</p>
<p>The science underlying genetic modification is complex and evolving. A <a href="https://www.science.org.au/education/immunisation-and-climate-change/genetic-modification-questions-and-answers">recent report</a> by an expert working group convened by the Australian Academy of Science (to which I contributed) documented the broad consensus among many professional organisations, including the World Health Organization, that <a href="https://theconversation.com/safety-first-assessing-the-health-risks-of-gm-foods-26099">GM foods and medicines are safe</a>. No ill-effects have been identified relating to human consumption, and GM foods produced so far are no different to unmodified foods in terms of safety and digestibility. </p>
<p>However, the report also highlights that this scientific evidence does not provide answers to all concerns raised by GM technologies. The public’s understanding of this issue is <a href="https://theconversation.com/perceptions-of-genetically-modified-food-are-informed-by-more-than-just-science-72865">shaped by a complex range of factors and values</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/perceptions-of-genetically-modified-food-are-informed-by-more-than-just-science-72865">Perceptions of genetically modified food are informed by more than just science</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Many people’s opinions about GM foods and crops are related to their <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14636778.2017.1287561">views on what constitutes acceptable risk</a>. There is no one right way to measure risks, and various scientific disciplines have different ways of weighing them up. For example, does the lack of evidence of harm mean we can conclude GM food is safe to eat? Or do we need positive evidence of safety? </p>
<p>That second question hinges in part on whether GM foods are seen as substantially equivalent to their non-GM counterparts. This has been a matter of significant debate, especially in regard to <a href="https://theconversation.com/making-a-meal-of-gm-food-labelling-28339">food labelling</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/making-a-meal-of-gm-food-labelling-28339">Making a meal of GM food labelling</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>This in turn begs the further question of how long we should wait before declaring GM food safe. The very word “moratorium” implies that the ban is temporary and subject to review, but opinions differ widely about what constitutes an adequate period for rigorous testing and accumulation of evidence regarding the safety of emerging technologies.</p>
<p>People also have <a href="https://theconversation.com/perceptions-of-genetically-modified-food-are-informed-by-more-than-just-science-72865">diverse views</a> on the role of multinational corporations in agriculture and GM-related research, and concerns about the potential pressure these firms may put on farmers. Many people view the benefits of GM crops as mainly commercial, and perceive a lack of public benefit in terms of health, the environment, or food quality. </p>
<p>Some people question whether we need GM crops at all, especially as they are viewed by some as “unnatural”. Others note that their views depend on the underlying reasons for the modification, so that GM crops with potential environmental advantages might be more publicly acceptable than ones that deliver purely commercial advantages.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hu20ttJFM-0?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Understanding the science is important - but not the whole story.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>When people form opinions on complex issues based not solely on science, it is tempting to assume that this is because they simply don’t understand the science. But of course science doesn’t happen in the abstract – rather, it plays into our everyday decisions made in a wider context. </p>
<p>So if we want to engage people in policy decisions relating to science, we must <a href="https://theconversation.com/because-we-can-does-it-mean-we-should-the-ethics-of-gm-foods-28141">widen the scope of our conversations beyond the mere technical details to focus on underlying values</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/because-we-can-does-it-mean-we-should-the-ethics-of-gm-foods-28141">Because we can, does it mean we should? The ethics of GM foods</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The contrasting decisions in South Australia and Tasmania offer an opportunity for Australians to deepen their understanding of, and engagement with, issues relating to genetic modification. Public debates have tended to focus on the science behind gene modification and the potential risks associated with the resulting products. But they have generally paid less attention to the broader issues relating to environmental, economic, social, cultural, and other impacts. </p>
<p>We need a more sophisticated dialogue about GM food, as part of a wider societal conversation about <a href="https://theconversation.com/tastes-like-moral-superiority-what-makes-food-good-59581">what makes good food</a>. We should ask what types of farming we want to prioritise and support, rather than viewing it as a binary issue of being simply “for” or “against” GM crops.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/122202/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rachel A. Ankeny has received funding for research relating to public understandings of GM from the former Australian Government Department of Industry, Innovation, Science and Research’s National Enabling Technologies Strategy’s (NETS) Public Awareness and Community Engagement Program, administered by the Government of South Australia, Science and Information Economy, Department of Further Education, Employment, Science and Technology (DFEEST), and from the Australian Research Council. She also has received funding from food industry related organisations for social science research related to agriculture and food attitudes/choices, including Grain Growers SA, AgriFutures Australia, Australian Eggs Ltd, Coles Group Ltd, Elders Limited, Richard Gunner’s Fine Meats Pty Ltd, and the South Australian Research and Development Institute. Prof Ankeny is a current member of the GM Crop Advisory Committee for the Government of South Australia and a past member of the Commonwealth Office of the Gene Technology Regulator's Gene Ethics and Community Consultative Committee (and formerly of the Gene Ethics Committee). She has served on expert working groups on food, agriculture, and genetic technologies for the Australian Academy of Science and the Australian Council of Learned Academies. The University of Adelaide, at which Prof Ankeny is employed, has numerous scientific research programs focused on various aspects of GM, but she is not directly involved in any of this research.</span></em></p>South Australia has lifted its moratorium on GM crops, while Tasmania has extended its ban. But the question should no longer be a simple binary of being “for” or “against” GM technology.Rachel A. Ankeny, Professor of History and Philosophy, and Deputy Dean Research (Faculty of Arts), University of AdelaideLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1077142018-11-27T14:55:33Z2018-11-27T14:55:33ZGM closures: Oshawa needs more than ‘thoughts and prayers’<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/247452/original/file-20181127-130884-54sxkq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Laurie Nickel and her daughter Stephanie hold a protest sign during a union meeting after General Motors announced it would be closing its plant in Oshawa, Ont., that employs 2,500 people.
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS/Eduardo Lima</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>All eyes in Canada have turned to Oshawa, Ont., following the announcement by General Motors that it will end auto manufacturing in the city after more than a century of production.</p>
<p>In the coming days we will hear about community resilience and the inevitability of market forces. Some of those impacted will be asked to share their feelings and politicians of all stripes will send <a href="https://nationalpost.com/opinion/john-ivison-federal-government-cant-save-the-gm-plant-or-change-the-weather">their thoughts and prayers</a> to the nearly 3,000 autoworkers who will be out of work. Then we will all move on. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1067082236686753792"}"></div></p>
<p>Does any of this sound familiar? It should. We have been living this story for decades. North America is filled with former mine, mill and factory towns. Some were once synonymous with the departing company or the products that they produced. If we were to put all of these de-industrialized cities on a map, it would be crowded with hurt and heartache.</p>
<p>Among the most famous are the former auto towns of <a href="https://utorontopress.com/ca/industrial-sunset-4">Flint, Mich., which is still living with the poisoned half-life of deindustrialization decades later</a>, and the “Motor City” itself. <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/23/books/review/detroit-city-is-the-place-to-be-by-mark-binelli.html">Detroit lost a staggering 180,000 manufacturing jobs</a> in a devastating seven-year period from 1978 to 1984. The city’s population plunged from 1.8 million in 1950 to just 700,000 today. </p>
<p>A similar story has unfolded in Canada. Windsor, Ont., was devastated in 1951 when Ford decided to relocate its auto-assembly plant to Oakville, located outside of Toronto. Entire regions now feel the pain. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/247437/original/file-20181127-130887-6c3sb5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/247437/original/file-20181127-130887-6c3sb5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/247437/original/file-20181127-130887-6c3sb5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/247437/original/file-20181127-130887-6c3sb5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/247437/original/file-20181127-130887-6c3sb5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/247437/original/file-20181127-130887-6c3sb5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/247437/original/file-20181127-130887-6c3sb5.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">Two workers of Oshawa’s General Motors plant embrace at a union meeting called to discuss the closing of the plant that will put 2,500 people out of work next year.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS/Eduardo Lima</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In my home region of Northern Ontario, for example, there are now more than 20 former mill towns with names like Iroquois Falls, Red Rock, Marathon, Elliot Lake, Fort Frances, Smooth Rock Falls and Sturgeon Falls.</p>
<p>I have been interviewing displaced industrial workers from Canada and the United States since the early 1990s. A plant closing is about much more than lost paycheques. It shatters people’s sense of belonging and identity. Long-term workers in particular lose a social structure in which they find validation.</p>
<p>The human cost of job loss can be enormous, leading to depression, failing marriages or health and even suicide. </p>
<h2>It’s like being run over</h2>
<p>Gabriel Solano, a GM worker in Detroit, explained what was lost the first time a plant closed under him: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“There are things I can’t discuss… I lost a part of me. Me, as a person who said, ‘I have a goal and have a dream.’ To come home, I no longer have a job. The wife looks at you. You’re looking at this baby, you’re looking at this house and you’re realizing ‘you know what? Something’s missing and it’s part of me.’ I don’t so much feel that I was missing GM but I was missing a part of me. Something internal. It’s hard to explain because it’s an emotion. It’s a feeling. Because it took all of those years to build this emotion and this feeling and then, it’s not there. So, you end up with a blank in your life. There is a blank. Yes, there is.”</p>
</blockquote>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/247443/original/file-20181127-130896-f9sdnl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/247443/original/file-20181127-130896-f9sdnl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=603&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/247443/original/file-20181127-130896-f9sdnl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=603&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/247443/original/file-20181127-130896-f9sdnl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=603&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/247443/original/file-20181127-130896-f9sdnl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=758&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/247443/original/file-20181127-130896-f9sdnl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=758&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/247443/original/file-20181127-130896-f9sdnl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=758&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Displaced Detroit Autoworker Gabriel Solano pictured in his abandoned GM Factory.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">David W. Lewis</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Gabriel Solano closed out three GM plants before his life was cut short by an early death.</p>
<p>One time he was even transferred into another assembly plant two weeks before it, too, closed.</p>
<p>Each time left its scars. </p>
<p>Gabriel said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“You see the train coming, you’re on the track. ‘It’s going to stop.’ ‘It’s not coming.’ You hear the whistle and you feel the vibration. And then next thing you know you’ve been run over. And you still don’t even believe it after its run over you and a hundred cars have run past.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The sense of betrayal runs deep in working-class communities. They feel betrayed by their employers, their unions, their governments, sometimes even by their own communities.</p>
<p>Another displaced worker said: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“I heard about the closure on television on the 6 o’clock news. Then, a couple weeks later they phoned me up and said ‘you got a 35-year pin that we have here. We’d like to give it to you.’ I said ‘ok.’ He said, ‘meet us at the front gate.’ You know, everything was closed so the fellow, our superintendent at the time, he gave me the 35-year pin. You can picture a chain linked fence, he handed it to me through the fence. ‘Here is your 35-year pin.’”</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Oshawa did not need to close</h2>
<p>From a historical perspective, the Oshawa closure is completely unnecessary. </p>
<p>Had the provisions of <a href="https://utorontopress.com/ca/auto-pact-4">the 1965 Canada-U.S. Auto Pact</a> not been traded away by our leaders to get a free trade deal in the 1980s, GM would have been unable to close the plant because the Big Three automakers were required to produce as many vehicles as they sold in Canada. There were also Canadian content rules in place for auto parts. </p>
<p>Instead, since then, GM has closed one plant after another, starting with its Toronto-area Scarborough van plant in 1993, followed in 2004 by its assembly plant in Sainte-Thérèse, Que., the Oshawa truck plant in 2008 and the Windsor transmission plant in 2010. GM’s Canadian operations are now limited to two communities in southern Ontario: an assembly plant in Ingersoll and an engine plant in St. Catharines.</p>
<p>General Motors of Canada has been <a href="https://www.thestar.com/business/2018/11/25/gms-century-of-automaking-in-oshawa.html">part of Oshawa since 1918</a>. Had the Canadian and Ontario governments placed more stringent conditions on the $3-billion bailout of GM in 2009, the Oshawa plant might have been saved.</p>
<p>For example, in 1979-80, the federal and Ontario governments helped bail out Chrysler on the condition that it re-invest hundreds of millions into its Canadian manufacturing plants. The result was the reindustrialization of Ontario at a time when plants were closing in the United States.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/247440/original/file-20181127-130896-g4m7s4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/247440/original/file-20181127-130896-g4m7s4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/247440/original/file-20181127-130896-g4m7s4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/247440/original/file-20181127-130896-g4m7s4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/247440/original/file-20181127-130896-g4m7s4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/247440/original/file-20181127-130896-g4m7s4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/247440/original/file-20181127-130896-g4m7s4.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">Jerry Dias, president of UNIFOR, the union representing the workers of Oshawa’s General Motors car assembly plant.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS/Eduardo Lima</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Had the Canadian and Ontario governments not quietly sold off all their shares in GM (at a heavy loss) in 2016 that they acquired as a result of the bailout, then we might still have had the needed leverage to convince GM not to abandon Oshawa. National Unifor President Jerry Dias, the union president who represents the Oshawa autoworkers, said as much at the time. The union had used what negotiating power it had, pushing the Big Three to reinvest in Canada — but, without backup, it was not enough. </p>
<p>Industrial workers are thought to inhabit the past, not the present — even though the world hasn’t deindustrialized. </p>
<p>There is a depressing inevitability to plant closings that prevents us from responding with more than platitudes. We have come to accept the <a href="https://www.ubcpress.ca/the-deindustrialized-world">structural violence</a> of industrial plant closure as a fact of life. They have become normalized to such an extent that we may not even recognize plant closings as a form of violence. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/247439/original/file-20181127-130902-183193x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/247439/original/file-20181127-130902-183193x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/247439/original/file-20181127-130902-183193x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/247439/original/file-20181127-130902-183193x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/247439/original/file-20181127-130902-183193x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/247439/original/file-20181127-130902-183193x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/247439/original/file-20181127-130902-183193x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Workers of Oshawa’s General Motors car assembly plant, listen to Jerry Dias, president of UNIFOR, the union representing the workers, at the union headquarters, in Oshawa, Ont. on Monday, Nov. 26, 2018.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS/Eduardo Lima</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Decades of internalized despair have broken out into open revolt against political “elites” across the deindustrialized world. Brexit, the election of Donald Trump as U.S. President (thanks to the five Rust Belt states that flipped from Obama to Trump) and the rise of right-wing populism are all tied to working-class rage. </p>
<p>So far, Canada has largely escaped this political tumult. But if our own political parties continue to fail working people, this too will change.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/107714/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Steven High receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and Concordia University. </span></em></p>General Motors has announced it’s closing plants in Canada and the U.S. Many of the towns have built cars for decades or longer. A plant closing shatters people’s sense of belonging and identity.Steven High, Professor of History, Centre for Oral History and Digital Storytelling (COHDS), Concordia UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/711122017-01-24T09:09:09Z2017-01-24T09:09:09ZHow GM crops can help us to feed a fast-growing world<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/153298/original/image-20170118-26582-1mtximm.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>The United Nations forecasts global population to rise to <a href="http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/population/2015-report.html">more than 9 billion people</a> by 2050. Climate change may mean that the crops we depend on now may <a href="http://www.nature.com/articles/nplants2016202">no longer be suited</a> to the areas where they are currently cultivated and may increasingly be threatened by <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/yes-some-extreme-weather-can-be-blamed-on-climate-change/?WT.mc_id=SA_TW_ENGYSUS_NEWS">droughts, floods</a> and the <a href="http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n11/full/nclimate1990.html">spread of plant diseases</a> due to altered weather patterns. So feeding everyone in the coming decades will be a challenge – can genetically modified crops help us achieve this? </p>
