tag:theconversation.com,2011:/fr/topics/gm-crops-21331/articlesGM crops – The Conversation2023-12-15T14:09:29Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2196372023-12-15T14:09:29Z2023-12-15T14:09:29ZGenetically modified crops aren’t a solution to climate change, despite what the biotech industry says<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/564970/original/file-20231211-18-xfrqe8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C3319%2C2383&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Barbara Van Dyck</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The European Commission launched a <a href="https://food.ec.europa.eu/plants/genetically-modified-organisms/new-techniques-biotechnology_en">proposal</a> in July 2023 to deregulate a large number of plants manufactured using new genetic techniques. </p>
<p>Despite extraordinary attempts by the Spanish presidency to force a breakthrough, EU members have not yet reached a consensus on this plan. But if the proposal were to be approved, these plants would be treated the same as conventional plants, eliminating the need for safety tests and the labelling of genetically modified food products. </p>
<p>The European public <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/25148486211042307">has refused</a> to blindly accept genetically modified food from the moment the technology was developed, largely due to concerns about corporate control, health and the environment. </p>
<p>Biotech firms have been trying to sell genetically modified crops to Europeans for decades. But <a href="https://extranet.greens-efa.eu/public/media/file/1/6910">most European citizens</a> remain convinced that crops made with both old and new genetic techniques should be tested and labelled.</p>
<p>So, where has this proposal come from? Biotech firms seem to have succeeded in convincing the European Commission that we need new genetically modified crops to tackle climate change. They <a href="https://croplife.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Potential-Impact-of-Genome-Editing-on-Climate-Adaptation-and-Mitigation_FINAL.pdf">argue</a> that by enhancing crops’ resistance to drought or improving their ability to capture carbon, climate change may no longer seem such a daunting challenge. </p>
<p>If this seems too good to be true, unfortunately, it is. Biotech firms have taken advantage of growing concerns about climate change to influence the European Commission with an orchestrated <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2021/03/derailing-eu-rules-new-gmos">lobbying campaign</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Green sprout soy growing in soil." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/565444/original/file-20231213-25-cemqd7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/565444/original/file-20231213-25-cemqd7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=287&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/565444/original/file-20231213-25-cemqd7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=287&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/565444/original/file-20231213-25-cemqd7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=287&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/565444/original/file-20231213-25-cemqd7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=361&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/565444/original/file-20231213-25-cemqd7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=361&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/565444/original/file-20231213-25-cemqd7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=361&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The EU Council has rejected compromise over genetically modified crop regulation reform.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/green-sprout-soy-growing-fertile-soil-2277106953">Ruslan Khismatov/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Climate goals as PR strategy</h2>
<p>In 2018, the European Court <a href="https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2018-07/cp180111en.pdf">ruled</a> that plants made with new genetic techniques have to be regulated like any other genetically modified organism. Biotech firms and their <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2023/04/dutch-biotech-researchers-conflicting-roles-lobby-deregulation-new-gmos">allies</a> within biotech research centres have since set out to convince the European Commission of the need for an entirely new legislation.</p>
<p>The first step was to rebrand the techniques they are using, aiming to distance themselves from the bad reputation of genetic modification. Biotech firms started to use more <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/15487733.2020.1816687%40tsus20.2020.17.issue-S2">innocent terms</a> like gene editing and precision breeding instead. </p>
<p>They then argued that their processes are not really any different from what happens in nature, portraying them as an <a href="https://www.europabio.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/2019_06_G_PP_EuropaBio-Updated-genome-editing-paper.pdf">advanced version of natural processes</a>. Biotech firms need this argument to eliminate the requirement for labelling, which serves as a barrier for selling their products in a climate of public disapproval. </p>
<p>In a third step, they leveraged the urgency of the climate crisis to argue that we cannot afford time-consuming safety tests. They contended that such tests would <a href="https://www.eu-sage.eu/sites/default/files/2021-03/EU-SAGE%20EC%20letter%20February%202021.pdf">hinder innovation</a> in a period of accelerating climate change.</p>
<p>There are <a href="https://newgmo.org/">several flaws</a> in this approach. The terms “gene editing” or “precision breeding” may sound more reassuring, but we argue they are essentially marketing terms and say nothing about the accuracy of the techniques used or their potentially negative effects.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.testbiotech.org/content/joint-statement-scientists-future-eu-regulation-ngt-plants-perspective-protection-goals">Studies</a> have shown that new genetic techniques can alter the traits of a species “to an extent that would be impossible, or at least very unlikely, using conventional breeding”. They can also trigger substantial <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36365450/">unintended changes</a> in the genetic material of plants. </p>
<p>But, perhaps most importantly, genetically modified plants aren’t the solution to the climate crisis. They are a false solution that starts from the wrong question. </p>
<h2>False promises</h2>
<p>It is well known that our current agricultural model <a href="https://ipes-food.org/_img/upload/files/UniformityToDiversity_FULL.pdf">contributes</a> significantly to climate change. The development of genetically modified crops is being steered largely by the very same agro-chemical giants that established and control this form of agriculture. </p>
<p>Companies like Corteva and Bayer (which acquired US agrochemical company Monsanto in 2018) are leading the race to secure patents on new genetic techniques and their products. </p>
<p>Typical examples include <a href="https://www.bafu.admin.ch/dam/bafu/de/dokumente/biotechnologie/externe-studien-berichte/endbericht-semnar-gelinsky.pdf.download.pdf/endbericht-semnar-gelinsky.pdf">patents</a> for soybeans with increased protein content, waxy corn, or rice that is tolerant to herbicides. These crops are designed for an agricultural model centred on the large-scale cultivation of single crop varieties destined for the global market. </p>
<p>This agricultural model relies on staggering amounts of fuel for distribution and places farmers in a state of dependence on heavy machinery and farm inputs (like artificial fertilisers and pesticides) derived from fossil fuels. </p>
<p>Research has found that farming in this way causes <a href="https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/abs/10.1289/ehp.02110445">soil depletion</a> and <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006320718313636">biodiversity loss</a>. It also increases <a href="https://ipes-food.org/_img/upload/files/UniformityToDiversity_FULL.pdf">vulnerability</a> to pests and diseases, necessitating the development of different and potentially more toxic pesticides and herbicides. </p>
<p>Although biotech firms are playing the climate card, only a <a href="https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202311.1897/v1/download">small proportion</a> of the genetically modified crops being developed deal with concerns related to the climate. In fact, the climate credentials of many of these crops are questionable. Modifications such as an increased shelf life, or being better able to withstand being transported are merely intended to smooth the operation of our unsustainable food system. </p>
<p>Rather than strengthening our unsustainable agricultural model, the focus should be on restoring what industrial agriculture has destroyed: farmers’ livelihoods, biodiversity and soil health. Only then will farmers be able to cultivate local climates that naturally store carbon and provide optimal conditions for <a href="https://www.fao.org/3/cb0486en/cb0486en.pdf">food production</a> without placing so much pressure on the environment.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Tractor spraying pesticides on a soy field." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/565436/original/file-20231213-21-9rpgqu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/565436/original/file-20231213-21-9rpgqu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=362&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/565436/original/file-20231213-21-9rpgqu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=362&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/565436/original/file-20231213-21-9rpgqu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=362&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/565436/original/file-20231213-21-9rpgqu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=455&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/565436/original/file-20231213-21-9rpgqu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=455&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/565436/original/file-20231213-21-9rpgqu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=455&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Our current agricultural model centres on the large-scale cultivation of single crop varieties.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/tractor-spraying-pesticides-on-soy-field-1908369397">Fotokostic/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Paying the price</h2>
<p>Biotech firms advocate a no-testing policy as they argue that new genetically modified crops would be safe. But there is a problem. The legislation proposed by the European Commission eliminates the possibility of ever <a href="https://ensser.org/publications/2023/statement-eu-commissions-proposal-on-new-gm-plants-no-science-no-safety/">finding out</a> if these claims are correct. </p>
<p>Health and environmental problems are often the result of complex, interacting and largely invisible causes. As tracing and labelling won’t be mandatory, it will be very difficult to trace any adverse outcomes back to their causes. </p>
<p>Ultimately, people and the planet will pay the price when untested genetically modified crops penetrate our environments and the food chain. </p>
<p><em>In response to this article, a spokesperson from the American Seed Trade Association said plant breeders need all the tools at their disposal to provide improved plant varieties to farmers so they can continue producing in a challenging environment. The Association said there is consensus among plant breeders and regulatory bodies that innovative techniques, like genome editing, can be safely integrated into breeding programmes to develop plant varieties that are indistinguishable from those developed through conventional breeding. Bayer and Corteva were contacted for a comment on the issues raised in this article, but had not provided any by the time of publication.</em></p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="Imagine weekly climate newsletter" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong><em>Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?</em></strong>
<br><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/newsletters/imagine-57?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=Imagine&utm_content=DontHaveTimeTop">Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead.</a> Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/newsletters/imagine-57?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=Imagine&utm_content=DontHaveTimeBottom">Join the 20,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.</a></em></p>
<hr><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/219637/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Biotech firms are using climate goals opportunistically in an attempt to force through the deregulation of genetically modified crops.Anneleen Kenis, Lecturer in Political Ecology and Environmental Justice, Brunel University LondonBarbara Van Dyck, Research Fellow in Political Agroecology, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB)Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2151032023-10-09T17:19:20Z2023-10-09T17:19:20ZWild plants may edit their genomes in the same way we make GM crops – and it could be crucial to evolution<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/552485/original/file-20231006-25-tjh98j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=16%2C24%2C5447%2C3612&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/girl-runs-her-hand-over-tall-2017555694">zhukovvvlad/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Genetically modified (GM) crops may be controversial, but similar processes happen naturally with wild plants. However, scientists have long been puzzled about how these processes happen. Our <a href="https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nph.19272">recent study</a> may help researchers solve the mystery. </p>
<p>People often use the “<a href="https://www.discoverwildlife.com/animal-facts/tree-of-life-evolution">tree of life</a>” as a metaphor to describe the evolutionary relationships between organisms. The more closely related species are, the closer together they appear in the tree.</p>