<p>Two groups of genetically modified crops are widely grown. The first are altered so that they are <a href="http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/roundup-ready-crops/">not affected by the herbicide glyphosate</a>, which means that farmers can eliminate weeds without harming their crop. Glyphosate-resistant crops can increase farming efficiency but, while helping to get rid of weeds, herbicide resistance has no direct effect on the quantity of food produced, so their contribution to food security is likely to be limited. </p>
<p>The second type produce a natural insecticide <a href="http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/insecticidal-plants/">inside the parts of the plant that pests eat</a>. This protects the yields of these crops against insect infestation, which is arguably more environmentally friendly than using sprays that could be toxic to other organisms. Crops of this type are likely to be useful, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4908423/">but we should increase the number of insecticide genes</a> that we employ to prevent evolution of resistant pests. </p>
<p>Farmers have always faced crop diseases – think of the Irish potato famine of the 19th century – and some scientists predict that climate change may allow previously contained infections <a href="http://www.envirochange.eu/download/free_publications/EnviroChangeProject_Booklet2012_Pertot_Elad.pdf">to spread into new areas and become more damaging</a>. It may already have contributed to the <a href="https://www.csis.org/analysis/severe-climate-change-driven-wheat-fungus-found-bangladesh-highlighting-need-risk">devastating appearance of a fungal infection called wheat blast in Bangladesh</a>, a disease that can cause <a href="http://www.cimmyt.org/wheat-blast/">nearly complete loss of this critical crop in infected fields</a>.</p>
<h2>Disease resistance</h2>
<p>Genetic modification can certainly be used in the fight to make crops more disease resistant. Many plants are vulnerable to an infection because they cannot detect the invading organism. However, the proteins that identify an infection and activate a plant’s defences can be moved between <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/100/16/9128.full.pdf">varieties</a> or even <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0042036">species</a> using genetic modification. This will enable previously vulnerable crops to turn on resistance mechanisms.</p>
<p>It is also becoming possible to rewrite the genes for these gatekeeper proteins so that they <a href="http://apsjournals.apsnet.org/doi/10.1094/MPMI-07-15-0147-R">work for different diseases</a>. A powerful and rapid method for <a href="https://www.neb.com/tools-and-resources/feature-articles/crispr-cas9-and-targeted-genome-editing-a-new-era-in-molecular-biology">editing genes called CRISPR-Cas9 has recently been developed</a> and it is already being harnessed to produce genetically modified crops. For example, genes that make wheat vulnerable to powdery mildew have been changed to <a href="http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v32/n9/full/nbt.2969.html">produce a resistant variety</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/153302/original/image-20170118-26548-u5hqdr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/153302/original/image-20170118-26548-u5hqdr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=409&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/153302/original/image-20170118-26548-u5hqdr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=409&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/153302/original/image-20170118-26548-u5hqdr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=409&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/153302/original/image-20170118-26548-u5hqdr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=513&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/153302/original/image-20170118-26548-u5hqdr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=513&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/153302/original/image-20170118-26548-u5hqdr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=513&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The CRISPR-Cas9 system for gene editing.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">ibreakstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Nor is gene editing limited to improving disease resistance. Tomatoes have been tweaked to be insensitive to changes in the number of hours of sunlight in a day. This causes them to <a href="https://eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-12/cshl-gey_1120216.php">produce fruit more quickly</a> because they aren’t waiting for the right time of year to start flowering.</p>
<h2>Improving photosynthesis</h2>
<p>Fundamentally, agriculture uses photosynthesis to convert light energy, water and carbon dioxide into food – so <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nph.14307/full">improving this process</a> would increase how much food we produce. An obvious target is the step that captures carbon dioxide as it sometimes mistakes oxygen for carbon dioxide in a wasteful set of reactions called <a href="http://www.rsc.org/learn-chemistry/content/filerepository/CMP/00/001/066/Rubisco%20and%20C4%20plants.pdf?v=1353967268963">photorespiration</a>. </p>
<p>As it happens, some plants already have a solution to this problem. They possess a system that pumps carbon dioxide into <a href="http://www.rsc.org/learn-chemistry/content/filerepository/CMP/00/001/066/Rubisco%20and%20C4%20plants.pdf?v=1353967268963">specialised parts of the leaf where most photosynthesis occurs</a>, concentrating it there so that photorespiration doesn’t happen. These species, known as C4 plants, can make <a href="https://academic.oup.com/jxb/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/jxb/err179">more use of sunlight at higher temperatures</a> and <a href="http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/367/1588/583.long">need less water</a> because the pores that let carbon dioxide into their leaves don’t have to open so much and therefore less water vapour escapes through them. </p>
<p>It has been estimated that transferring these mechanisms into other crop species such as rice could increase productivity by 50%. Unfortunately, progress towards this goal has been slow, partly because <a href="https://langdalelab.com/research-2/kranz-anatomy/">rice doesn’t have the same leaf structure as C4 plants</a>. A version of rice that can carry out a <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/s/535011/supercharged-photosynthesis/">simple version of C4 photosynthesis</a> has recently been produced but it will take at least ten years to optimise it. </p>
<p>Less ambitious approaches may provide benefits more quickly, such as a <a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/2111377-trials-planned-for-gm-superwheat-that-boosts-harvest-by-20/">new type of wheat</a> in which productivity has been increased by 15% to 20% by speeding up recycling of ribulose bisphosphate which is crucial for carbon dioxide capture.</p>
<h2>Improving nutrition</h2>
<p>Crops are not just being genetically modified to improve their quantity but also their nutritional quality. The most prominent of these is “<a href="http://www.goldenrice.org/Content3-Why/why.php">golden rice</a>”. Vitamin A deficiency causes 250,000 deaths per year and is common in populations whose diet is heavily dependent on rice. Golden rice is golden because it produces large quantities of yellow dietary carotenoids that our bodies can convert into vitamin A. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/153588/original/image-20170120-5260-16q8g7a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/153588/original/image-20170120-5260-16q8g7a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/153588/original/image-20170120-5260-16q8g7a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/153588/original/image-20170120-5260-16q8g7a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/153588/original/image-20170120-5260-16q8g7a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/153588/original/image-20170120-5260-16q8g7a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/153588/original/image-20170120-5260-16q8g7a.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">Golden rice is engineered to be rich in vitamin A.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Jiang Hongyan</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Other “biofortified” crops in development include <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/107/41/17533.full">potatoes with more protein</a> and <a href="http://www.nature.com/articles/nplants2016191">cooking bananas with increased carotenoids and iron</a>.</p>
<p>Many people – and countries – are still sceptical about GM food. But people and animals have now been consuming GM crops for more than 20 years <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/07388551.2013.823595">without apparent harm to their health</a>. On the other hand, there is no question that starvation kills and that food insecurity is a major global threat. There are challenging times ahead. Can we afford to close the door on these powerful ways to protect our food supply?</p>
<hr>
<p>_This article is part of a series by The Conversation on food security. <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/food-security-2017-35230">Read other articles here</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/71112/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stuart Thompson has received funding from MAFF and the Nuffield Foundation. </span></em></p>Many people are suspicious of GM crops, but new techniques could massively increase food production.Stuart Thompson, Senior Lecturer in Plant Biochemistry, University of WestminsterLicensed 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/621422016-07-07T14:29:32Z2016-07-07T14:29:32ZWhy scientists’ failure to understand GM opposition is stifling debate and halting progress<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/129720/original/image-20160707-30705-168vxku.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">GM protest in Montpellier.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/peter_curb/19418818568">Peter/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Genetically modified crops are safe for human consumption and have the potential to feed the world and improve human health, scientists have been telling us for years. On June 30, 110 Nobel laureates from around the world <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/30/nobel-winners-slam-greenpeace-for-anti-gm-campaign">signed a letter</a> demanding that the environmental pressure group Greenpeace stop its campaign against GM crops. How many people must die before we consider this a “crime against humanity”? the letter asks.</p>
<p>The scientists are accusing Greenpeace of ignoring facts, misrepresenting risks and benefits, failing to recognise the authority of science and relying on emotion and dogma. They are particularly concerned about Greenpeace’s opposition to <a href="http://www.goldenrice.org/">Golden Rice</a>, which has an added gene that boosts vitamin A levels – something scientists claim is much needed in many poor populations. </p>
<p>But <a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/agriculture/problem/Greenpeace-and-Golden-Rice/">Greenpeace argues</a> that there are cheaper and more effective alternatives to Golden Rice and that GM rice developers are out of touch with the needs of local populations. It also claims developers are downplaying the risk that GM rice will contaminate traditional and organic rice crops.</p>
<p>The eminent scientists appear to have learned little about opposition to GM crops over the last 20 years. Social science research suggests they are misinformed and their approach <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/crispr-science-can-t-solve-it-1.17806">is misguided</a>. Opposition to GM crops is not always based exclusively on scientific risks and benefits and neither is it grounded in emotion or dogma. To characterise opposition in this way only serves to inflame the relations between proponents and opponents. It is therefore unlikely to help us realise the potential of GM crops in feeding the world.</p>
<h2>Flawed debate</h2>
<p>Together with Frøydis Gillund, Lilian van Hove and Fern Wickson from the Norweigian <a href="http://genok.com/biosafety/">GenØk Centre for Biosafety</a>, I have been studying the acrimonious debate about agricultural biotechnology for several years. Our research has identified <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1002453">five requirements</a> for advancing a responsible debate about GM crops. These are a commitment to honesty; recognition of the values underlying the practice of science; involvement of a broad range of people; consideration of a range of alternatives; and a preparedness to respond. </p>
<p>We believe that this approach will moderate the debate, offering a workable approach to considering the role of GM crops. But the attitudes of many scientists stand in the way of such progress.</p>
<p>Discussions about GM crops need honesty about the quality of the available scientific knowledge and the degree to which claimed benefits can be realised. It must take concerns seriously, even those beyond scientific risk. The lack of openness about when Golden Rice will be finished and who it will benefit is cause for concern and can lead to significant misunderstandings and mistrust between scientists and the public. Golden Rice is being developed in the Philippines, not in Africa and Southeast Asia, which you may believe if you read the letter. And even in the Philippines, <a href="https://pages.wustl.edu/files/pages/imce/stone/stone_glover_2016_golden_rice.pdf">it is not expected to be ready for several years</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/129695/original/image-20160707-30670-117fgnt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/129695/original/image-20160707-30670-117fgnt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/129695/original/image-20160707-30670-117fgnt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/129695/original/image-20160707-30670-117fgnt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/129695/original/image-20160707-30670-117fgnt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/129695/original/image-20160707-30670-117fgnt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/129695/original/image-20160707-30670-117fgnt.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">Golden Rice (right) versus regular rice.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) / wikimedia</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We also need to think about how values and assumptions shape the way we govern GM crops. We know that hiding values and choices from public scrutiny continues to be a source of controversy. With Golden Rice, there is an assumption that technology is the appropriate fix for a complex social problem. Such values must be recognised and addressed openly rather than hiding them within a narrow debate about human and environmental risk. This would in turn allow more transparent decision making and effective dialogue between Golden Rice developers, policymakers and civil society.</p>
<p>Decisions about GM crops need to include different scientific disciplines (for example, molecular biology and ecology) and stakeholders such as farmers, citizens, and organisations like Greenpeace. When the GM crop debate is confined to human and environmental risk, it limits who can participate in decision-making and privileges scientists – in this case, Nobel laureates who are not necessarily experts on GM crops or GM rice. However, the GM crop debate is not only a technical debate about scientific risks: it involves other ethical and social concerns such as community empowerment, patents and nutrient availability. Inclusive decision-making about GM will make the process more democratic and create a more comprehensive knowledge base.</p>
<p>We also need to talk about the range of alternative ways to frame the problem of global food security, as well as the range of alternative solutions. As the Nobel laureates recognise, agricultural systems are under severe stress from converging problems associated with soil deterioration, lack of water, chemical pollution, climate change, and population growth. Current policies to address these problems typically focus on technological fixes that deliver economic benefits. For example, <a href="https://pages.wustl.edu/files/pages/imce/stone/stone_glover_2016_golden_rice.pdf">alternative ways of addressing vitamin A deficiency</a> through fortification, rather than genetic modification, in the Philippines have had dramatic results since 2003. </p>
<p>Ultimately, GM crop developers, risk researchers, regulators, and policy makers need to be willing and prepared to consider and respond to societal needs and concerns as well as to new scientific knowledge. This is important not only for ensuring the democratic accountability of science and technology but also as a means to enable us to reverse decisions and adapt policies in the face of change. </p>
<p>It is clear that the scientists accusing Greenpeace of crimes against humanity feel deeply frustrated about what they see as shackles on a technology that for them has clear benefits for the world’s poor. However, by signing the inflammatory letter, they reveal a flawed and naïve understanding of the debate. This approach is likely to result in further agitating and polarising the debate rather than achieving the desired outcome. Indeed, some may even see these scientists as using their privilege and authority to promote a particular technological solution to a political problem.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/62142/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sarah Hartley receives funding from Leverhulme Trust ‘Making Science Public’ programme
under Grant RP2011-SP-013. </span></em></p>When the GM crop debate is confined to the human risks, it limits who can participate in the decision making and privileges scientists.Sarah Hartley, Research Fellow, Sociology and Social Policy, University of NottinghamLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/597152016-05-24T11:54:24Z2016-05-24T11:54:24ZRoyal Society president: GM crops feed much of the world today – why not tomorrow’s generations?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/123763/original/image-20160524-10984-i0nr0t.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://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FEMA_-_2086_-_Photograph_by_Andrea_Booher_taken_on_07-09-1993_in_Missouri.jpg">Andrea Booher/FEMA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>My parents researched malnutrition and under-nutrition in India, especially among children, and found that many diets recommended by Western nutritionists were in fact completely inapplicable to the poor. So they formulated cheap, healthy diets based on indigenous food with which people were familiar. Yet despite their many other efforts, a quarter of people in Indian and nearly one in nine people around the world do not have enough food to live a healthy active life. </p>
<p>The World Bank estimates that we will need to <a href="http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/foodsecurity">produce about 50% more food by 2050</a> to feed a population of nine billion people. And the past 50 years have seen agricultural productivity soar – <a href="http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/260638/aib786d_1_.pdf">corn yields in the US have doubled</a>, for example. But this has come with sharp increases in the use of fertilisers, pesticides and water which has brought its own problems. There is also no guarantee that this rate of increase in yields can be maintained.</p>
<p>Just as new agricultural techniques and equipment spurred on food production in the Middle Ages, and scientific crop breeding, fertilisers and pesticides did so for the Green Revolution of the 20th century, so we must rely on the latest technology to boost food production further. Genetic modification, or GM, used appropriately with proper regulation, may be part of the solution. Yet GM remains a highly contentious topic of debate where, unfortunately, the underlying facts are often obscured.</p>
<p>Views on GM differ across the world. Almost <a href="http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/51/default.asp">half of all crops grown in the US are GM</a>, whereas widespread opposition in Europe means virtually no GM crops are grown there. In Canada, regulation is focused on the characteristics of the crop produced, while in the EU <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/gmo/index_en.htm">the focus is on how it has been modified</a>. GM crops do not damage the environment by nature of their modification; GM is merely a technology, and it is the resulting product that we should be concerned about and regulate, just as we would any new product.</p>
<p>There are outstanding plant scientists who work on GM in the UK, but the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish governments have declared their opposition to GM plants. Why is there such strong opposition in a country with great trust in scientists?</p>
<p>About 15 years ago when GM was just emerging, its main proponents and many of the initial products were from large multinational corporations – even though it was publicly funded scientists who produced much of the initial research. Understandably, many felt GM was a means for these corporations to impose a monopoly on crops and maximise their profits. This <a href="https://theconversation.com/seeds-of-doubt-why-consumers-weigh-up-gm-produce-and-turn-it-down-50106">perception</a> was not helped by some of the practices of these big companies, such as introducing herbicide resistant crops that led to the heavy use of herbicides – often made by the same companies.</p>
<p>The debate became polarised, and any sense that the evidence could be rationally assessed evaporated. There have been claims made about the negative <a href="https://www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/research-and-journals/elsevier-announces-article-retraction-from-journal-food-and-chemical-toxicology">health effects</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-does-gm-cotton-lead-to-farmer-suicide-in-india-24045">economic costs</a> of GM crops – claims later shown to be unsubstantiated. Today, <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/348830/bis-14-p111-public-attitudes-to-science-2014-main.pdf">half of those in the UK do not feel well informed</a> about GM crops.</p>
<h2>Everyday genetic modification</h2>
<p>GM involves the introduction of very specific genes into plants. In many ways this is much more controlled than the random mutations that are selected for in traditional plant breeding. Most of the commonly grown crops that we consider natural actually bear little resemblance to their wild ancestors, having been selectively modified through cross-breeding over the thousands of years that humans have been farming crops – in a sense, this is <a href="https://theconversation.com/all-our-food-is-genetically-modified-in-some-way-where-do-you-draw-the-line-56256">a form of genetic modification itself</a>.</p>
<p>In any case, we accept genetic modification in many other contexts: insulin used to treat diabetes is now made by GM microbes and has almost completely replaced animal insulin, for example. Many of the top selling drugs are proteins such as <a href="http://www.britannica.com/science/genetically-modified-organism/GMOs-in-medicine-and-research">antibodies made entirely by GM</a>, and now account for a third of all new medicines (and over <a href="http://www.drugs.com/stats/top100/sales">half of the biggest selling ones</a>). These are used to treat a host of diseases, from breast cancer to arthritis and leukaemia.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/123762/original/image-20160524-12397-eg8skv.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/123762/original/image-20160524-12397-eg8skv.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/123762/original/image-20160524-12397-eg8skv.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123762/original/image-20160524-12397-eg8skv.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123762/original/image-20160524-12397-eg8skv.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123762/original/image-20160524-12397-eg8skv.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=518&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123762/original/image-20160524-12397-eg8skv.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=518&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123762/original/image-20160524-12397-eg8skv.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=518&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Millions of acres growing GM crops worldwide.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gmo_acreage_world_2009.PNG">Fafner/ISSSA</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>GM has been used to create insect-resistance in plants that greatly reduces or even eliminates the need for chemical insecticides, reducing the cost to the farmer and the environment. It also has the potential to make crops more nutritious, for example by adding healthier fats or more nutritious proteins. It’s been used to introduce nutrients such as beta carotene from which the body can make vitamin A – the so-called <a href="https://theconversation.com/golden-rice-naysayers-ignore-the-worlds-need-for-nutrition-19790">golden rice</a> – which prevents night blindness in children. And GM can potentially create crops that are drought resistant – something that as water becomes scarce will become increasingly important.</p>
<p>More than 10% of the world’s arable land is now used to grow GM plants. An <a href="http://nas-sites.org/ge-crops">extensive study</a> conducted by the US National Academies of Sciences recently reported that there has been no evidence of ill effects linked to the consumption of any approved GM crop since the widespread commercialisation of GM products 18 years ago. It also reported that there was no conclusive evidence of environmental problems resulting from GM crops.</p>
<p>GM is a tool, and how we use it is up to us. It certainly does not have to be the monopoly of a few multinational corporations. We can and should have adequate regulations to ensure the safety of any new crop strain (GM or otherwise) to both ourselves and the environment, and it is up to us to decide what traits in any new plant are acceptable. People may be opposed to GM crops for a variety of reasons and ultimately consumers will decide what they want to eat. But the one in nine people in poor countries facing malnutrition or starvation do not enjoy that choice. The availability of cheap, healthy and nutritious food for them is a matter of life and death.</p>
<p>Alongside other improvements in farming practices, genetic modification is an important part of a sustainable solution to global food shortages. However, the motto of the Royal Society is <a href="https://royalsociety.org/about-us/history/"><em>nullius in verba</em></a>; roughly, “take nobody’s word for it”. We need a well-informed debate based on an assessment of the evidence. The Royal Society has published <a href="http://www.royalsociety.org/gm-plants">GM Plants: questions and answers</a> which can play its part in this. People should look at the evidence – not just loudly voiced opinions – for themselves and make up their own minds.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/59715/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Venki Ramakrishnan is President of the Royal Society.</span></em></p>Science and technology has always helped us feed the world. GM has more to offer, if we let it.Venki Ramakrishnan, Professor and Deputy Director, MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, University of CambridgeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/546982016-03-11T11:12:33Z2016-03-11T11:12:33ZCan we ‘vaccinate’ plants to boost their immunity?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/114727/original/image-20160310-26261-7ib0hc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=221%2C786%2C2767%2C1476&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Our modern crops need some help in the immunity department.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/ndrwfgg/173181035">Andy / Andrew Fogg</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>When you pick up the perfect apple in the supermarket it’s easy to forget that plants get sick just like we do. A more realistic view might come from a walk outside during summer: try to find a leaf without a speck, spot or blemish. Tough, huh? Those are the signs of a microscopic battle waged every day in and on plants.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/114742/original/image-20160310-26279-stkxxv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/114742/original/image-20160310-26279-stkxxv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/114742/original/image-20160310-26279-stkxxv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=463&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/114742/original/image-20160310-26279-stkxxv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=463&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/114742/original/image-20160310-26279-stkxxv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=463&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/114742/original/image-20160310-26279-stkxxv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=582&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/114742/original/image-20160310-26279-stkxxv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=582&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/114742/original/image-20160310-26279-stkxxv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=582&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Plants get sick too.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lumbar_plant_acerleaf_sick.jpg">Carsten Niehaus</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Just like us, plants are covered in microbes. And just like us, plants have evolved an immune system to protect against the dangerous ones. But our current agricultural system works against plants’ natural immune defenses, by limiting the tools plants have to fight back and restricting evolution of new tools. </p>
<p>Pesticides provide us with most of the spotless produce in the grocery store. Even so, many apples still don’t make it to market. About a <a href="https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/ITS_4.pdf">third end up</a> as juice or applesauce, because they don’t meet the beauty standards of the American consumer. Forget about blemishes – <a href="http://panamadisease.org/en/theproblem">Panama Disease</a> threatens nearly all of the world’s banana production, and the only effective treatment is toxic to the soil.</p>
<p>Scientists studying plant immunity are figuring out how to fight plant diseases without chemical pesticides. Some researchers plan to <a href="https://theconversation.com/primed-for-battle-helping-plants-fight-off-pathogens-by-enhancing-their-immune-systems-43689">give our crops vaccines</a>, just like the shots we administer to ourselves to fend off the flu or smallpox. My lab seeks to identify ways plants defend themselves in the wild. With that information, we can use modern breeding techniques and genetic engineering to strengthen the immunity of our crops and gardens.</p>
<h2>Plants have naturally evolving “resistance genes”</h2>
<p>Over the last 25 years, advances in genetics and molecular biology have revealed new secrets of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_disease_resistance">plant immunity</a>. Computers, searching mountains of plant genetic data, have identified thousands of “<a href="http://prgdb.crg.eu/wiki/Main_Page">resistance genes</a>” that <a href="http://doi.org/10.1038/nature05286">help plants fend off infection</a>.</p>
<p>These genes are the blueprints for resistance proteins that look surprisingly like the antibodies in the human immune system. Both are modular in nature and recognize specific invading pathogens. Like a lock and key, only the proper resistance protein “lock” will recognize its corresponding pathogen “key.”</p>
<p>Resistance proteins also contain a switch to alert the plant that a potential threat has been found. Without the proper lock and key combination, the plant never knows the pathogen is there. If the resistance protein identifies a pathogen, other immune functions and defenses turn on to fight the intruder and attempt to keep the plant from getting “sick.” </p>
<p>Animals’ immunity has a distinct advantage over plants’, though. New <a href="http://www.imgt.org/IMGTeducation/Tutorials/ImmuneSystem/UK/the_immune_system.pdf">antibodies are made fresh by human immune cells</a> to recognize new pathogens we might encounter. Plants are stuck with what they’ve got. All the resistance genes they have were passed down from their parents.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/114764/original/image-20160311-26274-5p03tr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/114764/original/image-20160311-26274-5p03tr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/114764/original/image-20160311-26274-5p03tr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/114764/original/image-20160311-26274-5p03tr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/114764/original/image-20160311-26274-5p03tr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/114764/original/image-20160311-26274-5p03tr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/114764/original/image-20160311-26274-5p03tr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/114764/original/image-20160311-26274-5p03tr.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">Modern farms support much less diversity – and contain less immunity – than a natural wildflower field.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/barbarawalsh/5944251580">Barbara Walsh</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Diversity is a key part of plant immune systems</h2>
<p>Bacteria and fungi with short life cycles can evolve more quickly than plants. These pathogens can complete a life cycle in a week and produce millions of offspring. If even one changes or drops the molecular “keys” recognized by a resistance protein, it could start a new family of pathogens capable of infecting the plant.</p>
<p>Due to the rigidity of inherited resistance, only genetic variety among a plant species can provide a variety of resistances to pathogens. The more diverse the population of plants, the more diverse the resistance genes in the population. </p>
<p>Resistance genes’ modular nature allows computers to find them, and is also critical for their evolution. This characteristic allows for quick rearrangements and new combinations. The mixing of genes during plant sex can lead to new chimeric resistance genes made of bits and pieces of the parents’ genes. Even as the pathogens change to evade the plant, resistance genes can evolve over the generations to recognize and fight them. </p>
<p>Human beings’ <a href="http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5609e/y5609e02.htm">reliance on monoculture</a> for our food supply <a href="http://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2013.06.007">works against</a> the plants’ natural defenses. Without a variety of resistance gene modules to work with, the plant community struggles to hit on new winning combinations. Not only are we halting the natural evolution of resistance genes, but if every plant in the field is identical, then disease that infects one can infect them all.</p>
<p>The plant pathogens are evolving, but we continue to grow the same plants, with the same resistance genes. To compensate, we rely <a href="http://quickstats.nass.usda.gov">more and more on pesticides</a> to keep our crop plants healthy. Without new resistance genes our <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/04/the-worlds-most-popular-banana-could-go-extinct/">current crops of bananas</a> and <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/planetary-disasters-it-could-happen-one-night-1.12174">potatoes may fail</a>. </p>
<h2>Compensating for the diversity our crops lack</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.fralin.vt.edu/affiliated-faculty/john-mcdowell">Our lab</a> and collaborators seek to find resistance genes in wild relatives of the soybean to <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-08-15-0916-RE">breed into commercial varieties</a>. We play the role of natural selection by choosing diverse resistance that protects against economically important diseases.</p>
<p>Breeding can be slow and is especially difficult if the plants are only distantly related. So other labs and companies are using genome editing technologies to introduce new resistance genes quickly.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/114762/original/image-20160310-26271-1o9a4mr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/114762/original/image-20160310-26271-1o9a4mr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/114762/original/image-20160310-26271-1o9a4mr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/114762/original/image-20160310-26271-1o9a4mr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/114762/original/image-20160310-26271-1o9a4mr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/114762/original/image-20160310-26271-1o9a4mr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=583&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/114762/original/image-20160310-26271-1o9a4mr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=583&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/114762/original/image-20160310-26271-1o9a4mr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=583&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 potato suffering from late blight, the disease responsible for the Irish potato famine.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/usdagov/5050443007">U.S. Department of Agriculture</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Take the example of potatoes and late blight, the disease that caused the Irish potato famine in the 19th century. Today, farmers spray fungicide as many as <a href="http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/r607101211.html">15 times a year</a> to combat the disease on potatoes. A <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-313X.2003.01934.x">decade of research</a> identified and isolated a resistance gene in wild potato to fight late blight. Chemical company BASF genetically modified (GM) cultivated potato varieties in an attempt to market a GM, disease-resistant product. The <a href="http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2013/02/basf-gm-potato-amflora">project was abandoned</a> in 2013 due to lack of interest and high regulatory barriers.</p>
<p>US regulators have recently approved new <a href="http://www.simplotplantsciences.com">“Innate” potato</a>, a GM variety with resistance genes from wild potato relatives. These potatoes recognize, and fight back against late blight – without the help of fungicide. </p>
<p>The use of genetic modification in food is still controversial. Many think GM plants need more testing; others say they are not natural. <a href="http://bigstory.ap.org/article/94da41eac8a64ff8a14b072bcd14fe0a/fda-gives-ok-companys-genetically-engineered-potato">McDonald’s will not use the Innate potato</a> for its French fries. Everyone can buy and eat as they choose. But sometimes I want to bite into that perfect red apple or enjoy a bag of French fries. For me, at least, the potato plant fighting for itself with the help of an added gene is more appealing than weekly applications of <a href="http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/carbaryl-dicrotophos/chlorothalonil-ext.html">fungus-killing chemical chlorothalonil</a>. </p>
<p>Some scientists are going a step further. Just this year researchers showed how they <a href="http://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad3436">customized a resistance gene</a>. In this case, rather than borrowing from nature, the “locks” have been engineered in the lab to recognize a specific pathogen “key.” Putting the new resistance gene in plants confers synthetic immunity.</p>