<p>This is a bit misleading though, as reality is more complicated. Species don’t always split off along their own evolutionary path in isolation from other branches. In fact, in some groups of organisms, connections among branches are so common that we may need to abandon the notion of a tree of life altogether. This is particularly true for bacteria, where the evolutionary relationships look more like a <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcimb.2012.00113/full">tangled web than a tree</a>. The crosstalk between branches is caused by the movement of genetic information.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4536854/#:%7E:text=DEFINITION%20AND%20BACKGROUND,offspring">Horizontal gene transfer</a> (also known as lateral gene transfer) is the process by which pieces of DNA (such as genes) move between organisms outside of the usual parent to offspring route. It allows genetic information to be shared between distant branches of the tree of life without sexual reproduction, and it is responsible for the rapid spread of traits such as <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2019.01933/full">antibiotic resistance</a> among bacteria. </p>
<p>Originally scientists thought this phenomenon was restricted to microbes, but we now know it also happens in a <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S136952661500059X?via%3Dihub">wide range of plants</a>, <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867421001641?via%3Dihub">animals</a> and <a href="https://academic.oup.com/evlett/article/2/2/88/6697442?login=true">fungi</a>, where it can spread the genetic recipe for traits that have an evolutionary advantage. </p>
<h2>Horizontal gene transfer in grasses</h2>
<p>Grasses are one of the most important groups of plants and include crops such as rice, wheat and maize. They cover almost 40% of the Earth’s landmass and make up the <a href="https://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(10)01021-3.pdf">majority of human calorie intake</a>. </p>
<p>Horizontal gene transfer between grass species has been found in <a href="https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/nph.17328">wild and cultivated species alike</a>. While we know these transfers happen from the marks they leave in species’ <a href="https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Genome">genomes</a> (the entire set of DNA instructions in a cell), we still do not know the mechanism behind it. Neither do we know how often it happens – something <a href="https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nph.19272">our recent study</a>, published in New Phytologist, aimed to address.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Man stands in shirt sleeves in wheat field" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/552487/original/file-20231006-15-91w9my.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/552487/original/file-20231006-15-91w9my.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/552487/original/file-20231006-15-91w9my.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/552487/original/file-20231006-15-91w9my.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/552487/original/file-20231006-15-91w9my.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/552487/original/file-20231006-15-91w9my.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/552487/original/file-20231006-15-91w9my.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">Grasses make up a large part of humanity’s diet.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/young-farmer-standing-green-wheat-field-2311732409">Zoran Zeremski/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Understanding the pace of horizontal gene transfer would allow us to assess its impact upon the planet and plant evolution and how quickly it can help plants to adapt to changes. For example, is it common enough that plants could already be using it in response to climate change? </p>
<p>We sequenced several genomes for the tropical grass <em><a href="https://eol.org/pages/2896180">Alloteropsis semialata</a></em> to estimate the frequency of gene transfers into this species. Our study retraced the evolutionary history of each gene in the genome, identified genes that were of foreign origin, and worked out when and where they were transferred.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/552494/original/file-20231006-29-6ls4ci.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Grass with brown and yellow flowers." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/552494/original/file-20231006-29-6ls4ci.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/552494/original/file-20231006-29-6ls4ci.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/552494/original/file-20231006-29-6ls4ci.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/552494/original/file-20231006-29-6ls4ci.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/552494/original/file-20231006-29-6ls4ci.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/552494/original/file-20231006-29-6ls4ci.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/552494/original/file-20231006-29-6ls4ci.jpeg?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">Alloteropsis semialata is also known as black seed grass.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alloteropsis_semialata_flowers.jpeg">Marjorie Lundgren</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Our findings showed that genes were continually acquired throughout the evolutionary history of this species, with a foreign gene incorporated approximately every 35,000 years. </p>
<p>However, this is a dramatic underestimate of the real rate of transfers into the species because it doesn’t show gene transfers that may have been lost afterwards. Most transferred genes are unlikely to give the recipient any benefit – and can even have negative consequences for the plant if they disrupt essential parts of the recipient’s genetic code. Genes that don’t offer the recipient an advantage are often lost. It’s much harder for scientists to detect these kinds of transient genes. </p>
<p>The genes that are retained are generally those that offer the recipient an evolutionary advantage. For example, many of the horizontally transferred genes detected in grasses offer <a href="https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nph.17328">disease resistance, stress tolerance and increased energy production</a>. These genes may have been optimised in the genomes of the donor species for millions of years. Horizontal gene transfer allows the recipient to skip this long refinement process. </p>
<h2>GM technology</h2>
<p>Ultimately horizontal gene transfer and GM crops have the same outcome: a gene of foreign origin is inserted into a recipient’s genome.</p>
<p>Our study gave an insight into how often horizontal transfers are happening. But we still don’t know how genes are moving between distantly related species. There are many theories but we think a mechanism called <a href="https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ppp3.10347">reproductive contamination</a> is most likely. It mirrors some of the methods used to make GM crops. </p>
<p>There are several different methods by which you can make a GM plant – some that require intense human intervention and some that don’t. Simple techniques such as repeated pollination or <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30543062/#:%7E:text=There%20are%20three%20major%20steps,%3B%20Pollen%20tube%20pathway%3B%20Transformation.">pollen tube pathway-mediated transfer</a> require minimal human intervention. In these methods, small fragments of DNA from a third individual travel down the same pollen tube established by the father to contaminate the embryo in the seed. In theory this could occur naturally.</p>
<p>In the future we plan to test this idea and see if we can recreate some of the natural transfers we have documented. If successful, it may be time to reconsider how we view GM crops. Perhaps they are closer to natural processes than we think.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/215103/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><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lara Pereira and Pauline Raimondeau do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Recent study investigated how fast genes are being transferred between distantly related species.Luke Dunning, Natural Environment Research Council Independent Research Fellow, University of SheffieldLara Pereira, Postdoctoral Research Associate in Genetics, University of SheffieldPauline Raimondeau, Postdoctoral Associate in Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, Yale UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1881052022-08-22T15:45:47Z2022-08-22T15:45:47ZUganda’s efforts to address vitamin A deficiency miss the mark<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/478940/original/file-20220812-3855-hwy9zu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Matooke has been the subject for vitamin A biofortification. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Robin Nieuwenkamp/Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Vitamin A deficiency is the <a href="https://data.unicef.org/topic/nutrition/vitamin-a-deficiency/">leading</a> cause of preventable childhood blindness. It also increases the risk of death from common childhood illnesses such as diarrhoea. There are several ways to fight this public health threat: giving children vitamin A supplements; promoting more diverse diets; fortifying food; and bio-fortifying crops. Nutrition campaigns can go with these efforts. </p>
<p>A number of countries are implementing these measures. But there’s a lack of adequately updated data on vitamin A deficiency and analyses of the impact of such measures. Without this information, countries may be unable to make timely, informed decisions and modify existing strategies.</p>
<p>Uganda is a case in point. Methods for collecting and analysing data on vitamin A deficiency have been inconsistent. So the results vary widely. This makes it difficult to tell whether vitamin A deficiency among Ugandan children is declining or not. Prevalence was estimated at around <a href="https://www.dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/FR128/FR128.pdf#page=20">28% in 2001</a>, <a href="https://www.dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/FR194/FR194.pdf#page=213">20% in 2006</a>, 33% in <a href="https://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/FR264/FR264.pdf#page=178">2011</a> and 9% in <a href="https://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/FR333/FR333.pdf#page=258">2016</a>. The World Health Organization <a href="https://www.who.int/data/nutrition/nlis/info/vitamin-a-deficiency">categorises</a> prevalence of 2-9% as mild; 10-19% as moderate and over 20% as severe. </p>
<p>It is hard to compare countries when reliable data are missing. But Uganda has been one of UNICEF’s <a href="https://data.unicef.org/topic/nutrition/vitamin-a-deficiency/">priority countries</a> for its vitamin A supplementation programme since 2000. The country has introduced several measures to address the issue. It distributes vitamin A supplements through healthcare channels; fortifies edible oil, maize flour and wheat flour; and breeds biofortified crops such as sweet potatoes. </p>
<p>My <a href="https://ajfand.net/Volume22/No3/Lee21735.pdf">recent study</a> aimed to identify, as far as possible, what’s working in Uganda and what the obstacles are for these programmes. </p>
<h2>Food fortification</h2>
<p>Food <a href="https://extranet.who.int/nutrition/gina/en/node/14786">fortification</a> one of the approaches has been <a href="http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/uga138024.pdf">mandated</a> in Uganda. It means increasing the level of micronutrients in processed foods. Edible oil, maize flour and wheat flour are fortified with retinyl palmitate, a form of vitamin A. </p>
<p>This practice is only effective when: </p>
<ul>
<li><p>the nutrient is added to a suitable type of food </p></li>
<li><p>it’s easy for target population groups to consume the food regularly </p></li>
<li><p>costs are reasonable </p></li>
<li><p>food industries are sufficiently developed and regulated. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>A <a href="https://www.gainhealth.org/sites/default/files/publications/documents/fortification-assessement-coverage-toolkit-uganda-2015.pdf">nationwide survey</a> suggests not all vitamin A-fortified oil complied with the national standard. Only about 55% of the oil-consuming population were getting the fortified oil. The fortified maize flour reached less than 7% of households using maize flour. </p>
<p>Differences between the two industries may partly explain the population coverage difference. </p>
<p>The Ugandan oil industry is dominated by a few oil processors that voluntarily fortified their products early on. </p>
<p>Many maize mills across Uganda are small to medium in scale, with daily milling capacity below 20 tonnes. Maize mills with a daily production capacity over 20 tonnes are mandated, by law, to fortify maize flour. But violators of the regulation <a href="https://www.advancingnutrition.org/resources/state-maize-flour-fortification-uganda">rarely face consequences</a>. </p>
<p>The vitamin A-fortified wheat flour appears a curious choice as a food vehicle for supplementation. It’s not a staple food in Uganda; only 11% of the population consume wheat flour. </p>
<p>Overall, Uganda’s food fortification with vitamin A seems constrained by questionable choices of the food vehicle, non-compliant industries, policy loopholes and weak public supervision.</p>
<h2>Biofortification</h2>
<p>Biofortification differs from food fortification. It increases target micronutrients in edible parts of the crop during its growth. This is done by applying fertiliser with target micronutrients, breeding crops conventionally, or developing crops with genetic modification. </p>
<p>Successful biofortification relies on target population groups choosing to plant and consume these crops. Often, it is difficult to change culturally embedded and socially established food crop choices. And people may not accept new crops or crop varieties accepted when they show distinct agronomic or sensory differences. </p>