<p>This research is still only at the in-the-lab stage, but it opens the hopeful possibility that even if diseases evolve to evade all natural plant resistance, we can engineer tools to stop them.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/54698/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Herlihy is a graduate student at Virginia Tech, and receives funding from Virginia Tech and North Carolina State University. </span></em></p>Modern agriculture is synonymous with monoculture. That lack of diversity is bad news for plants’ natural immune defenses. Researchers are figuring out how to help plants fend off microbes – without pesticides.John Herlihy, Ph.D. Student in Plant Pathology, Physiology and Weed Science, Virginia TechLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/544422016-02-11T10:01:21Z2016-02-11T10:01:21ZWhy we won’t be able to feed the world without GM<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/110854/original/image-20160209-12606-13ekzgp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">We're talking about a lot of seeds</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=feed%20the%20world&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=44069140">Great Divide Photography</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>One thing I remember vividly from my childhood is The Day of the Triffids. In John Wyndham’s apocalyptic novel, the triffids were carnivorous plants that didn’t need roots and had developed three legs to allow them to find prey (whose nitrogen they fed on instead). They were originally bred by humans to provide high-quality vegetable oil, since the growing population’s demand for food was outstripping supply. Initially contained on farms, the triffids escaped following an “extreme celestial event” and began to terrorise the human population. </p>
<p>Replace “breeding” with “genetic modification” and you have the contemporary cautionary tale about the threat of “Frankenfoods” to human health and the environment. But this raises another question – if we ignore their potential, what does it mean for human food requirements in the future?</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/110860/original/image-20160209-12610-wmrcxz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/110860/original/image-20160209-12610-wmrcxz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/110860/original/image-20160209-12610-wmrcxz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=879&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110860/original/image-20160209-12610-wmrcxz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=879&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110860/original/image-20160209-12610-wmrcxz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=879&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110860/original/image-20160209-12610-wmrcxz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1105&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110860/original/image-20160209-12610-wmrcxz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1105&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110860/original/image-20160209-12610-wmrcxz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1105&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Leaf grief.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Day of the Triffids was first published in 1951, right at the start of the “<a href="http://geography.about.com/od/globalproblemsandissues/a/greenrevolution.htm">green revolution</a>”. The latest thing was breeding new varieties of cereal which were high-yielding. Together with other newly developed technologies including machinery – tractors and irrigation pumps – and synthetic inputs like pesticides and fertilisers, this <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11584298">helped double</a> major commodity crop production between 1960 and 2000 to 2 billion tonnes worldwide, rebutting <a href="http://www.economist.com/node/11374623">Malthusian</a> fears about the world failing to feed its growing population. </p>
<p>In the last decade, the rosy glow has worn off a little. Growth in world crop yields <a href="http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2296">has declined</a> and is even stagnating, <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/333/6042/616">perhaps due to</a> climate change – especially stress from heat and drought. Yields <a href="http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/ncomms3918">are no longer</a> increasing fast enough to keep pace with projected demand. If current trends continue, <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0066428">we’ll need to</a> expand our crop land by 42% by 2050. As a consequence, forests will be lost. Along with associated costs from requiring more water, plus the effects on biodiversity, this <a href="http://www.fcrn.org.uk/research-library/importance-food-demand-management-climate-mitigation">will increase</a> agriculture’s greenhouse-gas emissions significantly. In total, agri-food <a href="http://www.fcrn.org.uk/research-library/importance-food-demand-management-climate-mitigation">is set to</a> emit enough greenhouse gases to surpass the entirety of the 1.5°C temperature-rise target <a href="http://newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-newsroom/finale-cop21/">called for in Paris</a> for 2050. </p>
<h2>Supply …</h2>
<p>There are basically two options: we can increase yields to meet demand without expanding area, and/or we can reduce demand enough to allow supply to catch up. Increasing supply in a sustainable way is perfectly possible. Some of this is about increasing efficiency through better farming, such as using <a href="https://soilsmatter.wordpress.com/2015/02/27/what-is-precision-agriculture-and-why-is-it-important/">precision agriculture</a> to target the right amounts of fertilisers and pesticides to the right places. </p>
<p>Some of it is about changing land management to get the most out of agricultural land while maintaining ecosystem services, for example by managing the edges of fields as buffer strips to prevent chemicals being washed away by heavy rains; and as <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2008.00004.x/full">places with lots of wild flowers</a> where bees can thrive to improve crop pollination. And some of it is about developing new animal and plant varieties that are more efficient, more productive or better able to cope with the changing environment.</p>
<p>New varieties can come about from various means. Conventional breeding continues to be important. But modern laboratories have given us more strings to our bow. Not all biotechnological approaches are genetic modification in the legal sense. Using chemicals or X-rays to create genetic variation has <a href="https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/02/05/pasta-ruby-grapefruits-why-organic-devotees-love-foods-mutated-by-radiation-and-chemicals/">long been</a> a mainstay of “conventional breeding”, for example. Other techniques – such as <a href="http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2014/crispr-a-game-changing-genetic-engineering-technique/">CRISPR</a> – are arguably post-GM, in that they can involve the clinical editing of single genes without leaving a signature of foreign DNA. CRISPR <a href="https://www.jic.ac.uk/news/2015/11/crispr-crop-genes-no-transgenes/#">can produce</a> identical plants to those produced conventionally, but much faster. Yet for some people, biotechnological crop or livestock modification conjures up “triffidophobia”. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/110863/original/image-20160209-12571-10asr0x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/110863/original/image-20160209-12571-10asr0x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/110863/original/image-20160209-12571-10asr0x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110863/original/image-20160209-12571-10asr0x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110863/original/image-20160209-12571-10asr0x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110863/original/image-20160209-12571-10asr0x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110863/original/image-20160209-12571-10asr0x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110863/original/image-20160209-12571-10asr0x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Chop chop.</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=Pn9wL9qjtP2ie2RbShav7A&searchterm=CRISPR&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=353873630">Mopic</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Just how wary should we be about new technologies? Conventional breeding has served us well, but can’t keep up with demand or the speed with which the weather is changing. Any change in farming practice has associated risks that need to be assessed and managed, but these also need to be weighed against the risks of doing nothing. To increase food supply to meet projected demand, farming in the same way as we do now, the emissions from deforestation and other changes will <a href="http://www.fcrn.org.uk/research-library/importance-food-demand-management-climate-mitigation">lock us into</a> a world of 4-5°C of climate change. Together with other significant costs to the environment and human health and well-being, that’s probably a greater risk than the alternative. </p>
<p>It is difficult to guess how much biotechnological approaches will contribute to the solution, though. We still need to develop precision agriculture and smarter land use. And even if the gaps between current and required yields are halved – a big ask across the world – we’ll still need more land to meet demand. This would still impact on the likes of our water supply <a href="http://www.fcrn.org.uk/research-library/importance-food-demand-management-climate-mitigation">and create</a> enough warming to challenge the Paris targets. </p>
<h2>… or demand?</h2>
<p>This is where the second option comes in – decreasing demand. <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-014-1104-5">Globally</a>, we feed livestock about a third of all the calories we grow – enough to feed all the people in Asia. About a third of the food we grow is also lost or wasted. And across the world, many people overeat enough to make themselves ill through obesity, diabetes and so on. If we made wiser purchasing and consumption decisions, potentially we could halve current global demand for food. That would create space for sustainably feeding the growing population as well as growing biofuels and carbon storage in new forests.</p>
<p>For me, the message is clear. We are unsustainably using the planet’s resources to produce the food we demand, and there will be very negative results if we continue on the same trajectory. New technology can help, but needs assessed as it is developed. Old technology still has a role; as does reducing waste, over-consumption and meat-heavy diets. There is no simple answer but there is a toolbox, and we’ll need every tool at our disposal to address the challenge we created. Our technology won’t produce The Day of the Triffids, but without it, we may create a future Apocalypse Now.</p>
<p><em>For more coverage of the debate around GM crops, <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/gm-food">click here</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/54442/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tim Benton receives funding from NERC, BBSRC, ESPA and the EU. He is also the Champion of the UK's Global Food Security programme. </span></em></p>The concerns about genetically modified foods are well known. But when we look at population and climate projections, what happens if we don’t use them to increase our food supply?Tim Benton, Professor of Population Ecology, University of LeedsLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/537572016-01-28T11:22:33Z2016-01-28T11:22:33ZWhy a new trade deal has put GM crop concerns in the spotlight<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/109477/original/image-20160128-3039-11de3mh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">TTIP is coming</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-273428492/stock-photo-ttip-american-and-european-flag-in-front-of-a-map-of-europe.html?src=csl_recent_image-2">John Kehly</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Civil society groups have been voicing concerns about the upcoming Euro-American trade deal the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) since it was <a href="http://www.euintheus.org/press-media/ttip-launch-with-president-obama-at-g8-a-powerful-demonstration-of-our-determination-to-shape-an-open-and-rules-based-world-says-president-barroso/">announced</a> three years ago. </p>
<p>The list of worries includes companies being able to constrain public policy; the potential for weaker consumer and health and safety standards; and the secrecy around the negotiations. Genetically modified (GM) products are one subject on the table, since they fall within TTIP’s broader remit to tackle areas where the US and EU approaches are furthest apart and have therefore been ignored by <a href="http://useu.usmission.gov/transatlantic_relations.html">previous efforts</a> to harmonise regulations. Not surprisingly, perhaps, the potential effect on how GM is regulated is of serious concern. </p>
<p>In the US <a href="http://phys.org/news/2013-06-gmo-corn-soybeans-dominate.html">the share</a> of GM crops, particularly maize and soybeans, has grown steadily over the years – even though support for the technology is not universal. The US has no specific legislation over GM crops, but approves them either through the Food and Drug Administration or via national environmental policy processes, depending on the variety and purpose. </p>
<p>Approvals use a science-based risk assessment, which focuses on whether scientists have identified sufficient risks to justify a ban. Although the federal authorities are the most important in this area, municipal authorities also have jurisdiction over GM to some extent, and some Californian municipalities <a href="http://ecowatch.com/2015/12/26/yurok-tribe-bans-gmos/">have banned</a> cultivation, for example. On the other hand, attempts at both federal and state level to force consumer products to carry GM labels have failed.</p>
<h2>The European approach</h2>
<p>In the EU, applications to approve new crops go to the relevant member state and are then passed to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). The EFSA makes a recommendation to the European Commission (EC), which in turn makes a recommendation that is subject to a vote by the member states. These recommendations are based on the <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=URISERV%3Al32042">precautionary principle</a> – meaning that approvals might be refused if the science is not sufficiently certain about the level of risk involved. </p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/seeds-of-doubt-why-consumers-weigh-up-gm-produce-and-turn-it-down-50106">As things stand</a>, only one GM crop has EU approval for cultivation. Imports of consumer products and animal feeds with GM ingredients are permitted, but they <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/gmo/traceability_labelling/index_en.htm">must be</a> labelled if the GM content is above 0.9%; and non-GM foods and feeds can display labels signalling that they are GM free. </p>
<p>The reason why so few GM products are permitted is that strong opposition in some member states, including Austria, France, Germany, Hungary, Poland and Italy, led the EC to suspend its approval processes in 1998. To get around this, new regulations introduced last April include opt-out measures so that even if a product is approved at EU level, individual member states <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-europe-will-let-member-states-opt-out-of-gm-crops-50873">can still</a> decide not to allow cultivation or use the product in food or animal feeds in their national territory. This is designed to break the deadlock and allow more pro-GM areas like Spain, Portugal and the English part of the UK to take up these products.</p>
<p>These changes to the rules are linked to a World Trade Organisation (WTO) <a href="http://nwrage.org/content/factbox-key-findings-wto-ruling-gmos">2006 ruling</a> against the EU’s approach to granting GM approvals, following pressure from US farming groups and GM manufacturers. The WTO found that most EU member states were unduly slow to deal with approval applications for new GM crops and that a previous pan-EU moratorium on new applications contravened the rules of international trade. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/109379/original/image-20160127-26792-6jnfot.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/109379/original/image-20160127-26792-6jnfot.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/109379/original/image-20160127-26792-6jnfot.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/109379/original/image-20160127-26792-6jnfot.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/109379/original/image-20160127-26792-6jnfot.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/109379/original/image-20160127-26792-6jnfot.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/109379/original/image-20160127-26792-6jnfot.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/109379/original/image-20160127-26792-6jnfot.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">Fruit shoot.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-189324287/stock-photo-genetic-modification-of-fruit-with-a-syringe-full-of-chemicals.html?src=csl_recent_image-1">ddsign</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Other US trade agreements</h2>
<p>When it comes to predicting what TTIP could mean for the very different approaches to GM in the US and EU, people often look to the other ambitious US trade deal in the making, the <a href="https://ustr.gov/tpp/overview-of-the-TPP">Trans-Pacific Partnership</a>, which involves 11 other Pacific Rim countries. From the parts of TPP <a href="https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/trans-pacific-partnership/tpp-full-text">published so far</a>, environmental groups like Ecowatch <a href="http://ecowatch.com/2015/11/05/tpp-text-atttack-food-labeling-laws/">are concerned</a> that the section on sanitary and phytosanitary standards could weaken national resolve to control GM through labelling. </p>
<p>Though it doesn’t mention prevention of GM labelling as such, it includes commitments to prevent undue delays on imports of agricultural goods; to limit inspections; and accept that different systems can achieve the same outcome. Meanwhile, the sections on intellectual property include a 10-year data-exclusivity requirement for new agricultural chemical products. This appears to provide an additional economic incentive for GM producers to develop products and push for greater market share. </p>
<p>TPP also pushes for each country to recognise the other signatories’ certification systems for organic products, which raises an analogy with the US-South Korea <a href="https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/korus-fta">free-trade agreement</a> of 2011. Following the agreement Korea <a href="http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/jan2006/korea.php">was forced</a> to adapt its zero tolerance against GM, which had previously meant that to be considered organic in that South Korea, products had to have a 100% guarantee that there was no GM contamination in them. Since certain non-GM organic products from the US could not give that 100% guarantee, they had not previously qualified as organic in Korea. The trade deal meant that if products were labelled organic in the US, they had to be accepted as organic in South Korea. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/109380/original/image-20160127-26817-ilx0uk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/109380/original/image-20160127-26817-ilx0uk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/109380/original/image-20160127-26817-ilx0uk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/109380/original/image-20160127-26817-ilx0uk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/109380/original/image-20160127-26817-ilx0uk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/109380/original/image-20160127-26817-ilx0uk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/109380/original/image-20160127-26817-ilx0uk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/109380/original/image-20160127-26817-ilx0uk.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">What Korea has to swallow …</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/s/korea+food/search.html?page=4&thumb_size=mosaic&inline=339006191">Sarunyu L</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Because most EU members still oppose GM, it seems highly improbable that the US will be able use the TTIP negotiations to force Europe to dramatically change its position. But GM labelling, which is voluntary in the US, might be the area where the Americans try to exert the most pressure. </p>