<p>Orange fleshed sweet potato is probably the best-known crop to have been biofortified with vitamin A. It was developed via conventional breeding. <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919220301135?via%3Dihub">Studies</a> <a href="https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.2135/cropsci2015.10.0612">suggest</a> eating 50-125g of the biofortified sweet potato daily may provide children with sufficient vitamin A. But the question is whether Ugandan farmers will continue cultivating it and whether consumers will choose it over the conventionally preferred white sweet potato. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://ir.must.ac.ug/bitstream/handle/123456789/745/From%20breeding%20to%20nutrition.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y">research</a> shows mixed <a href="https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/nyas.13315">results</a>. People say they are not satisfied with the cost, taste and colour of the biofortified sweet potato. Also, Ugandan farming households grow sweet potatoes mostly for subsistence. It doesn’t always reach urban markets. </p>
<p>Another staple food in Uganda is the East African highland banana, locally called matooke. The biofortified orange-coloured banana was developed via genetic modification. This further complicates its adoption. Uganda has yet to pass the <a href="https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2020/03/ugandan-president-wants-gmo-bill-passed/">Genetic Engineering Regulatory Bill</a> to release genetically modified products. Public debates surrounding the issue are not settled. The drastic colour change in the culturally and socially important banana may deter people from eating it. And it costs more for farmers to buy the biofortified plantlet. Matooke growing households tend to use their own banana plantlet or get it from their neighbours.</p>
<h2>Call for political attention</h2>
<p>The food-based vitamin A deficiency interventions are considered effective, safe and sustainable. </p>
<p>But the deficiency is complicated by additional issues and requires a comprehensive approach. For example, vitamin A is fat-soluble, so people need to eat sufficient fat to absorb the vitamin. And some infectious diseases make vitamin A deficiency worse, so they too should be tackled.</p>
<p>The Ugandan government has expressed its political commitment to address vitamin A deficiency. But it is still an uphill task when many Ugandan children suffer from overall malnutrition and the healthcare system is weak. Nonetheless, vitamin A deficiency is an important issue that demands the political attention.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/188105/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>HyeJin Lee 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>Each food-based vitamin A programme carries different advantages and issues.HyeJin Lee, Assistant Professor, Konkuk UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1689832021-09-30T13:53:12Z2021-09-30T13:53:12ZGene-edited crops: expert Q+A on what field trials could mean for the future of food<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/424015/original/file-20210930-26-hsn3dx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C7024%2C4510&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/agriculturist-utilize-core-data-network-internet-1884814591">Attasit Saentep/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Firmly outside the EU, where regulations are <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58711230">considered tighter</a>, the UK government plans to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/29/genetically-modified-food-a-step-closer-in-england-as-laws-relaxed">revise regulations</a> on <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/gene-editing-18986">gene editing</a> in agriculture in England, enabling field trials of crops which have had their DNA spliced to accentuate particular qualities, like resistance to disease or drought. This will be followed by a broader review of rules on genetically modified organisms.</em></p>
<p><em>The British public has traditionally been sceptical of genetically manipulating food, but should it be? What could new technology offer farming? And what are the risks? We asked professor of ecology at Southampton University, Guy Poppy.</em></p>
<p><strong>What actually is gene editing? How does it differ from genetic modification?</strong></p>
<p>Humans have been genetically modifying plants and animals ever since we stopped being hunter-gatherers. It’s just the way in which we modify the genes of an organism which has changed. </p>
<p>Random mutations occur in the DNA of organisms all the time. When a variation emerged in the past which a farmer happened to like, such as a tomato plant which produced juicier fruit, they were likely to breed that plant to ensure the trait was passed on. Repeating this process over generations created organisms with more of the characteristics people like. Human hands have directed evolution through this process of selective breeding since the dawn of agriculture.</p>
<p>Genetic modification (GM) typically involves inserting genes into the genome of a plant or animal. The outcome can be similar to selective breeding, but the results are more immediate and precise. Genetic modification can also create characteristics which would be unlikely through any form of selective breeding.</p>
<p>Take transgenic organisms. These are the products of transferring a gene from one organism’s genome to another, like a GM crop spliced with insecticidal proteins found in soil bacteria. </p>
<p>Gene editing (GE) is the result of more recent technology, such as CRISPR-Cas9, which can quickly, precisely and (relatively) cheaply edit parts of a genome by removing, altering or adding sections of DNA. Gene editing typically doesn’t involve introducing genes from other species, but these techniques allow quite complex control of an organism’s genome.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/what-is-crispr-the-gene-editing-technology-that-won-the-chemistry-nobel-prize-147695">What is CRISPR, the gene editing technology that won the Chemistry Nobel prize?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Gene editing can direct the evolution of plants and animals to yield varieties that would have taken conventional breeding many generations to produce. As a result, many countries are revising their regulations for genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to reflect the capabilities of this new technology, and in the case of the UK, when the technology is used to develop a crop which could not have been produced through conventional breeding.</p>
<p><strong>Could these field trials lead to the widespread use of gene-edited crops?</strong></p>
<p>No. The current proposals allow researchers or food firms to conduct field trials of gene-edited crops in England with the approval of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). The costs and some of the barriers to starting research have been lifted, but we’re still waiting for new legislation which would govern the wider use of gene editing in the UK. Only then might we see the sale of gene-edited crops, which would be considered by the Food Standards agency.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A collection of root vegetables." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/423919/original/file-20210929-18-1pbnc98.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/423919/original/file-20210929-18-1pbnc98.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/423919/original/file-20210929-18-1pbnc98.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/423919/original/file-20210929-18-1pbnc98.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/423919/original/file-20210929-18-1pbnc98.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/423919/original/file-20210929-18-1pbnc98.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/423919/original/file-20210929-18-1pbnc98.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Gene-edited vegetables are still not likely to appear on supermarket shelves any time soon.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/root-crops-carrots-parsley-turnip-onion-750895588">Ulrich22/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Some may see Defra’s decision to allow research as approving gene-edited crops by the back door. Others might fear that it will lead to the wider consideration of all genetic technologies available for editing plants, animals and even humans. </p>
<p>A simpler approval process is likely to encourage more scientists to undertake field trials. </p>
<p><strong>What are some of the potential benefits of gene editing food crops?</strong></p>
<p>Gene editing can make plants and animals more nutritious or resilient to climate change, for example. Many plants contain anti-nutrients – substances which restrict the availability of nutrients to the human body during digestion. Gene editing could target and remove these, making the plant more nutritious.</p>
<p>Gene editing can also change a plant’s water requirements, producing crops that need less water to grow. In 2018, scientists discovered that by altering the expression of a gene that is found in all plants, they could make tobacco plants <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-22431-5">25% more water-efficient</a>. Now they are testing this technique on food crops, like lettuce. The idea is to make crops more resilient to droughts, which are likely to become more frequent and severe in many growing regions as the world warms.</p>
<p>I have written before about <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02780-w">removing food allergens</a> with gene editing, by effectively silencing genes associated with allergens. <a href="https://www.ingateygen.com/">IngateyGen</a>, a biotechnology company based in the US has patented a process for making hypoallergenic peanut plants. The company hopes to produce other plants as part of a partnership with nearby Fayetteville State University. </p>
<p>Clearly, the future of gene editing could involve much more than just increasing crop yield or reducing the use of pesticides, but it needs to be developed thoughtfully. </p>
<p><strong>What worries do you have?</strong></p>
<p>The safety and environmental impact of GM foods is important, and there are well developed scientific processes to assess and manage these risks. I do fear the government is avoiding some of the real issues raised by gene editing but relevant to how we grow food in the future, such as the business models of current food producers and how affordable gene-edited food will be, particularly for the world’s poorest people.</p>
<p>I’m also concerned about issues which are somewhat hard to predict. Civilisation already relies on obtaining much of its calories from a few staple crops, which represent a fraction of 1% of the total biodiversity which exists. One criticism of GM technology is that it encourages the expansion of a few varieties of staple crops, otherwise known as cultivars. This narrows genetic variation between crop plants even further. A diverse genome is more resilient to pests, diseases and climate change. Repeatedly breeding just a handful of cultivars can lead to widescale crop failure, as occurred with <a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15120431-200-tomorrows-bitter-harvest-the-genetic-diversity-of-our-agriculture-is-rapidly-vanishing-leaving-our-crops-prone-to-pest-and-plague/">sugar cane</a> in the 1970s.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A hand holds a green leaf covered in yellow spots." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/424018/original/file-20210930-16-1sr23wj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/424018/original/file-20210930-16-1sr23wj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/424018/original/file-20210930-16-1sr23wj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/424018/original/file-20210930-16-1sr23wj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/424018/original/file-20210930-16-1sr23wj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/424018/original/file-20210930-16-1sr23wj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/424018/original/file-20210930-16-1sr23wj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The genetic diversity of the world’s food is shrinking, leaving crop species prone to pests and disease.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/coffee-rust-diseased-plant-region-matagalpa-1838795902">Viola Hofmann/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Gene editing could make crop species more diverse if it could result in farmers using more species and cultivars, as gene-editing becomes more available and accepted. Because CRISPR has made this technology cheaper, gene editing could be used to improve the genomes of mutliple cultivars and many different crop species, injecting some diversity into farm fields. </p>
<p>But regulation of GM plants and animals is complex, expensive and increasingly seen as a barrier to innovation by both scientists and industry. If the regulation of gene-edited crops were made simpler, it could mean the editing of more crop species and cultivars. This would also diversify access to gene-edited products and the number of organisations with products on offer, preventing a few, large corporations from monopolising the process.</p>
<p><strong>What do you think could be the future of this technology?</strong></p>
<p>Too often in the past, people have heard about scientific revolutions which have failed to deliver. It takes more than clever technology for these things take off. That’s why I believe some of the bigger issues about food and farming need addressing. </p>
<p>Defra’s proposals are a proportionate way to move beyond the current system of regulations, while accepting that gene editing is different from the GM technology which developed transgenic organisms. It would be a great shame to waste this opportunity by mishandling the debate.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/should-we-genetically-edit-the-food-we-eat-we-asked-two-experts-162959">Should we genetically edit the food we eat? We asked two experts</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Scientists enjoy an even greater level of respect and trust among the public as a result of the pandemic and the success of multiple vaccines, some of which are the products of genetic modification. The Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine, for example, uses an adenovirus, a type of pathogen that causes a common cold, to serve as the vehicle for getting a genetic sequence into your cells. In effect, that adenovirus is a GMO. It’s important that we maintain this trust by engaging with the public about what science is trying to achieve and what we can and can’t say, without overpromising or cherry-picking evidence.</p>