<p>TTIP is no doubt generating heated debates behind closed doors. Because the final outcome will depend on trade-offs and linkages across the whole agreement, it is impossible to say how this will affect GM at this stage. And even once we have a published agreement, it will take years before we see how it is implemented and interpreted in practice – just like it will with TPP. All we can say is that it has the potential to have a substantial effect on current regulation. Many people are therefore watching developments closely. </p>
<p><em>For more coverage of the debate around GM crops, <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/gm-food">click here</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/53757/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Maria Garcia 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 upcoming TTIP trade agreement could force EU to liberalise GM regulations such as labelling.Maria Garcia, Senior Lecturer in International Relations, University of BathLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/527152016-01-08T13:43:09Z2016-01-08T13:43:09ZGM foods: big biotech is quietly winning the war<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/107169/original/image-20160104-28997-amiycq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A rush and a push and the land is ours ...</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=1GRT-yNpLhTTVFK9Vr-ilA&searchterm=winning%20war&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=340682912">Memmore</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>It must have been 1996 or 1997 when I first met someone from Monsanto. The anti-GM movement in the UK had by then already acquired some momentum and Monsanto was cast as the <a href="http://www.monbiot.com/1997/12/15/the-monsanto-monster/">prime villain</a> for seeking to import GM soya into Europe, though other seed producers were receiving similar treatment. I asked my contact why Monsanto allowed itself to be castigated in such a way. “It never occurred to us that anybody would be interested in plant breeding,” he replied. “They never had been in the past.” </p>
<p>Though hindsight is a wonderful thing, the industry should maybe not have been so surprised at the opposition when it <a href="https://theconversation.com/seeds-of-doubt-why-consumers-weigh-up-gm-produce-and-turn-it-down-50106">began to market</a> its insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant crops in the mid-1990s. Some readers might recall <a href="https://microbewiki.kenyon.edu/index.php/Bacterial_nucleation_in_pseudomonas_syringae">efforts in the mid-1980s</a> to delete a gene that made plants more susceptible to frost damage, which led to the development of “Ice Minus” bacteria. The <a href="http://modernfarmer.com/2014/05/even-first-gmo-field-tests-controversial-will-ever-end-fight/">spectacle of</a> scientists in moon suits spraying Ice Minus on strawberry and potato plants in California made global headlines. Despite the fact that the bacteria did improve the plants’ protection against frost, long legal battles with opponents concerned about the effects on the environment were one of the main reasons the project was abandoned. </p>
<h2>The rise of environmentalism</h2>
<p>You can trace the anti-GM movement to two things. First, increasing disillusion, especially in Europe, with the progress of left-wing ideologies in the former Soviet Union and its allies. And second, a growing awareness of environmental problems in the years following the 1962 publication of Rachel Carson’s landmark attack on synthetic pesticides, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/dec/07/why-rachel-carson-is-a-saint">Silent Spring</a>. These created a breeding ground in which movements like anti-GM could flourish: as the socialist cause faded, environmentalism began to take its place. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/107170/original/image-20160104-28985-1xqrn0s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/107170/original/image-20160104-28985-1xqrn0s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/107170/original/image-20160104-28985-1xqrn0s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=796&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/107170/original/image-20160104-28985-1xqrn0s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=796&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/107170/original/image-20160104-28985-1xqrn0s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=796&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/107170/original/image-20160104-28985-1xqrn0s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1001&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/107170/original/image-20160104-28985-1xqrn0s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1001&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/107170/original/image-20160104-28985-1xqrn0s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1001&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.flickr.com/photos/usepagov/15011159418/in/photolist-oSu7Hq-5jwyYt-4DTVS2-6cRtyK-6cVBFm-9veNn9-6bEuaB-bachxH-iym7DN-h6NjWR-7oqAg8-eaGpGa-eaN3F3-eaN3BE-MFm45-4Kier9-c65jTW-5RxkRb-69rVmD-bF6VGg-dgdX68-67TovS-wu7wzZ-qzUe6P-qUWaNU-74gEJE-rcwaYg-qUW9Zj-eeJRYT-8K4ijo-9u85ns-9u84VY-9u54ZD-9u53F2-9u55wc-9u55SF-5JHHuo-as9mMP-6dxBMK-6Fkuod-7WJfjG-qfHmjT-bpWRVF-62Yt1W-4TNR5U-4TJBzR-4TNPdf-9gpSyK-pwQrd5-ehaHHv">USEPPA</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Helping this along were scores of green politicians who saw political advantage in adopting postures which could frighten the population with threats to their food, and commercial interests such as the organic food industry which may have seen GM as a threat to their own brands and market shares – although it didn’t explain its opposition in that way. </p>
<p>This was the potential maelstrom into which agribiotech companies launched their first projects. The objections erupted primarily in Europe, reaching the US only ten years later (in the form of opponents seeking local GM bans and a <a href="http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/976/ge-food-labeling/us-polls-on-ge-food-labeling">nationwide campaign</a> for GM labelling). Yet even in Europe, the opposition was far from universal in the early days. Between 1995 and 1997, for example, GM tomato purée <a href="https://theconversation.com/whatever-happened-to-bans-on-gm-produce-in-british-supermarkets-51153">was sold</a> in two UK supermarket chains without incident. </p>
<p>It was only in 1997 when the anti-GM row really got going over the import of GM soya into Europe. At the time, some environmental pressure groups were in need of a new vehicle through which to channel protest – for example Greenpeace <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/greenpeaces-brent-spar-apology-1599647.html">had backtracked and apologised</a> for publicising a seriously mistaken estimate of the amount of oil left onboard the Brent Spar storage buoy. Accordingly, these organisations adopted a vigorous and at times violent opposition to all things GM, including imports and, above all, their cultivation on European soil. They frightened enough people to create a public outcry. The media became largely anti-GM, in Europe at least. Retailers <a href="https://theconversation.com/whatever-happened-to-bans-on-gm-produce-in-british-supermarkets-51153">began to</a> remove GM products from their shelves, although their approach was far from coherent. The seed producers battled on but to little effect.</p>
<h2>In from the cold</h2>
<p>Fast-forward 15 years and the environment has improved somewhat for GM in Europe. The UK media, for instance, now <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jun/13/gm-crops-environment-study">tends to be</a> more in favour than against. There is more pro-GM media coverage than there once was even in Germany, a country still generally more determinedly opposed than England (<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-33833958">Scotland</a>, <a href="http://www.fwi.co.uk/arable/wales-bans-gm-crops-to-protect-organic-farming.htm">Wales</a> and <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34316778">Northern Ireland</a> also take a more anti-approach). </p>
<p>Supermarket opposition has softened in the UK, too. Recent changes to EU rules <a href="https://theconversation.com/gm-crops-an-uneasy-truce-hangs-over-europe-48835">have made</a> GM crop cultivation more likely in a handful of countries, including England, the Czech Republic, Romania and Spain. My sense is that much of the European public has become bored with the issue, even in countries whose governments remain opposed. GM is meanwhile <a href="https://theconversation.com/gm-crops-and-the-developing-world-opposing-sides-miss-the-bigger-picture-50479">very successful</a> in the Americas and parts of Asia and Australia, while growing perceptibly in Africa. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/107171/original/image-20160104-29003-wu9wr4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/107171/original/image-20160104-29003-wu9wr4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/107171/original/image-20160104-29003-wu9wr4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/107171/original/image-20160104-29003-wu9wr4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/107171/original/image-20160104-29003-wu9wr4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/107171/original/image-20160104-29003-wu9wr4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/107171/original/image-20160104-29003-wu9wr4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/107171/original/image-20160104-29003-wu9wr4.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">‘Put a GM sock in it.’</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=Y9MXZdeIbCUFsBZnytGNXQ&searchterm=public%20bored&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=262932707">Jane0606</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Through all of this, the major agribiotech companies have focused on quietly selling themselves to people prepared to listen, and publishing various accounts of their technical and scientific advances. In Europe, they work with the industry group <a href="http://www.europabio.org">EuropaBio</a> to represent their interests in the corridors and conference centres of the EU. In the past few years, the industry seems essentially to have given up on cultivating GM crops in the European countries where it is not welcome, focusing instead on the places that want the technology. But it is keen to maintain imports into Europe of GM products, particularly animal feedstuffs, which are widely used. </p>
<p>Agribiotech no doubt did make mistakes in the early days of GM by failing to anticipate the strength of the opposition. But maybe the need to commercialise the products made this unavoidable. Certainly the industry remains unpopular in some quarters: Monsanto in particular is still seen by activist protesters as a large and visible target. But whether the general public subscribes to such views, or ever really did, is much less certain. Ultimately that is the only thing that matters, even if there is still some way to go to persuade everyone yet. </p>
<p><em>For more coverage of the debate around GM crops, <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/gm-food">click here</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/52715/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Prof Moses is Chairman of CropGen, a public information organisation in the UK originally supported by the agricultural biotechnology industry. He consults to the Agricultural Biotechnology Council, and has received funding from the EU as coordinator of three projects to explore the public understanding of and consumer attitudes to agricultural biotechnology in a number of countries in the EU and elsewhere.</span></em></p>Monsanto an other biotech companies got caught short in the 1990s. But since then, the GM argument has been moving in their direction.Vivian Moses, Visiting Professor of Biotechnology, King's College LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/518932015-12-15T19:33:16Z2015-12-15T19:33:16ZGM salmon may be safe but they’re not coming to a store near you just yet<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/105693/original/image-20151214-1648-11t6oda.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The genetically modified salmon (rear) grows twice as fast as a non-GM fish.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Aquabounty Technologies</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>We have all, most likely unknowingly, eaten products that have contained some form of genetically modified (<a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/gm-food">GM</a>) crops, which remain <a href="http://biotech.about.com/od/Genetically-Modified-Organisms/a/The-Controversy-Of-Genetically-Modified-Food.htm">controversial</a> to some people despite having been under commercial production for nearly two decades. </p>
<p>But when the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) <a href="http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm473249.htm">gave the go-ahead</a> last month to GM salmon, it marked the first time any GM <em>animal</em> had been cleared for human consumption.</p>
<p>Until then GM animals had remained the preserve of movie makers (ever seen the <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0384833/">2004 television movie</a> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrKTLEPeO38">Frankenfish</a>?). So what does this landmark approval mean for the future of the food on our plate?</p>
<p>The <a href="https://aquabounty.com/our-salmon/">transgenic Atlantic Salmon</a> was first developed by a Canadian Biotech company, <a href="https://aquabounty.com/">AquaBounty Technologies</a>, more than 20 years ago. Its AquAdvantage salmon incorporates additional copies of a growth hormone gene from another salmon species.</p>
<h2>Is it safe?</h2>
<p>Fish were the subject of early research on GM animals because they are easy to manipulate. Research demonstrated that the GM salmon grew <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/salmon-approval-heralds-rethink-of-transgenic-animals-1.18867">nearly twice as fast</a> as normal salmon and had slightly improved food conversion efficiency.</p>
<p>The FDA has taken nearly 20 years to determine that, under certain conditions, this fish is safe to eat, represents no risk to the environment, raises no significant animal ethics concerns and that the claims made for its performance are valid.</p>
<p>While the original goal may have been to produce GM salmon seed stock for sale to salmon farmers, AquaBounty’s current goal is to be a producer of high quality and affordable salmon.</p>
<p>This is reflected in the details of the FDA approval, which restricts production to only two sites – a hatchery in Canada and a production facility in Panama – both managed by AquaBounty.</p>
<p>As a result, the scale of production of GM salmon will be a tiny proportion of the 2.1 million tonnes of salmon the International Salmon Farmers Association (ISFA) <a href="http://www.salmonfarming.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/isfa-final.pdf">says</a> is produced annually around the world.</p>
<p>The ISFA <a href="http://www.salmonfarming.org/isfa-rejects-gmo/">remains opposed</a> to any transgenic salmon production, standing firm on a position it first took back in 1996. Given such opposition by the salmon industry’s global peak body, how do we know it’s still safe?</p>
<p>In 2007 I contributed to <a href="http://dspace.flinders.edu.au/xmlui/handle/2328/9289">a review of risk assessment</a> for transgenic fish and virtually every measure of containment of this risk is being applied to the production of this GM salmon.</p>
<p>The fish can be produced only in the land-based facilities in Canada and Panama with physical barriers preventing it from ever reaching the sea (which in any case would be too warm in Panama). Even if any fish did manage to get to sea, the GM salmon are all-female and sterile so would have no chance to breed with each other or with wild salmon.</p>
<h2>GM fish in stores</h2>
<p>Perhaps one surprise from the FDA approval was that no requirement was imposed to label the fish as a GM product because, <a href="http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/GeneticEngineering/GeneticallyEngineeredAnimals/ucm473238.htm">it said</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[…] food derived from AquAdvantage Salmon is not materially different from food derived from other Atlantic salmon.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Thus any identification of GM fish product in the marketplace will be voluntary. Our domestic market is well served by the Tasmanian salmon industry and any sale of imported GM salmon in Australia would require specific regulatory approval by our food standards authority.</p>
<p>Given that the GM salmon will be produced by only one company and in the Americas, we are unlikely to see GM salmon on our fishmonger’s slabs any time soon.</p>
<p>It is difficult to predict the market response to GM fish. In a quick survey of my students, half said they were happy to eat GM fish, rising to 75% if the fish was cheaper.</p>
<p>But there are likely to be vocal opponents to the marketing of GM fish and large sectors of the aquaculture industry will be concerned about being tainted with negative perceptions.</p>
<p>Australian aquaculture has a global reputation as a supplier of high quality, sustainable seafood and has already distanced itself from any notion of producing GM fish.</p>
<h2>The future of other GM fish</h2>
<p>Perhaps the most significant impact of the FDA approval will be that it may be a catalyst for approval of other GM fish produced in other regions. During the heyday of research on transgenic fish, numerous GM fish were produced around the world.</p>
<p>Approvals of other GM fish may not be the result of such rigorous evaluation or may not require the same tight conditions imposed on the production of AquAdvantage salmon and thus come with more risks attached.</p>
<p>But why do we need GM fish anyway? It can be argued that the genetic gains from producing GM fish can be won using more traditional genetic approaches, such as selective breeding.</p>
<p>Nearly all our agricultural produce is selectively bred. Well managed selection programs generate cumulative long term gains and control inbreeding through maintaining large effective population sizes. </p>
<p>GM produces a one-off gain with potential to improve target traits in a shorter time frame. It can also develop traits that are difficult to improve using traditional selective breeding, but this may be at the cost of declines in other traits. </p>
<p>Since the development of the first GM fish over two decades ago, GM technology has now been applied to a range of higher organisms including <a href="http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150309-will-we-ever-eat-gm-meat">pigs and cattle</a>. The approval of the GM salmon can be seen as a validation of the technology but this approval is so specific to the properties of this particular program that it is unlikely to open the floodgates for widespread approvals of GM animals.</p>
<p>But the power of the technology is such that, with the increasing pressure to meet rising demand for food, I believe we will see more GM animals entering the marketplace in the foreseeable future.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/51893/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Graham Mair is a director of Australian Seafood Industries (ASI) Ltd. which is a company that manages a selective breeding program for Pacific Oysters. This company has no links with the salmon industry and is not involved in the GM issue, it does standard selective breeding. There are no issues around GM in oyster farming and I can see no benefit at all to ASI from this article.
Graham Mair is the current Past-President of the World Aquaculture Society which is a professional society and has no advocacy role. My views are my own and do not represent those of the Society.</span></em></p>The US food authority may have approved GM salmon for our consumption, but it may take time before any appear in our stores.Graham Mair, Director of Marine Sciences and Professor of Aquaculture, Flinders UniversityLicensed 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/504792015-11-12T13:59:03Z2015-11-12T13:59:03ZGM crops and the developing world: opposing sides miss the bigger picture<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/101570/original/image-20151111-9400-1r5scrl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Cotton on the move in Burkina Faso</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/cifor/8621692342/in/photolist-e8SqKY-fZn1rP-fZn1rt-e8T66h-eM5uty-eM5uEw-eLT7nZ-eLT6Rp-eM5sMC-eM5s9C-eM5tYu-eM5res-eLT61t-eM5rRm-eLT5gc-eLT5JP-eM5shf-eM5suu-eLT6sx-eLT6d8-eLT4fB-eLT4G2-eLT5B2-eM5rsU-eM5rmN-eM5rGN-eM5unb-eM5tHw-eM5thm-e8LHjr-g5E2Bc-e8LoVg-69S9qv-ea9g9k-5smiC5-e8Msiv-e8STt5-e8SDTG-e8T62S-g5FhaQ-e8SitW-9Zrji9-eafjvu-g5E2B2-5VZM46-oNfQUG-e8LuZg-e8LC4r-eacA6G-ea6Vp8">CIFOR</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The majority of genetically modified (GM) crops <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b86833c2-7a26-11e2-9dad-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3rAtCbsH2">are now</a> cultivated in the developing world. <a href="http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/49/executivesummary/">In 2014</a>, around 53% of the 182m hectares (nearly two million square kilometres) of GM crops were grown in these countries.</p>
<p>In reality, though, the “developing world” is a catch-all for many different countries. Brazil and Argentina are way out in front, planting nearly 70m hectares of GM soy, maize and cotton. India has 11.6m hectares of GM cotton alone. China has a broader spread but much smaller quantities, while in sub-Saharan Africa, there are 2.7m hectares of GM soy, maize and cotton in South Africa, and 0.5m hectares of cotton in Burkina Faso. Bangladesh is the latest addition to the so-called GM nations. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/101569/original/image-20151111-9358-a6bow3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/101569/original/image-20151111-9358-a6bow3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/101569/original/image-20151111-9358-a6bow3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=320&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/101569/original/image-20151111-9358-a6bow3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=320&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/101569/original/image-20151111-9358-a6bow3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=320&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/101569/original/image-20151111-9358-a6bow3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/101569/original/image-20151111-9358-a6bow3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/101569/original/image-20151111-9358-a6bow3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=402&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="http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/49/executivesummary/">ISAAA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>By far the most common GM crops are those that can tolerate herbicides. They suit the large “mono-cropped” farming systems found in the US, Argentina and Brazil. Among smallholdings, notably in India, China and South Africa, the biggest GM crop is <a href="http://www.bt.ucsd.edu/bt_cotton.html">Bt cotton</a>, which incorporates a toxin that kills pests. It has been at the centre of the debate about the extent to which GM <a href="http://www.ids.ac.uk/publication/undying-promise-agricultural-biotechnology-s-pro-poor-narrative-ten-years-on">can help</a> the poor. </p>
<p>Poorer countries might also benefit from crops being developed to resist drought, heat, frost and salty soil – drought-tolerant maize is <a href="http://dtma.cimmyt.org">seen as</a> a promising answer to “climate-smart” farming in Africa, for instance. Also promising are crops with enhanced nutritional value, such as vitamin A-enriched <a href="https://www.york.ac.uk/media/spsw/images/books/Brooks_Food%20Chain_2013.pdf">golden rice</a>. These remain <a href="http://irri.org/blogs/golden-rice-blog/clarifying-recent-news-about-golden-rice">in development</a>, though. </p>
<h2>Good for the poor?</h2>
<p>One big problem with GM in the developing world is that successes claimed for certain crops already in farmers’ fields have become conflated with expectations around other different technologies not yet ready for release. This has happened with Bt cotton and golden rice, for instance, and has helped to create the <a href="http://foodrevolution.org/blog/golden-rice-gm-crops/">false impression</a> that golden rice is ready for market. </p>
<p>Bt cotton’s own benefits to the poor meanwhile look shaky on closer examination. In the most detailed study to date on smallholder farms in India, China and South Africa in 2009, Dominic Glover of the Institute of Development Studies <a href="http://www.ids.ac.uk/news/gm-crops-ten-years-on-the-undying-promise">found that</a> much of its performance depends on the locally adapted cotton varieties with which it needs to be crossed. </p>
<p>Good yield also needs favourable soils and irrigation – “the very things the poorest farmers typically lack”, according to Glover. This all requires appropriate investments in infrastructure and institutions. He concluded that while some farmers have benefited, “others, especially smaller and poorer farmers have not”. Success depended on much more than “new genes inserted into a crop plant”. </p>
<p>Nevertheless a roll call of <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2458520/Owen-Paterson-GM-food-opponents-wicked-leave-children-poorest-areas-die.html">high-profile champions</a> based in richer countries continue to push the idea that GM crop technology is inherently pro-poor, held back only by overburdensome regulation and irrational opposition. Their opponents <a href="http://steps-centre.org/2015/blog/for-or-against-gm-crops-other-positions-are-available/">argue fiercely</a> to the contrary. </p>
<p>Opposition to GM crops in developing countries is often misunderstood in this hostile climate. Contrary to popular belief, local resistance is not coordinated “by Greenpeace” but grounded in local realities. Probably the best known was Zambia’s 2002 rejection of GM food aid during a food crisis. Where global GM debates revolve around health and environmental risk, Zambia’s decision was <a href="http://linkis.com/wiley.com/9HiSk">primarily about</a> maintaining control over agriculture.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/101574/original/image-20151111-9379-6v0fra.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/101574/original/image-20151111-9379-6v0fra.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/101574/original/image-20151111-9379-6v0fra.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=451&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/101574/original/image-20151111-9379-6v0fra.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=451&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/101574/original/image-20151111-9379-6v0fra.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=451&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/101574/original/image-20151111-9379-6v0fra.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/101574/original/image-20151111-9379-6v0fra.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/101574/original/image-20151111-9379-6v0fra.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">Soya farm in Argentina.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/thebigtable/8367378819/in/photolist-8nuxGq-4mLxnh-dWjXn6-dWqB3E-dWqBkd-31iS1M-dKp3aZ-dKuA9C-dKpgWX-dKuFGE-dKuxXQ-dKoVki-dKujRw-dKuqCY-dKpeR2-dKumJW-dKuDGb-dKp1d4-dKuCqf-btPm5F-r2kiAG-9dydkX">Pedro Reyna</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The New Alliance</h2>
<p>In truth, debates about whether GM crops or any single technology are “good for the poor” or can “feed the world” are becoming tired. They tend to discuss GM technologies as if they can be isolated from the wider socioeconomic and political context. In Mexico, for example, smallholder farmers’ opposition to GM maize <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10460-004-5862-y">has been</a> shaped by the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/04/nafta-20-years-mexico-regret">North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)</a> and policies favouring market liberalisation, and reductions in state assistance. </p>
<p>Similarly in India, Bt cotton uptake has occurred against a backdrop of market liberalisation. Farmers have had to cope with fluctuating prices and the challenges of accessing credit as state subsidies have been removed. <a href="http://www.threeessays.com/books/shadow-space/">Crucially</a>, this has all coincided with changes to agrarian social structures that have have meant that unlike in the past, these new risks have fallen on individual households rather than communities. All this is lost on a globalised GM crop debate in which both sides have <a href="http://issues.org/30-3/forum-spring-2014/">used the</a> tragedy of farmer suicides to “land a few blows”. </p>
<p>For much of sub-Saharan Africa, the context is the <a href="https://new-alliance.org">G7 New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition in Africa</a> (known as the “New Alliance”). This cooperation framework was launched by USAID and aims to “accelerate responsible investment in African agriculture and lift 50m people out of poverty by 2022”. This is supposed to help smallholders in particular, but in reality it looks to be about facilitating the regulatory wishes of agribusiness. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://new-alliance.org/sites/default/files/resources/Mozambique%20Coop%20Framework%20ENG%20FINAL%20w.cover%20REVISED1.pdf">Mozambique country agreement</a>, for example, commits to “systematically ceasing to distribute free and unimproved [non-commercial] seeds to farmers except in emergencies”. While not technology specific, this clearly advantages producers of commercially produced GM or hybrid seeds over local varieties.</p>
<p>Rather than endlessly debate the pros and cons of GM in isolation, we need to turn our attention to these framework agreements. If GM crops are to be extended in developing countries in ways that benefit the poor, paying close attention to international development and investment frameworks currently under formation is just as important as understanding the relative merits of technologies themselves. </p>
<p><em>For more coverage of the debate around GM crops, <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/gm-food">click here</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/50479/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Some of Sally's work has been funded by ESRC</span></em></p>The GM debate in the developing world encompasses countries with very different priorities. Through the shrill battle of interests, the real agents for change tend to be overlooked.Sally Brooks, Lecturer in International Development, University of YorkLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/488352015-10-09T09:54:43Z2015-10-09T09:54:43ZGM crops: an uneasy truce hangs over Europe<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97778/original/image-20151008-9659-1a3zs46.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Staple food</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=GM%20crops&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=126284900">Solmule</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Most EU member states <a href="https://uk.news.yahoo.com/most-eu-nations-seek-bar-gm-crops-145652899.html#mEcgCiq">have now exercised</a> a new conditional <a href="http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.ie/2015/03/choosing-to-go-gm-free-new-eu-legal.html">legal right</a> to prevent GM crops from being cultivated within their own territories. This is the first time they have been able to do so since the EU started regulating the technology more than 20 years ago. It represents a compromise attempt by the European Commission to overcome a status quo where <a href="http://www.europabio.org/which-gm-crops-can-be-cultivated-eu">only one</a> GM crop is cultivated in the EU and member states <a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-952_en.htm">impose national bans</a> based on safety concerns. </p>
<p>When the deadline for exercising the right expired on October 3, it ended a transitional period where member states could take the “easy option” to restrict GM cultivation in part or all of their territories. There will be other chances later, but with more substantial hurdles. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97786/original/image-20151008-9679-syx3zp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97786/original/image-20151008-9679-syx3zp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97786/original/image-20151008-9679-syx3zp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=553&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97786/original/image-20151008-9679-syx3zp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=553&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97786/original/image-20151008-9679-syx3zp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=553&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97786/original/image-20151008-9679-syx3zp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=695&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97786/original/image-20151008-9679-syx3zp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=695&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97786/original/image-20151008-9679-syx3zp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=695&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>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>GM crops have been highly contentious within the EU. Once a crop <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/animalnutrition/labelling/Reg_1829_2003_en.pdf">received</a> EU <a href="http://www.biosafety.be/GB/Dir.Eur.GB/Del.Rel./2001_18/2001_18_TC.html">authorisation</a>, it automatically applied across all member states – irrespective of who voted yes or no. Indeed, crops can even be authorised where the majority of members are opposed, under rules that <a href="https://www.qub.ac.uk/schools/SchoolofPoliticsInternationalStudiesandPhilosophy/FileStore/EuropeanisationFiles/Filetoupload,38422,en.pdf">state that</a> crops permitted in one state can be grown in any (this happened with <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31997D0098">Novartis BT176 maize</a> in the 1990s, for example). </p>
<p>Some member states and regions have resisted by establishing the <a href="http://gmofree-euroregions.regione.marche.it">GMO-Free Network</a> and invoking so-called “<a href="http://www.loc.gov/law/help/restrictions-on-gmos/eu.php">safeguard clauses</a>” that permit temporary bans on a crop at national level where new information demonstrates a risk to human health or the environment. Some members have also pushed for greater freedom to restrict cultivation at national level, while the commission has been delaying authorising new crops to avoid conflict. </p>
<p>The European Court of Justice <a href="http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d2dc30dd606cddbd82224367bd0ba723ef88e5a6.e34KaxiLc3qMb40Rch0SaxuRbhf0?text=&docid=142241&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=487442">condemned</a> the commission for these delays in 2013. There has also been the possibility for further action before the World Trade Organisation, as the situation mirrors a previous de facto moratorium <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/624a88c6-97db-11da-816b-0000779e2340.html#axzz3nxpJapad">that ran</a> between 1999 and 2003 and was <a href="http://www.euractiv.com/trade/wto-panel-rules-eu-gmo-moratorium-illegal/article-152341">condemned by</a> the organisation following pressure from the US and Canada.</p>
<h2>The new approach</h2>
<p>The commission proposed the new rules back in 2010. It proposed that risk assessment and management would remain harmonised at the EU level, while members could impose post-authorisation restrictions. After much wrangling, this led to <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:JOL_2015_068_R_0001">Directive 2015/412</a> coming into force in April. It aims to give more sceptical states such as Austria and Italy the freedom to choose to prevent cultivation while potentially enabling more enthusiastic territories such as Spain and England to cultivate crops that have not yet been authorised. </p>
<p>The directive allows member states to request geographical restrictions while a crop is being authorised (or reauthorised) without providing reasons, subject to the applicant biotech company not objecting. In the case of crops that are already authorised, member states can unilaterally impose restrictions if they can demonstrate they are necessary to protect a “compelling ground” (the directive contains a non-exhaustive list). The company and other interested parties can raise a legal challenge, however. </p>
<p>The transitional phase that ended on October 3 enabled members to use the first option to prevent cultivation of the one GM crop with EU authorisation – Monsanto’s MON810 maize – and the eight crop applications going through the authorisation process. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97781/original/image-20151008-9675-1dqchde.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97781/original/image-20151008-9675-1dqchde.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97781/original/image-20151008-9675-1dqchde.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97781/original/image-20151008-9675-1dqchde.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97781/original/image-20151008-9675-1dqchde.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97781/original/image-20151008-9675-1dqchde.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97781/original/image-20151008-9675-1dqchde.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97781/original/image-20151008-9675-1dqchde.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Splice of life.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/s/GM+crops/search.html?page=3&thumb_size=mosaic&inline=85099198">Pedrosala</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Effective compromise?</h2>
<p>Of the 19 member states which met the deadline to apply to prevent GM cultivation, the first two have already been waived through by the biotech companies in question and the remainder look likely to receive the same treatment. The hope from the companies is that these members will be willing to vote in favour of authorisations in future, or at least not attempt to block them – and that they will lift their safeguard-clause bans and not resort to new ones, since they feed wider concerns over safety. </p>
<p>The longer-term position is less clear, though. Preliminary findings from my research funded by the British Academy, involving interviews of member representatives, indicate that the opt-out will make some states less likely to create safeguard measures, but have little to no impact on votes on authorisations. It is true that crops may nonetheless be authorised either by qualified majority votes or by the commission where there is a hung vote. Where the commission was wary of forcing through authorisations in the past, it may feel the system is now sufficiently flexible to make this acceptable. </p>
<p>But even then, lack of member support lengthens the process for approving a new crop and removes the incentives for applicant companies to agree to exclude particular territories from their applications or waive their right to challenge a restriction of an existing authorisation. You can understand member states feeling that they have to be consistent in their approach to a particular crop at national and EU level, but there is a danger that applicant companies may see no reason to rubber-stamp restrictions if the same countries are going to obstruct them at the EU level anyway. </p>