<p>Feeding the world while improving human and planetary health is not easy and will require more than the odd tool in the farming toolbox. There needs to be a debate about food and farming which can tackle multiple issues, including gene editing. I accept that it’s important to consider gene editing on its own, but it is also part of a complex food system. Gene editing could help to feed the world in a changing climate, but this is only realistic if these wider issues are discussed and considered. Otherwise we will be sifting through claims and counter-claims, like during the GM debate of the 1990s and early 2000s, when two sects argued and argued rather than explore what people need from a food and farming system.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/168983/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Guy Poppy received funding from UKRI and is Director of the project 'transforming UK food systems for healthy people and a healthy environment'.</span></em></p>Field trials of genetically edited crop plants are to be allowed in England under new government proposals.Guy Poppy, Director of Multidisciplinary Research and Professor of Ecology, University of SouthamptonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1629592021-08-11T12:27:19Z2021-08-11T12:27:19ZShould we genetically edit the food we eat? We asked two experts<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/409664/original/file-20210705-19-kw8reu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/pile-pumpkins-on-bale-straw-under-156566732">Michael Wick/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><strong>Nicola Patron</strong>: Oil from soybeans gene-edited to produce a <a href="https://www.proactiveinvestors.com/companies/news/918560/calyxt-debuts-premium-soybean-cooking-oil-calyno-918560.html">“high oleic” oil</a> with no trans fats and less saturated fat is already on sale in the United States. Other products including <a href="https://www.cellectis.com/en/press/cellectis-plant-sciences-inc.-publishes-a-study-demonstrating-reduced-acrylamide-in-fried-potatoes">low-acrylamide potatoes</a> and <a href="http://pgandp.org/page475645.html">non-browning mushrooms</a> are expected to be launched in the near future. </p>
<p>The work I do might lead to similar products. I’m a molecular and synthetic plant biologist at the <a href="https://www.earlham.ac.uk">Earlham Institute</a>. My lab works to understand how plants control when and why genes are expressed as well as how they make certain chemicals. We aim to identify variants of genes that help plants to grow and to find and produce natural products like pheromones that are useful in agriculture or anti-cancer compounds used in chemotherapies. We also work to improve plant biotechnologies and have contributed to proof-of-concept studies demonstrating that genome editing can be used to develop useful traits in <a href="https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-015-0826-7">barley, brassica</a> and <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/pbi.13137">potatoes</a> by deleting just a few letters of DNA.</p>
<p><strong>Catherine Price</strong>: It’s great to be able to talk to a scientist working in this field, because GM crops have long been a very contentious issue, and for good reason. My work focuses on the social science aspects of the GM debate. I’m a sociologist based at a <a href="https://research.reading.ac.uk/change-in-agriculture/">research group</a> at the University of Reading looking at the future of agriculture. In <a href="http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/133445/">previous work</a> I’ve examined how GM food is discussed by the media, so I have a good sense of how the state, NGOs, farmers, and citizens all view the science of GM foods – and it varies quite a bit. </p>
<p>So what exactly is the difference between GM and gene editing? I’ve come across many definitions in my time working on this topic.</p>
<p><strong>NP</strong>: I’m not surprised! There isn’t really an accepted definition of what genetic modification is, and that has certainly caused some problems. One could argue that the genetics of anything that’s been manipulated by humans has been modified in some way. We’ve been changing plant genomes for thousands of years. The process of domesticating and breeding crops made substantial changes to the sequences and structures of their genomes.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Medieval calendar showing monthly agricultural tasks." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/408868/original/file-20210629-26-1ysaca.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/408868/original/file-20210629-26-1ysaca.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=519&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408868/original/file-20210629-26-1ysaca.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=519&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408868/original/file-20210629-26-1ysaca.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=519&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408868/original/file-20210629-26-1ysaca.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=652&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408868/original/file-20210629-26-1ysaca.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=652&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408868/original/file-20210629-26-1ysaca.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=652&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Agricultural calendar, c. 1306. As long as humanity has been farming, we’ve been altering the genetic make-up of crops.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Crescenzi_calendar.jpg">Condé Museum</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Since the 1980s, we’ve had the ability to use recombinant DNA technologies to insert DNA sequences into plant genomes in order to confer useful traits, such as resistance to insect pests. This could be a DNA sequence from a different individual of the same species, from a closely related species, or from a more distantly related species. Such crops became known as genetically modified organisms (GMOs). They first came on to the markets in the 1990s and are now widely grown on about <a href="https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/gm-plants/what-gm-crops-are-currently-being-grown-and-where/">10%</a> of agricultural land worldwide in <a href="https://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/55/">29 countries</a>.</p>
<p>The outcomes of gene editing are quite different to those of GM. What genome editing technologies allow you to do is to make really precise changes to the DNA that already exists in an organism. You can delete something, even changing or deleting just one specific letter of the DNA code, or you can recode a longer section of a sequence. You can also use these technologies to insert DNA, but instead of inserting the new DNA randomly as happens with older GM technologies, you can insert it into a specific location in the genome.</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/415651/original/file-20210811-17-zc3x6m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/415651/original/file-20210811-17-zc3x6m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415651/original/file-20210811-17-zc3x6m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415651/original/file-20210811-17-zc3x6m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415651/original/file-20210811-17-zc3x6m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415651/original/file-20210811-17-zc3x6m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415651/original/file-20210811-17-zc3x6m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong><em>This is a Head to Head story</em></strong></p>
<p><br><em>The Conversation’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/head-to-head-62019">Head to Head</a> articles feature academics from different disciplines chewing over current debates. If there’s a specific topic or question you’d like experts from different disciplines to discuss, please <a href="mailto:insights@theconversation.com">email us your question</a>.</em> </p>
<hr>
<p>Broadly, genetic modification has come to mean that one or more genes have been inserted whereas genome editing has come to mean small and specific changes to existing DNA.</p>
<h2>‘Frankenfood’</h2>
<p><strong>CP:</strong> You’ve just explained the science really clearly. And I think that might be what we’re missing in terms of the public debate – where often the loudest sentiment is that these technologies are unnatural or dangerous.</p>
<p>In previous work I’ve <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Catherine-Price-9/publication/310456988_Genetic_Futures_and_the_Media/links/5bb5f430299bf13e605e29db/Genetic-Futures-and-the-Media.pdf">analysed</a> how journalists frame genetics news. Journalists often liken the rearrangement and changes to genes to Frankenstein and the idea of runaway science. This is turn can invoke the idea that scientific progress interferes with nature, producing results which are unpredictable and ethically wrong.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="White mushrooms on wooden background." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/408882/original/file-20210629-20-17w90x4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/408882/original/file-20210629-20-17w90x4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408882/original/file-20210629-20-17w90x4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408882/original/file-20210629-20-17w90x4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408882/original/file-20210629-20-17w90x4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408882/original/file-20210629-20-17w90x4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408882/original/file-20210629-20-17w90x4.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">The common white button mushroom was genetically modified with the gene-editing tool CRISPR–Cas9 to resist browning. It was the first such organism to receive a green light from the US government.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/fresh-mushrooms-on-wooden-background-82617856">Valerii Evlakhov/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In 2015, for example, these <a href="https://doi.org/10.1191/14744744004eu301oa">Frankenfood headlines</a> dominated. There were a lot of people who were for it too, but I got the overall sense that it was deemed a risk and that part of the problem was that scientists didn’t try hard enough to explain the technical stuff and the risks, and that the public’s concerns weren’t being listened to. I think sometimes we treat the public as being stupid. If the science isn’t explained and the public aren’t consulted, what are they supposed to think?</p>
<p>In the UK, the gene-editing debate has sparked again. When Boris Johnson came into power, he stood on the steps of Downing Street <a href="https://www.business-live.co.uk/economic-development/boris-johnsons-message-business-satellites-16640138">and said</a> he wanted to enable gene edited and genetically modified crops. This led to a <a href="https://consult.defra.gov.uk/agri-food-chain-directorate/the-regulation-of-genetic-technologies/">government consultation</a> on the matter. The proposed changes – yet to be announced formally – <a href="https://www.wired.co.uk/article/uk-gmo-crops">define gene-edited organisms</a> as those “possessing genetic changes which could have been introduced by traditional breeding”. </p>
<p>But has the dominant view changed since 2015? It’s not clear. There are also concerns that weakened regulations will lock the UK into <a href="https://sustainablefoodtrust.org/articles/uk-gene-editing-consultation-say-no-to-deregulation/">industrialised farming methods</a>. And there’s no real sense of how gene edited or GM crops fit into the broader food system. Agriculture does not operate and exist in isolation.</p>
<p><strong>NP:</strong> I totally agree that there was insufficient communication in the past. People do understand the science if it is explained in a considered way. One thing I have found is that it’s important for people to understand that <em>all</em> crop breeding techniques involve rearrangements and changes to genes. The risks of using these new breeding technologies are no greater than for older breeding technologies, the products of which are subject to far fewer checks. For the most part, what domestication and plant breeding <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/06/13/732160949/how-almonds-went-from-deadly-to-delicious">has achieved</a> is to <a href="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/364/6445/1095">remove toxins</a> and to make them more <a href="https://academic.oup.com/plcell/article/23/5/tpc.111.tt0511/6097094">nutritious and more high yielding</a>.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"734662715826962432"}"></div></p>
<p>In the summer of 2018, the European court of justice <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05814-6">ruled</a> that genome edited plants would also be classified as being genetically modified. But, if a plant was mutated using radiation or mutagenic chemicals, even if the results were exactly the same (or had even more changes), the plant would not be GM. To many, this <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nbt.4252">doesn’t make much sense</a>. When there are no new genes inserted, I struggle to understand how and why plants mutated with these technologies should be regulated in a different way. That’s why <a href="https://www.mpg.de/13748566/position-paper-crispr.pdf">European law in this area is controversial</a>.</p>