<p>For members seeking restrictions who don’t get the blessing of the applicant company, if the EU grants an approval for a crop, they are then reduced to making “compelling grounds” arguments for a unilateral restriction. It may be a difficult argument to win. Justifications on grounds of environmental protection are limited under the directive. And because the rules permit local restrictions, it makes it harder to argue that an outright prohibition across a whole country is justified. </p>
<p>On the other hand, if member states are prevented from opting out, the danger swings the other way: they may fall back into their well trodden paths and resort to safeguard clauses, threaten to block authorisations and generally make the whole authorisation process tortuous. </p>
<p>So the October 3 deadline was only one step in this debate. If both the EU’s member states and the biotech companies can demonstrate flexibility, more crops might be authorised and safeguard measures might be lifted. Directive 2015/412 would then look like a workable truce. If not, it will not be long before the EU’s long conflict over GM crops resumes.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/48835/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mary receives funding from the British Academy for some future research relating to genetically modified crops
</span></em></p>New EU rules on GM attempt to unblock logjam that has hung over the technology in the region for most of this century. To work, anti-GM member states and Big Biotech will need to cooperate.Mary Dobbs, Lecturer in Law, Queen's University BelfastLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/458502015-08-10T15:04:11Z2015-08-10T15:04:11ZWhy we’ll all learn to love genetically modified Salmonella in the end<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91190/original/image-20150807-27622-dk3q2a.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">These little-loved microbes may be coming in from the cold</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-286263017/stock-photo-microscopic-illustration-of-rod-shaped-bacteria-model-of-bacteria-realistic-illustration-of.html?src=dt_last_search-8">Katerina Kon</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>We are well on the way to an <a href="http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs103/en/">Ebola</a> vaccine after a trial in Guinea <a href="http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2961117-5/abstract">recently reported</a> 100% efficacy. Clearly this medical breakthrough is great news. The virus has <a href="http://apps.who.int/gho/data/view.ebola-sitrep.ebola-summary-20150803?lang=en">has been responsible</a> for at least 27,680 infections and 11,281 deaths throughout west Africa to date. </p>
<p>The vaccine is based on modifying a <a href="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/vesicular+stomatitis">vesicular stomatitis</a> virus, which is similar to foot and mouth disease and affects various animals including cattle and horses. To make the vaccine, one of its genes is removed and replaced by a gene from the Ebola virus. Though this latter gene cannot cause Ebola as such, those who receive the vaccination produce antibodies that protect them from the virus. </p>
<p>Many, including Wellcome Trust director Jeremy Farrar, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/03/ebola-vaccine-trials-diseases">agree that</a> this is a positive outcome. Yet The Mirror has been far more downbeat. Classing the new drug as part of a new range of so-called imperfect vaccines, many of which are genetically modified, it <a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/new-vaccines-malaria-hiv-ebola-6149338">reported</a>, “New vaccines for malaria, HIV and Ebola can spread diseases say shocking stats”. </p>
<h2>GM anxiety</h2>
<p>It is not difficult to see why the public may be wary of new approaches that involve genetically modified microorganisms. Genetic modification is a subject that can polarise views, and it is not uncommon for opponent organisations and activists to whip up hysteria with <a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/eastasia/news/blog/24-children-used-as-guinea-pigs-in-geneticall/blog/41956/">sensational stories</a>. </p>
<p>Much of this publicity is about GM foods, however – witness the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/aug/09/scotland-to-issue-formal-ban-on-genetically-modified-crops">decision by</a> the Scottish government to ban all GM crops, for example. Though there is <a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-1688_en.htm">no evidence</a> that such foods lead to adverse outcomes, genetic modification actually has many wider applications. One important research area is to explore ways in which we can use such genetically modified organisms for medical therapies – including the Ebola vaccine. Indeed this is not a new concept. Synthesised insulin, <a href="http://www.chemistrylearning.com/humulin-synthetic-insulin/">humulin</a>, has been in use since it was first licensed in 1982. It is synthesised from a genetically modified strain of the <em>E.coli</em> bacterium. </p>
<p>Bacteria often get a bad press, of course. <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982202005201">Remember</a> “Killer Bug Ate My Face” or <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3056610/How-beloved-dog-killer-disease-Superbugs-Parasites-TB-Read-never-let-pet-lick-face-again.html">more recently</a>, “How your beloved dog could give you a killer disease”. Put bacteria and genetic modification together and you can imagine the potential headlines – yet if medicine is to advance, it is vital that the media reports this area responsibly. </p>
<p>Researchers are currently exploring using GM strains of bacteria for a number of therapeutic reasons, including <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3056088/">cancer</a>, <a href="https://www.microbemagazine.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3195:bacterial-vectors-for-deliviering-gene-and-anticancer-therapies&catid=719&Itemid=953">gene therapy</a> and <a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/news/536376/microbes-engineered-to-prevent-obesity/">obesity</a>. In my laboratory, our bacteria research is focused on <a href="http://www.who.int/topics/salmonella/en/"><em>Salmonella</em></a> and <a href="https://www.food.gov.uk/science/microbiology/listeria"><em>Listeria</em></a>. Commonly associated with food poisoning, <em>Listeria</em> is particularly important due to its high mortality rate. </p>
<p>We are interested in studying how these bacteria interact with host cells and cellular processes, so that we can understand better how they cause infection. Armed with this knowledge we are trying to develop novel methods to prevent infection, particularly in the face of <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/antimicrobial-resistance-amr-information-and-resources">increasing antibiotic resistance</a>. At the same time, we are trying to exploit bacterial mechanisms to find new ways to deliver medical therapies through genetic modification. </p>
<p>Our work aims to complement <a href="http://cancerdiscovery.aacrjournals.org/content/2/7/588.long">existing findings</a> that <em>Salmonella</em> (and other bacteria) can thrive in tumour cells. These bacteria have evolved complex mechanisms so that they can invade cells and grow in the oxygen-poor environments which typically characterise tumours. </p>
<p>Imagine being able to deliver therapies specifically targeted to tumours that could help overcome the side effects of chemotherapy, which we know can also affect non-cancerous cells such as bone marrow, hair, skin and gut cells. <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/112/11/3457.full.pdf">Recent research</a> has examined the use of a mechanism called <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11544353">quorum sensing</a> to try and ensure that anti-tumour effects occur only in the tumour. Quorum sensing is used by bacteria to detect when there are enough of them present in an environment to achieve their <a href="http://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004279">desired ends</a> such as switching on genes that help them to establish a community in a suitable environment. This is an elegant example of exploiting the natural capabilities of the bacterium. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91191/original/image-20150807-27593-qagogv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91191/original/image-20150807-27593-qagogv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91191/original/image-20150807-27593-qagogv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91191/original/image-20150807-27593-qagogv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91191/original/image-20150807-27593-qagogv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91191/original/image-20150807-27593-qagogv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=528&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91191/original/image-20150807-27593-qagogv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=528&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91191/original/image-20150807-27593-qagogv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=528&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"><em>Salmonella</em> and <em>Listeria</em> live in tumour cells remarkably well.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?autocomplete_id=&language=en&lang=en&search_source=&safesearch=1&version=llv1&searchterm=tumour&media_type=images&media_type2=images&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=202719583">www.royaltystockphoto.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Teething troubles</h2>
<p>One problem with using bacteria in this way is infections, which can be more serious in people whose immune systems are weak through illness and/or medical treatment. Therefore the bacteria need to be disabled to the point that they can’t cause infection but can still survive in the host. So far, attempts to construct such strains have had <a href="http://mbio.asm.org/content/6/2/e00254-15.full">limited success</a>. There are also risks of the bacteria reverting back to an infectious type, which <a href="http://vaccine-safety-training.org/live-attenuated-vaccines.html">has happened</a> with the live attenuated viral vaccine for polio, for instance. So while much of the research shows early promise in the laboratory and in experimental models, there is still much to be done before this type of therapy becomes a reality. I can see it taking ten to 15 years. </p>
<p>Once we do overcome these hurdles, like the Ebola vaccine developers, we may have to contend with the anti-GM lobby. Will they thwart such projects? Ultimately I doubt it. However much we dislike bacteria, for instance, we have learned to love probiotics. That global industry, which produces supplements containing live bacteria, is <a href="http://www.biomedtrends.com/GetDetails.asp?CatName=Probiotics">expected to be</a> worth $28.8bn (£18.6bn) this year. If their lives depended on it, would most people probably drink a GM <em>Salmonella</em> cocktail as quickly as a probiotic drink? For most of us at least, I think we know the answer.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/45850/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Clare is General Secretary of the Society for Applied Microbiology</span></em></p>We don’t trust bacteria and we don’t trust GM, so putting them together might be controversial. That’s exactly what we’re doing, though.Clare Taylor, Senior Lecturer in Medical Microbiology, Edinburgh Napier UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/246782014-03-27T15:04:34Z2014-03-27T15:04:34ZGM crops: time to counter the scare stories and relax barriers<p>Many people, including me, are pretty fed up with the continuing fuss about GM food and crops. Are they too dangerous to eat? Are they a hazard to the environment? Despite a “debate” stretching back to 1998, why has no consensus been reached? </p>
<p>It’s pretty clear to everyone that we will need to grow more food – and grow it sustainably – so why can’t we make up our minds? There have been innumerable reviews and many open debates. How does the recently published <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/288823/cst-14-634-gm-technologies.pdf">letter from the Council for Science and Technology</a> to the government help?</p>
<p>Initially the focus of the debate was on the meal from GM soya beans, which the regulatory committee (which I chaired) had recommended to ministers to be safe. This was challenged by a claim, in press releases and on a TV programme in August 1998, from Dr A Pusztai that GM potatoes caused cancer when fed to rats. A claim that this was true of all GM foods was then made, but never sustained – the claims were disputed and could not be reproduced. </p>
<p>But it became the rallying cry for a well-run media campaign which took all GM products out of UK supermarkets and stopped the European approval process dead in its tracks. But not in the US. Despite these fears, the fact that US consumers have been eating GM products for over a decade and that no-one in the most litigious nation in the world, has been harmed, is the reason why even the pressure groups have dropped their claims.</p>
<p>What about the environment? This is a contentious area and claims have been made too about the adverse effects of GM crops on the environment – including damage to insects. They are often generalised to all GM crops, often from a single report. I have read the evidence carefully and my conclusion is that there is no evidence that genetic modification per se causes harm. GM crops do spread but just like normal crops and plant breeders have known how to handle those problems for years.</p>
<p>So what went wrong? The genetic modification of the soya bean was modest – no more than the introduction of two genes from a common soil bacterium. But this product, although deemed safe by the regulatory committee, was rejected by consumers. Why was this? There were a number of reasons.</p>
<p>There was a strong reaction against what was perceived as the economic hegemony of a large US multinational company and their unwillingness to label or to separate the new product from non-GM versions, so that consumers had no choice. Thus, decisions that might possibly affect the health of British consumers, and certainly affected their ability to choose, were being taken by Monsanto in Missouri. Consumers objected to this perceived loss of control.</p>
<p>Plus, GM soya offered the consumer no advantage. The advantage went to the farmer and seed producer – there was little incentive for them to buy it.</p>
<p>Underlying all this was a suspicion of the regulatory process, which stemmed from the BSE (or mad cow disease) outbreak in the UK in the 1990s. The media played their role too in enabling the anti-GM campaign to flourish, despite the poor scientific basis to many of their claims. </p>
<p>All these issues are addressed in the letter to the prime minister from the Council for Science and Technology. It suggests a sensible way forward and what follows are some of their main points that speak to how we should proceed with GM.</p>
<h2>Scientists’ advice to the government</h2>
<p>There is a consensus on the scientific evidence that, when properly controlled, GM products are as safe as their conventional counterparts. We should have confidence in this and the EU regulatory process needs to be rebalanced to reflect the evidence. The European Academies Science Advisory Council are in agreement too that the regulatory framework should switch its focus on to products rather than on technologies.</p>
<p>We need a regulatory framework that can allow for a variety of solutions to the current and future problems facing UK agriculture. In some instances, GM may be the only solution to a particular problem or one of several. We need a framework that is flexible enough to accommodate this.</p>
<p>To move forward, government, industry, NGOs and the research community should tackle the barriers that prevent properly sanctioned field trials from taking place. Plus, most consumers are unaware of the challenges of food production and distribution. It would help if food producers and retailers were more open about these challenges, as the benefits citizens will have from GM technologies will be more apparent.</p>
<p>Government, industry and the scientific community all have a role to play in explaining the technology, its benefits and how it is regulated. Others, including retailers, NGOs and the media, all have a duty to ensure that the debate reflects the evidence accurately. Wider concerns, which go beyond the scientific evidence, need to be acknowledged and addressed.</p>
<p>The UK should continue to call loudly for science and evidence-based decision making on this issue – it’s clear that scientific consensus in both Britain and Europe calls for a relaxation of the strict barriers to GM crops.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/24678/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Derek Burke received funding from the Medical Research Council and the Cancer Research Campaign from about 1962-1982.</span></em></p>Many people, including me, are pretty fed up with the continuing fuss about GM food and crops. Are they too dangerous to eat? Are they a hazard to the environment? Despite a “debate” stretching back to…Derek Burke, Honorary Fellow of St Edmunds College, Cambridge, University of CambridgeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/245052014-03-18T14:46:11Z2014-03-18T14:46:11ZGM debate will never be resolved unless the public is consulted properly<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/44187/original/vnsqz85w-1395138592.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The debate can get pretty shouty.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:March_Against_Monsanto_Vancouver.jpg">Rosalee Yagihara</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The UK Council for Science and Technology recently <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/genetic-modification-gm-technologies">called on prime minister David Cameron to reassess EU rules</a> on GM crops. Two days later the Observer <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/16/gm-crops-world-food-famine-starvation">published an editorial</a> bluntly declaring: “There’s no choice; we must grow GM crops now”. There is a high risk that a new round of the <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/briefing-papers/POST-Report-11/the-great-gm-food-debate-a-survey-of-media-coverage-in-the-first-half-of-1999">shouting match that mired the debate 15 years ago</a> will begin again, with little real progress.</p>
<p>But research since the first failure of the debate on GM crops in the EU suggests there is a better way. Our <a href="https://www.dur.ac.uk/ihrr/gmfuturos/">GM-Futuros project</a> has recently explored the GM debates in depth at national and local levels in India, Mexico and Brazil – highlighting some stark lessons for the EU and UK. Quality engagement with the public is key.</p>
<p>Both of the recent UK publications call for a positive move towards GM agricultural technology. Ostensibly this is driven by <a href="http://www.cast-science.org/download.cfm?PublicationID=278268&File=1e30d111d2654524a7967353314f1529765aTR">forecasts</a> of global population increases and a shortfall in food supply from current agricultural land by 2050. The Council for Science and Technology letter also appeals to the current loss of economic opportunity in the UK from present <a href="http://www.thejournal.co.uk/business/eu-farming-groups-express-concerns-6267790">over-restrictive EU regulations</a>. The Observer piece is dismissive of objections: “Thirty years ago, it could be argued that we should proceed cautiously because of potential health dangers. That argument is no longer acceptable.”</p>
<h2>Troubled technologies</h2>
<p>The dangers of using language like this (and that <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/07/owen-paterson-gm-crops-farming">used by the government itself recently</a>) has become clearer thanks to research into the debate around “troubled technologies” – technologies that touch sensitive public nerves. These are legion: nanotechnologies, nuclear power, GMOs, geoengineering and, more recently, fracking. </p>
<p>Some technology stirs up emotional opposition more than others, and this happens differently across cultures. This suggests that more is going on than an on-the-surface discussion of technological risk, potential benefits and possible harms. </p>
<p>The GM-Futuros project builds on a <a href="http://www.geography.dur.ac.uk/Projects/Portals/88/Publications/Reconfiguring%20Responsibility%20September%202009.pdf">previous study</a>, which found public concerns over certain new technologies reflected deeply-lying, and often hidden, beliefs.</p>