<p>Now with the UK being able to divert from European law post-Brexit, there is a discussion of whether that’s something that the country wants to keep. This is particularly relevant if the UK wants its agricultural products <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/brexit-leaving-eu-will-give-freedom-to-grow-more-gm-crops-2fbdwl5b6">to be competitive</a> on the wider global market with products from the United States and Canada and Brazil and Australia, who have decided <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2020.586027/full">not to regulate</a> genome edited products in the same way that they do genetically modified products.</p>
<p><strong>CP:</strong> It’s the rearrangements and changes to genes which the media often pick up on. And this is where the idea of Frankenstein food gets brought into debates about GM foods. I think this illustrates why scientists need to communicate the risks rather than leaving it to journalists. The public are likely to have a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662513518154">better understanding</a> then. </p>
<h2>The case for editing</h2>
<p><strong>NP:</strong> Genetic rearrangements and changes to the sequences of genes occur naturally <a href="https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/31626-research-reveals-rapid-mutation-rate-of-plant-genomes">all the time</a>. They also occur with <a href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-4-431-55675-6_9">older and established breeding technologies</a>. Applying genetic technologies to crop breeding makes the process of bringing combinations of beneficial sequences and genes together into the same plant easier. Because scientists know what changes are being made, the consequences of these changes are closely observed and extensively analysed even before the plants enter large-scale breeding programmes. The outcomes of gene editing are therefore more likely to be predictable.</p>
<p>I think what is critically important is for scientists to explain what we’re trying to achieve and the type of products we’re able to make – why they will be beneficial, both to health and the environment. </p>
<p>We’re using an <a href="http://www.fao.org/land-water/news-archive/news-detail/en/c/267297/">incredible amount</a> of <a href="http://www.fao.org/sustainability/news/detail/en/c/1274219/">land</a> and <a href="https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/water-in-agriculture">water</a> for agriculture. And that often means that we are destroying pristine biodiverse environments, such as the Amazon rainforest, grasslands, wetlands and marshlands to grow more crops. Increasing yield on productive land and decreasing the amount of land used for agriculture is possibly the greatest impact that we will have on preserving biodiversity. Improving crop genetics can also reduce the amount of fertilisers and pesticides that we need to use, and we can make crops healthier, and increase their nutritional content.</p>
<p>A single change to one letter of DNA sequence can turn off a gene and have a substantial effect. For example, making a single mutation to inactivate two genes involved in <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/jennysplitter/2019/03/05/trans-fat-free-gene-edited-soybean-oil/?sh=27652c5f4c91">fatty acid biosynthesis</a> can lead to a different oil profile in oil seed crops making them healthier to consume. Plants also have genes that make them resistant or susceptible to specific diseases – a mutation in the coding sequence or in the regulatory sequences of these genes can mean that those pathogens <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/pbi.12677">can no longer infect them</a>, which can reduce the need for fungicides and other chemicals.</p>
<p>Scientific analyses that have been done on the impacts of many biotech crops have <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ajae.12162">identified many benefits</a>, including reducing the use of pesticides and improving the welfare and health of subsistence farmers.</p>
<p>I think it’s really important that people understand that even when the goal is to increase yields, crop improvement is not only about profit. </p>
<h2>Power in the seed system</h2>
<p><strong>CP:</strong> I’d certainly agree with you that these are very pressing issues and that the technology has the potential to do a lot of good, especially considering climate change and biodiversity loss. But what you say about profit can’t really be ignored. The dominance of the big companies is a big problem. I think that’s what’s underlying the issues now actually. People are asking: <a href="http://seedcontrol.eu/seed-stories.php">who’s got power in the seed system</a>? Who’s controlling our food system? What was the big six is now the <a href="https://european-seed.com/2019/02/from-big-six-to-big-four-new-oecd-study-sheds-light-on-concentration-and-competition-in-seed-markets/">big four</a> after a series of mergers (DowDuPont, Bayer-Monsanto, BASF and ChemChina-Syngenta); they’re controlling like <a href="https://civileats.com/2019/01/11/the-sobering-details-behind-the-latest-seed-monopoly-chart/">60%</a> of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-gardeners-are-reclaiming-agriculture-from-industry-one-seed-at-a-time-128071">seed supply</a>, you know?</p>
<p>Yes, these companies do invest huge amounts of capital and time developing innovations such as gene-edited crops. So of course they protect these innovations through patents and intellectual property rights. But for many farmers in developing countries, these patents dispossess them of their rights to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto-sues-farmers-seed-patents">save seeds</a>. Instead of saving seed and planting it the following year, farmers have to purchase new seed. This is arguably linked to <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5427059/">horrific stories</a> in some parts of the world – such as farmers accumulating so much debt that they take their own lives. There’s also the question of whether it is ethically correct for companies to own life. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A hand cupping seeds; seed packets in background." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/408886/original/file-20210629-24-lcn6gi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/408886/original/file-20210629-24-lcn6gi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408886/original/file-20210629-24-lcn6gi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408886/original/file-20210629-24-lcn6gi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408886/original/file-20210629-24-lcn6gi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408886/original/file-20210629-24-lcn6gi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408886/original/file-20210629-24-lcn6gi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The traditional practice of seed saving is illegal under the terms of many seed companies.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/united-kingdom-january-25-2012-woman-196672658">Caron Badkin/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong>NP:</strong> I agree that ownership of the technologies underlying food production should be questioned and openly debated. I have <a href="https://www.synbioleap.org/strategic-action-plans-blog/2017/2/27/feeding-the-future-the-case-for-open-source-technology-and-an-inclusive-plant-bioengineering-community">previously written</a> about the negative consequences of some of the patenting and ownership practices used in plant biotechnology. However, while a few companies may sell the majority of proprietary seeds, their dominance over global food supply chains is overstated. Smallholder farmers, who generally do not grow proprietary seeds, <a href="https://www.globalagriculture.org/whats-new/news/en/32345.html">produce more than half of global food</a>. </p>
<p>One of the issues that often comes up as a concern is that <a href="http://sbc.ucdavis.edu/Biotech_for_Sustain_pages/Herbicide_Tolerance/">specific herbicides must be used</a> in conjunction with herbicide-tolerant GM plants. Until the patents of these herbicides <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/2015/07/30/166919/as-patents-expire-farmers-plant-generic-gmos/">expire</a>, growers need to purchase both seeds and herbicides from the same company. Further, some of these crops are developed by chemical companies with a problematic history including the use of damaging chemicals such as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/24/monsanto-agent-orange-west-virginia">Agent Orange</a>. It’s undoubtedly tricky asking people to trust seed produced by these companies.</p>
<p>Bad behaviour and poor corporate responsibility by companies should unquestionably be called out, curtailed and, where necessary, regulated. But seeking to counter the behaviour of a few companies by suppressing the use of technologies with enormous potential that are being used in public development programmes to <a href="https://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/47/download/isaaa-brief-47-2014.pdf">improve lives</a> does not seem reasonable to me. I argue that we should instead confront questions of ownership, and facilitate global access to enabling technologies to promote locally-led solutions. </p>
<h2>What do most people think?</h2>
<p><strong>CP:</strong> That is certainly where lots of the push back comes from. I think even the smaller companies that are developing are always going to be associated with that. And yes, it’s time we debated that – the food system and the money seems to be a lot of the problem, not the science itself. </p>
<p>Having said that, I don’t think the reason gene editing crops are important is coming through at the moment. I agree that these crops are important for biodiversity and the need to produce more food on less land with less water. But sometimes there’s a sense that these things are being forced on people. </p>
<p>Mexicans actually <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/511016a">pushed back on GM maize</a> because maize is so culturally important to them. Soon after GM maize was introduced, in the late 1990s, they <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/35107068">found genetic sequences</a> known to be present in the GM varieties in a few samples of crops raised from local varieties. There was a sense then of an imposition or attack on their culture. And as a result of the aftermath of that debate Mexico actually ruled out GM maize in order to protect its maize breeding programmes, although it did continue to grow GM cotton.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Man holds stack of different coloured corn on the cob." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/408888/original/file-20210629-26-1sok1k4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/408888/original/file-20210629-26-1sok1k4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408888/original/file-20210629-26-1sok1k4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408888/original/file-20210629-26-1sok1k4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408888/original/file-20210629-26-1sok1k4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408888/original/file-20210629-26-1sok1k4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408888/original/file-20210629-26-1sok1k4.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">Mexico has an extraordinary diversity of maize – which was felt to be under threat from GM maize.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/mexican-corn-maize-dried-blue-cobs-1479684842">Marcos Castillo/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>That shows that sometimes we need to work with people more. We need to explain the science and the benefits and ask what they think, rather than framing it in a way that makes it seem like it’s inevitable. Yes, the possible benefits are enormous, but the people who are deciding which benefits are chosen and how, are often governments and corporations rather than farmers and the local people. And that’s a problem. The UK government, for example, often focuses on <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/293037/10-669-gcsa-guidelines-scientific-engineering-advice-policy-making.pdf">scientific advice</a> in policy-making but I don’t think that’s the right route to go down. You need a wider debate sometimes as to what society wants, especially considering just how powerful these big companies are in the food system.</p>
<p>The recent consultation is an example of this. There was a sense that the government had <a href="https://www.foodethicscouncil.org/resource/open-letter-re-weakening-regulation-on-genetic-engineering/">already decided</a> that gene editing is going to happen, both on plants and animals. The consultation was made quite technical – too technical for people without a scientific understanding to contribute to. A lot of important questions – such as whether people consider gene editing to be ethical or who they believe will benefit from these technologies – just weren’t asked.</p>
<p>It’s not always about science. A lot of people are actually quite accepting of the science, as we’ve discussed – the problem is who is controlling the food system.</p>
<p><strong>NP</strong>: I share people’s concerns about the lack of diversity in the seed trading companies. Perhaps ironically, I think that one of the reasons that there are so few agrotech companies is partly a result of the regulatory burdens around GM. It has been estimated to cost upwards of <a href="https://www.isaaa.org/kc/cropbiotechupdate/article/default.asp?ID=14638">a hundred million dollars</a> to bring a GM crop to market, with a substantial fraction spent on the regulatory process,</p>
<p>There was considerable diversity in the plant biotechnology IP [intellectual property] landscape, with quite a lot of it owned by universities. However, it has been argued that the <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nbt.3393">strategic use of patent rights</a> and the implementation of high and scientifically unjustified <a href="https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/76797108.pdf">regulatory barriers</a> stifled innovation in smaller companies leaving only very large companies with the resources necessary to bring products to market. In recent years, with new patent and regulatory landscapes of genome editing, we see new plant biotech companies <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41587-019-00027-2">beginning to emerge</a>.</p>
<p>One of the things I’ve been involved in is enabling <a href="https://www.openplant.org">open-source plant biotechnology</a> and accelerating technology transfer with the aim of enabling entrepreneurship and empowering scientists in resource poor regions. The long-term goal is to help scientists who are closely connected to the needs of their local farmers and populations obtain access to the training and technologies they need to start local companies, develop local crop varieties, and help democratise the seed production system.</p>
<p><strong>CP</strong>: I would agree. There’s a lot of government money being pushed into science the technology. But I think the way the government carried out the recent consultation – that sense of asking what people wanted, but not actually wanting to know the answer – might set the debate back a bit, at least in the UK. I think if the consultation had been done a bit differently, you might’ve got a better conversation going.</p>
<p>They might, for example, have involved a <a href="https://esrc.ukri.org/public-engagement/public-engagement-guidance/guide-to-public-engagement/choosing-your-activities/citizens-jury/">citizen jury</a> or similar. This is such an important topic, and it’s key that the public feel consulted. Then people could ask an expert – someone like you – what about this? What about that? Then the government would also have more of an understanding of the nature of public concerns and interest – and realise perhaps that they relate predominantly to the business or social side of things, rather than purely the science.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/162959/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nicola Patron receives funding from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), part of UK Research and Innovation (UKRI).</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Catherine Price receives funding from the British Academy. </span></em></p>Catherine Price, sociologist, and Nicola Patron, synthetic plant biologist, discuss the promises, dangers and concerns around gene edited and GM crops.Nicola Patron, Synthetic Biology Group Leader, Earlham InstituteCatherine Price, Postdoctoral Researcher, Change in Agriculture, University of ReadingLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1395472020-06-01T12:17:10Z2020-06-01T12:17:10ZHow a new biotech rule will foster distrust with the public and impede progress in science<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/338143/original/file-20200528-143728-1f7wi61.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=5%2C7%2C1272%2C708&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Does CRISPR really make it easier for all scientists to produce gene edited crops and animals?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Maywa Montenegro</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In May, federal regulators finalized a <a href="https://www.agri-pulse.com/articles/13694-usda-announces-regulatory-exemptions-for-ge-plants">new biotechnology policy</a> that will bring sweeping changes to the U.S. food system. <a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/fedregister/BRS_2020518.pdf">Dubbed “SECURE,”</a> <a href="https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2020/05/14/usda-secure-rule-paves-way-agricultural-innovation">the rule</a> revises U.S. Department of Agriculture regulations over genetically engineered plants, automatically exempting many gene-edited crops from government oversight. Companies and labs will <a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/340-secure-rule.pdf">be allowed to “self-determine”</a> whether or not a crop should undergo regulatory review or environmental risk assessment.</p>
<p>Initial responses to this new policy have followed familiar fault lines in the food community. Seed industry trade groups and biotech firms hailed the rule as <a href="https://www.betterseed.org/asta-statement-on-usdas-secure-rule/">“important to support continuing innovation</a>.” Environmental and small farmer NGOs called the USDA’s decision <a href="http://www.panna.org/press-statement/usda-releases-new-rules-federal-regulation-genetically-engineered-organisms">“shameful”</a> and less attentive to public well-being than to agribusiness’s bottom line.</p>
<p>But the gene-editing tool CRISPR was supposed to <a href="https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ppp3.10107">break the impasse</a> in old GM wars by making biotechnology more widely affordable, accessible and thus <a href="https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/crispr.2018.29019.rba">democratic</a>. </p>
<p>In my research, I study how biotechnology affects transitions to sustainable food systems. It’s clear that <a href="http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1225829">since 2012</a> the swelling R&D pipeline of gene-edited grains, fruits and vegetables, fish and livestock has forced U.S. agencies to respond to the so-called <a href="https://www.cuimc.columbia.edu/news/crispr-revolution-what-you-need-know">CRISPR revolution</a>.</p>
<p>Yet this rule change has a number of people in the food and scientific communities concerned. To me, it reflects the lack of accountability and trust between the public and government agencies setting policies.</p>
<h2>Why a new rule now?</h2>
<p>The USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, or APHIS, serves as the dominant U.S. regulator for plant health. Since the mid-1990s, genetically modified crops have typically fallen under APHIS oversight because <em>Agrobacterium</em>, a plant pest, is commonly used as a tool to engineer GM products. Using a “plant pest” did not prevent <a href="https://www.isaaa.org/gmapprovaldatabase/cropslist/default.asp">many GM crops</a> from being approved. But it did mean that if APHIS suspected a plant pest or noxious weed had been created through genetic engineering, the agency <a href="https://www.usda.gov/topics/biotechnology/how-federal-government-regulates-biotech-plants">would regulate the biotech product</a>, “including its release into the environment, and its import, handling, and interstate movement.”</p>
<p>Changes to APHIS regulations began during the Obama administration. In January 2017, the agency released <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aal0667">new draft rules</a>. However, the Trump administration withdrew these nine months later after pushback from industry and biotech developers which argued that the rules <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/05/18/2020-10638/movement-of-certain-genetically-engineered-organisms">would stifle innovation</a>. </p>
<p>Last summer, USDA released a <a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/fedregister/BRS_20190606.pdf">revised rule</a> for public comment, which it finalized on May 18, 2020. Most changes go into effect in April 2021.</p>
<h2>What is in the new rule?</h2>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/338330/original/file-20200528-51496-1134xak.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/338330/original/file-20200528-51496-1134xak.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/338330/original/file-20200528-51496-1134xak.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/338330/original/file-20200528-51496-1134xak.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/338330/original/file-20200528-51496-1134xak.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/338330/original/file-20200528-51496-1134xak.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=943&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/338330/original/file-20200528-51496-1134xak.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=943&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/338330/original/file-20200528-51496-1134xak.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=943&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Using CRISPR to edit plants exempts the organisms from regulation.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/modifying-dna-conceptual-image-royalty-free-image/1191006939?adppopup=true">CRAFTSCI/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY / Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Hints to how USDA intended to treat gene-edited crops came early on, when Penn State’s <a href="https://www.nature.com/news/gene-edited-crispr-mushroom-escapes-us-regulation-1.19754">nonbrowning mushrooms</a> and DuPont’s <a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/downloads/reg_loi/15-352-01_air_response_signed.pdf">waxy corn</a> were approved by APHIS in 2015 and 2016, respectively.</p>
<p>Then in March 2018, USDA Secretary Perdue <a href="https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2018/03/28/secretary-perdue-issues-usda-statement-plant-breeding-innovation">clarified</a> the agency’s stance. “USDA does not currently regulate, or have any plans to regulate, plants that could otherwise have been developed through traditional breeding techniques as long as they are developed without the use of a plant pest as the donor or vector and they are not themselves plant pests.”</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/05/18/2020-10638/movement-of-certain-genetically-engineered-organisms">new SECURE rule</a> establishes several ways for developers to qualify for deregulated status. Included are CRISPR modifications like deletions of sections of the genetic code, tiny substitutions, and introductions of DNA from related species. So, for example, a CRISPR’d cauliflower would not be regulated if a chunk of DNA was deleted. But it would still be regulated if CRISPR introduced foreign DNA into cauliflower in a way that USDA believes could turn the product into a plant pest.</p>
<p>Another significant change is that companies and scientists will get to decide for themselves if a new product qualifies for exemption from oversight. APHIS says that developers may consult regulators if at any point they aren’t sure if a new crop is exempt. However, the agency <a href="https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/united-states-relaxes-rules-biotech-crops">has already expressed confidence</a> that only about 1% of plants might not qualify for an exemption or for deregulation after an initial review.</p>
<h2>Backlash from both sides</h2>
<p>Ironically, this policy has begun aligning communities typically at loggerheads in the polarized GM conversation. For example, the UC-based Innovative Genomics Institute, founded by CRISPR co-inventor Jennifer Doudna, wrote in its <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/docketBrowser?rpp=25&so=DESC&sb=commentDueDate&po=0&s=Innovative%2BGenomics%2BInstitute&D=APHIS-2018-0034">public comments</a> to APHIS: “While we recognize the agency’s rationale behind self-determination and desire to provide regulatory relief in order to spur innovation, we are concerned that rather than stimulating innovation, such an undisclosed step may have the effect of dampening trust through the loss of transparency in the development and oversight process.”</p>
<p>Meanwhile, GM-watchdog organizations including the National Family Farmers Coalition, Pesticide Action Network and Friends of the Earth issued a <a href="http://www.panna.org/press-statement/usda-releases-new-rules-federal-regulation-genetically-engineered-organisms">joint press statement</a> criticizing a rule that allows industry to self-determine its regulatory status. The new framework, they said, has dealt a “devastating blow to the security of farmers’ livelihoods, the health of their farms and communities, and their ability to build the biodiverse, climate-resilient, and economically robust farming systems that we so urgently need.”</p>
<h2>Imagining democracy</h2>
<p>My research on <a href="https://www.elementascience.org/articles/10.1525/elementa.405/">democratizing biotechnology</a> has helped me unpack the problematic ways in which “democracy” is being hitched to technological innovation. When it comes to CRISPR, the public has been told that being cheap, easy to use and “free from regulation” is a powerful cocktail that makes gene editing intrinsically more democratic. </p>
<p>Like many convenient narratives, there are certain truths to this story. But just as clearly, cheapness is not equivalent to democratic. <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/05/18/2020-10638/movement-of-certain-genetically-engineered-organisms">According to USDA</a>, some 6,150 comments were received on the draft rule during the three-month public feedback period, a window designed to give citizens a say in government policy.</p>
<p>The agency <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2020-10638/p-23">admitted</a> that most letters expressed general opposition to GE products. Of the comments that specifically addressed provisions of the rule, “approximately 25 expressed some support for the rule.” This means a vast majority of the comments did not. Yet, the USDA disregarded this feedback. Such a lack of civic input can lead to environmental and health concerns being sidelined.</p>
<h2>Is there a better way?</h2>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/338315/original/file-20200528-51496-1e83a5i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/338315/original/file-20200528-51496-1e83a5i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/338315/original/file-20200528-51496-1e83a5i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=686&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/338315/original/file-20200528-51496-1e83a5i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=686&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/338315/original/file-20200528-51496-1e83a5i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=686&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/338315/original/file-20200528-51496-1e83a5i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=862&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/338315/original/file-20200528-51496-1e83a5i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=862&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/338315/original/file-20200528-51496-1e83a5i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=862&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">New regulations allow companies to decide when their products require regulation.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/illustration/senior-man-wearing-top-hat-standing-on-top-royalty-free-illustration/1226350326?adppopup=true">alashi / Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Thoughtful scientists, social movements and governments are now asking if there is an alternative way to regulate engineered food. For example, the <a href="https://www.bioteknologiradet.no/english/">Norwegian Biotechnology Advisory Board</a> has set out an ethics-based regulatory framework aimed at advancing genetic technology, while protecting community and environmental health and promoting societal welfare.</p>