<p>They were full of powerful arguments using narratives such as “the rich get richer”, “we are kept in the dark”, “Pandora’s box”, “messing with nature” and “be careful what you wish for”. If the sources of this scepticism is not recognised and dealt with sensitively, proponents and opponents of policy simply talk past each other.</p>
<h2>Public interests</h2>
<p>In Mexico, there has been a slow and silent implementation of GM crops but the GM controversy truly exploded with the <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/12/us-mexico-corn-idUSBRE9AB11Q20131112">case of maize</a>, which holds an iconic (almost sacred) national status. It unites urban consumers and rural populations alike: the public resistance to GM maize is such that a recent moratorium has been mandated by a judge. </p>
<p>In Brazil, the growing numbers of urban middle class consumers are largely unaware that they are eating GM foods. When made aware, they feel they have been betrayed and kept in the dark by their government. In India, however, the debate centres around <a href="http://video.sciencemag.org/SciOriginals/2324676529001/1">Indian GM science</a>. Part of the national scientific community lobbies for the development of Indian GM technology, while another part argues that Indian science cannot guarantee a reliable assessment of risks and impacts at present. </p>
<p>The three countries show huge differences in how social responsibility is appreciated by scientists. Our experience has been that “the public interest”, while a common broadcast message, has not been a key driver of protest in practice. </p>
<p>The reality is that GM has benefited some (typically large producers) at the expense of others (small producers and other alternative methods of organising agriculture such as agro-ecology). The use of GM crops in India, Brazil and Mexico has also pointed to degrees of “lock-in” (where farmers are left with no alternatives) and few sustainability benefits.</p>
<h2>Engagement done properly</h2>
<p>The quality of public engagement is a critical element in implementing GM. Brazilian, Mexican and Indian citizens (the consumers) have been more or less wholly absent from the debate, as have many others, including the vital voices of local farmers. When eventually informed they are often angry.</p>
<p>This means engaging with the UK public is necessary but likely to prove insufficient unless this is done properly. Real consideration must be given to what constitutes the public good, the conditions under which it is likely to be realised in practice, and the plausibility of these conditions being implemented under current arrangements.</p>
<p>Simply calling for the relaxation of regulations on GMOs therefore misses the point to a large extent. The key issue is to move the debate away from an analysis of harms (as assessed exclusively by scientists and regulators) towards a more inclusive discussion of the issues that actually constitute the public interest. What kind of agriculture do we want as a nation? How should different citizens be involved in the process? How contingent will public trust be on how the issue is framed and deliberated?</p>
<h2>Building trust</h2>
<p>An essential starting point is the realisation that government is not trusted on this issue; indeed, the way they’ve framed the debate has been largely unhelpful, in that GM so far has embraced a model of agriculture that people are uneasy with (for good reason) and about which they feel they have not been consulted.</p>
<p>We need to move forward, making scientific decisions more democratic. A new <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733313000930">framework for responsible innovation</a> details how this can be done in practice, through anticipating impacts, reflecting on motivations, engaging with the public and then using these processes to influence the direction of the research process itself. </p>
<p>To this end, we are holding a workshop at the Royal Society on 13th June to discuss GM in the UK and EU and to draw research findings together into policy recommendations. We are optimistic, in spite of the hard lessons, that a way forward in framing policy is possible, but only if those lessons are learnt well.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/24505/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tom McLeish receives funding from EPSRC, AHRC and the Templeton Foundation. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Phil Macnaghten receives funding from the EPSRC, the John Templeton Foundation, the FAPESP Sao Paulo Science Foundation and the British Council.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Susana Carro-Ripalda receives funding from The John Templeton Foundation and the University of Durham.</span></em></p>The UK Council for Science and Technology recently called on prime minister David Cameron to reassess EU rules on GM crops. Two days later the Observer published an editorial bluntly declaring: “There’s…Tom McLeish, Professor of Physics and Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research, Durham UniversityPhil Macnaghten, Professor of Geography, Durham UniversitySusana Carro-Ripalda, Senior Research Fellow in Anthropology, Durham UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/216862013-12-24T00:12:19Z2013-12-24T00:12:19ZTerminator seeds will not usher in an agricultural judgement day<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/38407/original/272vyhqw-1387815702.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">"No" doesn't really cover the nuances of the GM debate.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Darko Vojinovic/AP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In the polarised and fractious debate over the use of genetic modification in agriculture, few issues have raised hackles as much as the proposed use of genetic use restriction techniques (GURT), more commonly known as “terminator technology” or – to its many opponents – “suicide seeds”.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23730743">idea behind GURTs</a> is to produce seed or offspring which are sterile in order to restrict the spread of new genes which have been introduced into the target plant. Campaigners against the technology have long alleged that terminator seeds would enslave farmers by preventing them from saving seed from one season to the next, making them dependent on re-purchasing seeds from big biotech companies. The furore over a decade ago led to a <a href="http://www.banterminator.org/Glossary/Moratorium">global moratorium</a> on GURT development, agreed under the aegis of the <a href="http://www.cbd.int/">UN Convention on Biological Diversity</a> in 2000.</p>
<p>The popular fear about terminator seeds has since become something of a zombie myth: constantly cited by opponents of GM technology as a reason for their campaigning, despite GURT never actually having come into existence. Lurid claims continue to be circulated, such as the allegation – originally by Indian anti-technology activist <a href="http://www.permaculture.co.uk/articles/occupy-seed-vandanas-call-seed-freedom-free-seed-saving-ebook">Vandana Shiva</a> – that sterility would somehow be <a href="http://seedfreedom.in/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Seed-Kit.pdf">inherited and transferred</a> unintentionally to other plants, despite this being biologically, as well as logically, impossible.</p>
<p>Following <a href="http://www.etcgroup.org/content/brazilian-commission-%25E2%2580%259Cterminate%25E2%2580%259D-seeds-week">renewed campaigning</a> by anti-GM groups, a <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/dec/12/brazil-gm-terminator-seed-technology-farmers">recent article</a> disinterred these zombie myths once again. It suggested that new legislation under consideration in Brazil could lead to “suicide seeds” that might “threaten the livelihoods of millions of small farmers around the world”. But the truth in Brazil is very different to this media sensationalism and renewed activist myth-making.</p>
<p>It is true that Brazil is considering relaxing regulations that prohibit research on GURTs. However, this would be applied to pharmaceuticals, not food crops. It is aimed in particular at allowing scientists to examine whether the technology could have biosafety applications – applications that would safeguard the environment against the <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23730743">unintended release and spread</a> of modified genes. Currently the law prohibits scientists even from conducting research – a ban on knowledge gathering that is senseless and potentially damaging.</p>
<p>Among the pharmaceutical uses where GURT technology might be useful is the development of “bioreactor” plants such as lettuce modified to produce a vaccine to prevent <a href="http://www.who.int/leishmaniasis/en/">Leishmaniasis</a>, a disease that causes serious deformities or scarring in victims. Around 12m people are believed to be infected, with an estimated 1-2m new cases each year, and a further 350m people, mainly in poor countries, are at risk. Plants are <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK56621/">good candidates</a> for the production of the necessary antibodies because, like animals, their cells are eukaryotic and able to reproduce the necessary complex proteins at a large scale. </p>
<p>Another example is genetically-modified lettuce to <a href="http://www.isaude.net/en/noticia/16695/science-and-technology/gm-plants-are-alternative-against-dengue">assist in the diagnosis</a> of Dengue fever, where early detection dramatically increases the chance of survival. In both cases there is currently a shortage of the materials needed both to identify and treat the disease, which can only be produced in extremely secure facilities. If GURT restrictions were loosened, genetically modified plants could potentially produce the needed vaccines and diagnosis tools on a larger scale without fear of the altered genes spreading into the environment.</p>
<p>Many other crops, including tobacco, alfalfa, banana and soybean have been considered for bio-pharming to produce drugs against conditions that range from cancer to HIV/AIDS. Industrial applications have also been proposed, such as genetically modified trees with reduced <a href="http://www.lignoworks.ca/content/what-lignin">lignin content</a> which would enable the <a href="http://writing.mit.edu/sites/writing.mit.edu/files/Testing%20the%20Unintended%20Consequences%20of%20Lignin%20Reduction_0.pdf">use of less toxic chemicals</a> for pulp and paper production, as well as to reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.</p>
<p>In all these cases, sterility could have a biosafety justification, in order to safeguard against unintended gene release. Indeed, last week researchers at the University of Oregon announced the <a href="http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2013/dec/significant-advance-reported-genetically-modified-poplar-trees">conclusion of successful trials</a> using sterile, genetically modified poplar trees. These grow faster and are more resistant to insects, potentially more productive for biofuels, and are intended to be able to reduce land wastage and the use of pesticides.</p>
<p>It is somewhat ironic that with all their focus on terminator technology, anti-GM activists seem to fail to realise that either sterility or seeds that do not breed true are already widely used in conventional agriculture. Seedless grapes, watermelons and bananas are prized by consumers around the world, and despite their sterility have apparently not yet enslaved the farmers who grow them.</p>
<p><a href="http://apps.rhs.org.uk/advicesearch/Profile.aspx?pid=710">F1 hybrids</a> – the offspring of two different parent varieties of the same crop – also require farmers to buy seeds anew each year, because their second-generation seeds do not breed true. But their use has been increasing for decades because farmers value highly the increased productivity, and therefore profits, that come from the seeds’ hybrid vigour. Almost all the world’s commercial corn crop is grown from F1 hybrid seed, for example.</p>
<p>As these existing examples show, this application of modern technology to agriculture <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=246530">need not be remotely scary</a>, but activists stoke fears in order to secure prohibitions on scientific research which conflicts with their ideological preferences. Opponents of innovation frequently cite the <a href="http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/glossary/precautionary_principle_en.htm">precautionary principle</a> as a reason to stop scientific work, but neglect the flip-side: namely future benefits foregone when technologies are not pursued.</p>
<p>A continued ban on GURT may sound sensible and precautionary, but could harm our potential to develop lifesaving vaccines and environmentally beneficial crops. Scientists should be allowed to conduct research, and society can later decide– through open, inclusive and democratic debate – how or if these technologies are later deployed more widely.</p>
<p><em>This article is co-authored with Lúcia de Souza, plant biologist and vice president of the Brazilian National Association of Biosafety (Associação Nacional de Biossegurança), <a href="http://www.anbio.org.br/">ANBio</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/21686/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mark Lynas 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>In the polarised and fractious debate over the use of genetic modification in agriculture, few issues have raised hackles as much as the proposed use of genetic use restriction techniques (GURT), more…Mark Lynas, Visiting Fellow, Cornell UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/213762013-12-11T06:15:24Z2013-12-11T06:15:24ZWalking away from Holden: Abbott finishes what Hewson started<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/37456/original/r2y9dgb6-1386740675.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">What now for Holden workers?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Julian Smith/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><blockquote>
<p>“Building cars in Australia is just not sustainable.” </p>
</blockquote>
<p>That was GM Holden managing director Mike Devereux, announcing the closure of Holden. </p>
<p>Ominous words for Toyota as well. Toyota responded that Holden’s departure places “unprecedented pressures” on the company.</p>
<p>When Ford announced its exit from local manufacturing in May this year, CEO Bob Graziano noted that Ford’s costs were double those of its plants in Europe, and triple those of its Asian factories.</p>
<p>As the Australian dollar rose in 2011–12, the automotive products export market suffered from a competitive disadvantage, even as Europe, Japan and the US flooded markets with euro, yen and US dollars, sparking virtually-unprecedented depreciations of the world’s three biggest reserve currencies.</p>
<p>But Holden’s departure is nevertheless a deliberate public policy choice on the part of the Abbott government. It has been clear since 1992, when Liberal leader Dr John Hewson announced a zero tariff regime for automotive products, that the Coalition parties saw no future in an Australian car manufacturing industry.</p>
<p>The Abbott government’s refusal to countenance further industry assistance should come as no surprise: in opposition, the Coalition’s firm policy was to cut A$500 million from the ALP government’s support package. </p>
<p>Indeed, the federal government has pre-empted the findings of its own Productivity Commission, rendering whatever conclusions it reaches almost entirely moot.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/37459/original/jtpffsvx-1386740805.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/37459/original/jtpffsvx-1386740805.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/37459/original/jtpffsvx-1386740805.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/37459/original/jtpffsvx-1386740805.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/37459/original/jtpffsvx-1386740805.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/37459/original/jtpffsvx-1386740805.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/37459/original/jtpffsvx-1386740805.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">Holden says its no longer sustainable to build cars in Australia.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Hugo90/Flickr</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Could the government have intervened further in order to manage the industry’s decline in a more orderly manner? Yes. Did the government want to? Unlikely.</p>
<h2>Political fallout</h2>
<p>It’s reasonable to suggest the Coalition will not lose a lot of votes from plant closures in Labor strongholds. Broadmeadows and Geelong (Ford) are safe ALP seats, as is Wakefield (Elizabeth, Holden). The fallout in South Australia is unlikely to do ALP premier Jay Weatherill any favours in the forthcoming state election.</p>
<p>But in Victoria, where the Napthine Coalition governs with a single-seat majority, the stakes are higher. As the centre of Australian manufacturing, Victoria stands to suffer the most from Holden’s departure; 28,000 jobs are linked directly with the automotive industry, with thousands more indirect jobs at risk.</p>
<p>Virtually every automotive firm has faced market and financial challenges since the 2008 global financial crisis. So ferocious was the financial storm that the German industry – Daimler-Benz, BMW and VW – proclaimed it the <a href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/worst-crisis-since-world-war-ii-german-auto-industry-facing-the-abyss-a-592658.html">“Worst Crisis since World War II”</a>. 100,000 German auto jobs were slated to disappear by 2018; Mercedes announced production cuts of 150,000 units for 2009. </p>
<p>Volkswagen, Daimler, BMW and GM-owned Opel appealed to the Merkel government for loan guarantees; they sought a softening of Europe’s carbon pollution reduction scheme; and they asked for buyer subsidies.</p>
<p>Merkel responded. Unwilling to see large scale job losses, she looked for a buyer for Opel (GM ultimately kept the company). She introduced a “cash for clunkers” scheme to subsidise new car purchases; and across industries, the German government introduced generous R&D concessions on green and electric vehicle measures.</p>
<p>As Merkel acted, the Rudd government also intervened in the Australian industry, announcing a <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/rudds-62bn-car-plan-20081110-5l7m.html">doubling of car industry funding</a> to A$6.2 billion in November 2008, adding A$3.4 billion, while maintaining a commitment to reducing tariffs to 5% in 2010.</p>
<h2>Spillover</h2>
<p>The link between the automotive sector, and the skill base it generates, is well known. CAD/CAM, chassis systems, braking components, aerodynamics and safety systems are amongst the many technical knowledge bases that are enshrined in the industry. The universities are also important sources of skilled graduates in mechanical and electrical engineering.</p>
<p>There are also spillovers into the defence materiel, construction and some aspects of the mining industry, particularly from the automotive components sector.</p>
<p>Will auto components firms and 50,000 jobs directly connected to the industry survive? Companies that rely upon the economies and efficiencies deriving from scale associated with the local auto manufacturing industries will not. More diverse components suppliers will persist, albeit on a smaller scale.</p>
<p>Can the auto components industry supply parts for imported vehicles? Yes. But free trade agreements (FTAs) with the US, Thailand and Singapore – and now South Korea – will mean cheap parts can enter Australia tariff-free. If the Abbott government <a href="http://theconversation.com/an-fta-with-china-in-12-months-is-a-big-ask-18957">concludes a FTA with China</a> within 12 months, as promised, the Chinese auto parts sector would quickly devour what remains of the Australian industry.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/21376/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Remy Davison's Chair is funded by the EU Commission.</span></em></p>“Building cars in Australia is just not sustainable.” That was GM Holden managing director Mike Devereux, announcing the closure of Holden. Ominous words for Toyota as well. Toyota responded that Holden’s…Remy Davison, Jean Monnet Chair in Politics and Economics, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.