<p>In the academic sphere, colleagues in Europe <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp3.10107">have proposed</a> a framework for “responsible innovation.” I have developed <a href="http://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.405">a set of principles and practices</a> for governing CRISPR based on dialogue with front-line communities who are most affected by the technologies others usher in. Communities don’t just have to adopt or refuse technology – they can co-create it.</p>
<p>One way to move forward in the U.S. is to take advantage of common ground between sustainable agriculture movements and CRISPR scientists. The struggle over USDA rules suggests that few outside of industry believe self-regulation is fair, wise or scientific.</p>
<p>At present, companies don’t even have to notify the USDA of biotech crops they will commercialize. The result, as Greg Jaffe of the Center for Science in the Public Interest <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abc8305">told Science</a>, is that “government regulators and the public will have no idea what products will enter the market.” “Farmers and everyone else will pay the price,”<a href="https://foe.org/news/farm-and-environmental-organizations-rebuke-new-usda-regulatory-review/">said Jim Goodman</a>, dairy farmer and board president of the National Family Farm Coalition.</p>
<p>Reclaiming a baseline of accountability, then, is the first step in building public confidence in regulatory systems that work for people as well as science that the public believes in.</p>
<p>[<em>Deep knowledge, daily.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=deepknowledge">Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/139547/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Maywa Montenegro does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A new biotech regulation allows companies to self-police and decide which crops should be regulated. The new rule is likely to amplify greater distrust of GM crops.Maywa Montenegro, UC President's Postdoctoral Fellow, University of California, DavisLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1165442019-05-06T11:21:08Z2019-05-06T11:21:08ZIt’s time we stopped human evolution – geneticist<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/272544/original/file-20190503-103082-ttwjg6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Natural perfection?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/human-evolution-vector-illustration-716966638">GANJIRO KUMA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Measles cases in the US <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48095761">have hit</a> a 25-year high, with 78 new infections in the past week alone. In a sign of the times, a cruise ship with hundreds of Scientologists on board <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-48130848">was quarantined</a> in St Lucia after one passenger was diagnosed with the disease. It’s the sort of news you can expect when parents stop vaccinating their children, which <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15568260">many did</a> from the 1990s onwards for fear that scientists were foisting remedies on them that were more dangerous than the diseases themselves. </p>
<p>As society has become ever more convenient, hygienic and wrapped in cling film, many hark back with dewy eyes to the natural and supposedly wholesome lifestyles of our ancestors in pre-industrial times. Besides the fear around vaccines, growing numbers of people put their faith in the organic movement, the anti-GM lobby and New Age philosophies. They have increasingly rejected the ability of science to improve our lives, placing an almost religious trust in the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/10-reasons-why-you-feel-so-good-in-nature-1881977943.html">benevolence of Mother Nature</a> instead. </p>
<p>Coupled with this is a very positive view of evolution. It is seen as a <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/10-reasons-why-you-feel-so-good-in-nature-1881977943.html">caring and compassionate force</a> which has shaped us and the rest of the natural world. It almost seems that there is the growing belief that if natural evolution were left to its own devices, then everything would work out for the best. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/272541/original/file-20190503-103085-dilple.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/272541/original/file-20190503-103085-dilple.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/272541/original/file-20190503-103085-dilple.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=422&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272541/original/file-20190503-103085-dilple.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=422&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272541/original/file-20190503-103085-dilple.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=422&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272541/original/file-20190503-103085-dilple.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=530&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272541/original/file-20190503-103085-dilple.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=530&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272541/original/file-20190503-103085-dilple.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=530&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">‘Shoot for the stars.’</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/mom-her-child-girl-plant-sapling-390162913?src=zlrDmiyznvAwiU7ZQmbe3g-1-18">Yuganov Konstantin</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But this idea of evolution as benign is extraordinarily wide of the mark. Evolution is a brutal and uncaring, even obscene opponent, which the medical world is constantly trying to outmanoeuvre and overcome. Perhaps because of the brilliance of <a href="http://darwin-online.org.uk/EditorialIntroductions/Freeman_OntheOriginofSpecies.html">Charles Darwin’s theory</a>, evolution has been getting an easy ride for far too long. It’s time we started facing the truth about what it really means – before it eats any more of our children. </p>
<h2>Evolution unmasked</h2>
<p>Evolution stems from the inability of any organism to always hand down a perfect copy of its DNA to the next generation. For this we can thank factors such as the fallibility of the machinery in living organisms that copies DNA; and the basic instability of DNA when exposed <a href="https://chem.libretexts.org/Courses/Eastern_Mennonite_University/EMU%3A_Chemistry_for_the_Life_Sciences_(Cessna)/19%3A_Nucleic_Acids/19.5%3A_Mutations_and_Genetic_Diseases">to certain</a> chemicals or types of radiation that have always existed in our environment. It means that nobody has ever inherited a perfect copy of their parents’ DNA. Indeed, one of the reasons we have two parents is to ensure that, if one copy of our genes going wonky, we have a second back-up gene to cover. </p>
<p>When our DNA mutates, natural selection steps in – and this is where things get really ugly. Natural selection is the process through which the mutations in a species which are “best suited” to their environment thrive, while “less suitable” ones die off. It has dictated everything we see around us, from the length of giraffes’ necks to the shape of sharks’ fins. </p>
<p>In the past, our ancestors were subjected to full-strength, undiluted, CFC-free, pure-organic, additive-free natural selection. The biggest recipients were young children, for which evolution had the greatest appetite of all. Those with the least useful mutations could look forward to a horrific death by starvation, predators, cannibalism, disease, drought, flash floods, drowning and much more besides. <a href="https://www.verywellhealth.com/longevity-throughout-history-2224054">During</a> an average 30 to 40 year human life span, mothers <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality">would</a> produce eight to ten children only to see four to five of them die before reaching the age where they might pass their genes to the next generation. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/272535/original/file-20190503-103049-13b8h2g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/272535/original/file-20190503-103049-13b8h2g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/272535/original/file-20190503-103049-13b8h2g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=698&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272535/original/file-20190503-103049-13b8h2g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=698&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272535/original/file-20190503-103049-13b8h2g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=698&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272535/original/file-20190503-103049-13b8h2g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=877&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272535/original/file-20190503-103049-13b8h2g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=877&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272535/original/file-20190503-103049-13b8h2g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=877&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Death by Darwinism.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/grim-reaper-overlooking-graveyard-304109213?src=n0RYc7UM2RD4p1gOtbQMgg-1-2">welburnstuart</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This was evolution writ large: the inexorable cruel erosion of the vast majority of individuals, who had one set of genes, in favour of the tiny lucky minority who had the genetic ability to survive until they could perpetuate this cruel cycle. By running that little bit faster than their brother or sister, the genetic winners avoided getting ripped apart by a pack of hungry wolves. While they clung to life in times of famine or disease, they watched their siblings fade and die. If we believe the human diversity data, we are a species which was <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/when-humans-almost-died-out-earthy-10-08-12/">reduced to</a> only around 600 individuals over 100,000 years ago. This is the reality of where we came from, of how “Mother Nature” shaped us as individuals. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, of course, humans <a href="https://www.popsci.com/humans-are-still-evolving#page-2">are still</a> evolving today. People are still dying from disease and starving from deprivations perpetrated by unequal societies and a lack of access to food and medicine. We remain at the mercy of natural selection, the least moral way for a species to develop. And for the majority of us who deplore cruelty and feel compassion for our fellow man, woman and child, I would argue it creates a moral obligation: to aggressively stop evolution of the human species as a matter of urgency. </p>
<p>The only way to do this is to embrace the results of scientific enquiry. Our greatest achievement as a species has been to break free from the sheer naked ferocity of evolution. It means we need GM food to avoid starvation. We need additives to ensure that the food we grow can be safely consumed before it spoils – an important consideration for an increasing population. And most importantly of all, we need vaccines to prevent disease. We must never again expose our children to the wholesome, fully organic, unblemished and obscene fury of Mother Nature unleashed. Love science, hate evolution. Coming to a car bumper sticker near you soon, I hope.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/116544/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alasdair Mackenzie receives funding from the BBSRC and Medical Research Scotland. </span></em></p>One reason for the likes of the anti-vaxxers movement is a misplaced faith in Mother Nature.Alasdair Mackenzie, Reader, Molecular Genetics, University of AberdeenLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1123582019-02-26T11:40:32Z2019-02-26T11:40:32ZGene-edited food regulations: whether it’s a plant or animal shouldn’t matter, but it does now<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/260754/original/file-20190225-26165-34bbkc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Cows at the University of California, Davis beef research facility. Photo credit: </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Alison Van Eenennaam/ University of California, Davis</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>We eat mutations every day. All the vegetables, grains, fruits and meat humans consume as part of their diet are jam-packed with DNA speckled with mutations and beneficial variations. </p>
<p>In 2017, the <a href="https://www.fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/GuidanceComplianceEnforcement/GuidanceforIndustry/UCM113903.pdf">United States Food and Drug Administration proposed</a> to regulate a specific subset of these variations as drugs: in particular, those introduced into animal genomes using modern molecular techniques like gene editing. A drug is “an article (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of animals” according to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which was first signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1938.</p>
<p>I am a <a href="https://animalscience.ucdavis.edu/people/faculty/alison-van-eenennaam">geneticist</a> who specializes in how genetics can be used to improve the efficiency of livestock production. While I agree that DNA variation undoubtedly affects “the structure and function of the body of animals,” it is unclear to me why intentional DNA alterations introduced via gene editing in food animals should uniquely be considered a drug. This seems inconsistent given that the United States Department of Agriculture has no plans to treat such alterations in gene-edited plants as drugs because genetic variations are part of conventionally bred varieties. Ultimately this ruling may hinder the use of gene editing to introduce useful attributes – like disease resistance – into U.S. livestock populations.</p>
<h2>Is DNA a drug?</h2>
<p>DNA – the double-stranded helix that encodes the recipe of life – is definitely a chemical. Everything is made of chemicals - even natural food. DNA, short for deoxyribonucleic acid, is made up of a unique arrangement of four nucleotides: adenine, cytosine, guanine and thymine. But is DNA a drug?</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/260757/original/file-20190225-26165-1jz3zju.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/260757/original/file-20190225-26165-1jz3zju.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=477&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/260757/original/file-20190225-26165-1jz3zju.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=477&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/260757/original/file-20190225-26165-1jz3zju.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=477&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/260757/original/file-20190225-26165-1jz3zju.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=599&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/260757/original/file-20190225-26165-1jz3zju.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=599&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/260757/original/file-20190225-26165-1jz3zju.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=599&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The structure of double-stranded deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) with pairs of nucleotides: cytosine-guanine and thymine–adenine.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/schematic-illustration-shows-structure-double-stranded-1112556215">Soleil Nordic/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>DNA is present in each cell where it encodes the formation and functioning of all of the proteins that comprise the smooth functioning of our body and mind and also the deleterious mutations that can cause cancer or inherited conditions such as sickle cell anemia. </p>
<p>But when DNA is in our diet as a component of food, it is digested and broken into its constituent nucleotides, which are then absorbed and become the genetic building blocks of the eater. Eating a banana poses no risk of transforming the consumer into a banana, despite the fact that a banana is chock-full of cells each containing the entire banana genome. </p>
<h2>Conventional breeding and gene editing</h2>
<p>Selection for more productive and resilient plant and animal varieties has been an incredibly important component of reducing the environmental footprint of food production. Breeders select only the most suitable and fit parents to produce the next generation. Since 1960, global livestock productivity has <a href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0134">increased 20 to 30 percent</a>, due in large part to genetic improvements resulting from selective breeding. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/260769/original/file-20190225-26162-1cohdy4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/260769/original/file-20190225-26162-1cohdy4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=893&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/260769/original/file-20190225-26162-1cohdy4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=893&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/260769/original/file-20190225-26162-1cohdy4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=893&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/260769/original/file-20190225-26162-1cohdy4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1122&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/260769/original/file-20190225-26162-1cohdy4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1122&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/260769/original/file-20190225-26162-1cohdy4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1122&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Gene editing enables geneticist to make precise changes to DNA.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/hand-scientist-replacing-dna-genetic-engineering-1012198108?src=bVms_r7HQ-wGM_mR5zxjOA-2-52">andriano.cz/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>For instance, a glass of milk in the United States today has only <a href="https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2009-1781">one-third the carbon footprint</a> of a glass of milk from 1944. Improved genetics are a key component of sustainability. </p>
<p>Although plants and animals produced in conventional breeding programs are routinely measured for production performance, susceptibility to disease, fertility and product quality, they are not normally evaluated at the DNA level prior to commercial release. Tremendous DNA sequence variation, or mutations, exists between perfectly healthy, unremarkable individuals of the same species. </p>
<p>To put this in perspective, one study of whole genome sequence data from over 2,700 bulls in the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-animal-020518-115024">1000 Bull Genomes Project</a> revealed over 86 million genetic variations between individual bulls of the same species. These included 2.5 million insertions or deletions of one or more nucleotides, and 84 million nucleotide variants, in which one nucleotide substituted for another. No two steaks from different animals are genetically alike, and every meal you have ever eaten contained a unique assembly of DNA sequences. </p>
<p>Gene editing, which uses tools like CRISPR/Cas9, provides an opportunity to make targeted DNA alterations. Some examples of edited livestock include pigs in which <a href="http://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3434">a small deletion provides resistance</a> to the devastating porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus. In dairy cows, some edits yield <a href="http://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3560">animals that don’t grow horns</a>, sparing cows from the painful process of physical removal. I believe these edits benefit animal health and welfare, both improvements that tend to be <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23567982">more favorably viewed</a> by the public than those associated with production efficiency.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/260761/original/file-20190225-26159-dofiiu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/260761/original/file-20190225-26159-dofiiu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=375&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/260761/original/file-20190225-26159-dofiiu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=375&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/260761/original/file-20190225-26159-dofiiu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=375&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/260761/original/file-20190225-26159-dofiiu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=471&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/260761/original/file-20190225-26159-dofiiu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=471&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/260761/original/file-20190225-26159-dofiiu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=471&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Animal biology graduate student Maci Mueller edits bovine embryos at the University of California, Davis.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Alison Van Eenennaam/University of California, Davis.</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Human intention results in a drug</h2>
<p>Such applications are unlikely to reach the market if intentional DNA alterations are regulated as drugs. The mandatory approval process for animal drugs is understandably rigorous. It requires proof that the drug works, the absence of harmful residues in food animal products, and both animal and environmental safety. </p>
<p>What is unclear is how DNA alterations fit into this rubric. There is nothing fundamentally hazardous about genetic variation in food, and suggesting intentional alterations are equivalent to drugs will frighten consumers who might logically infer the presence of drugs in their food.</p>
<p>How can the absence of something, a snippet of DNA – as in the case of a deletion – be considered “a drug residue,” when an analogous deletion in the <a href="http://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2016.19754">genome of a mushroom</a> is not? </p>
<p>When I think of a drug I picture something like aspirin – a chemical with biological activity, often taken to prevent or treat a disease. As with most things in life, a small dose can be helpful, and a high dose can cause harm. </p>
<p>With this in mind, how should drug efficacy be evaluated in the case of genome-edited hornless cows – apart from the obvious fact that such animals don’t grow horns? The <a href="http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0063512">hornless variant</a> exists naturally in many beef breeds, including Angus. But, that same DNA sequence introduced through editing into dairy breeds, will be regulated as a drug.</p>
<p>Some South American countries including <a href="http://doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2015.1114698">Argentina have indicated that gene-edited</a> plants and food animals won’t be treated differently from a regulatory perspective. If no DNA sequences novel to that species are introduced using gene editing, then no added regulatory oversight will be triggered. Brazil has <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-00600-4">ruled</a> it will not regulate hornless cows as GMOs.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/260763/original/file-20190225-26149-3r9y4e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/260763/original/file-20190225-26149-3r9y4e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/260763/original/file-20190225-26149-3r9y4e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=440&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/260763/original/file-20190225-26149-3r9y4e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=440&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/260763/original/file-20190225-26149-3r9y4e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=440&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/260763/original/file-20190225-26149-3r9y4e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=552&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/260763/original/file-20190225-26149-3r9y4e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=552&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/260763/original/file-20190225-26149-3r9y4e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=552&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 hornless cow (left) inherited this trait from her gene edited sire, whereas horns are starting to emerge on the control cow (right).</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Alison Van Eenennaam/University of California, Davis</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Moving gene editing to permissive countries</h2>
<p>However, in the United States gene-edited food animals with intentional genomic alterations that could otherwise have been developed through traditional breeding will be subject to a multigenerational, pre-market evaluation as new animal drugs. </p>
<p>This evaluation will be undertaken irrespective of whether there is any risk or novelty associated with the alteration. Edits that exactly mimic existing sequence variations will trigger evaluation. Surely <a href="https://doi.org/10.1089/crispr.2017.0023">novel product risk</a>, if any, should be the focus of regulatory oversight, and not what method a breeder used to introduce genetic variation. </p>
<p>As a result, U.S. animal geneticists are starting to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-00600-4">move their gene-editing research</a> to other countries. Innovative <a href="https://www.realagriculture.com/2018/05/gene-editing-allows-for-polled-dairy-genetics-without-the-production-drag/">startups are forming partnerships</a> with foreign companies in countries with product risk-based regulatory systems. </p>
<p>In the absence of sensible regulation of the breathtaking genetic variation that exists naturally in our food species - which is <a href="https://www.fda.gov/food/ingredientspackaginglabeling/gras/">generally regarded as safe</a> - innovation will emigrate. If intentional DNA alterations are shoehorned into a century-old regulatory framework, research exploring the introduction of sustainability traits like disease resistance, climate adaptability and animal welfare into U.S. livestock breeding programs will be thwarted, harming American agriculture and food production.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/112358/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alison Van Eenennaam receives public research funding from competitive grants awarded by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), and the Biotechnology Risk Assessment Grant (BRAG) program. </span></em></p>According to current regulations, animals that have been genetically edited, like pigs or cows, are considered drugs. What are the consequences of such rules on American livestock and agriculture?Alison Van Eenennaam, Researcher, Department of Animal Science, University of California, DavisLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1096322019-02-07T11:31:45Z2019-02-07T11:31:45ZI fight anti-GMO fears in Africa to combat hunger<p>As a child, I remember feeling hungry most of the time. Growing up in rural Tanzania, I walked to school barefoot and most of the time had one meal a day. After school, I helped my mother with various farming chores, including feeding the animals, weeding, harvesting and planting. I often heard my mother express concerns about the lack of ways to protect our crops from drought, pests and diseases. I wanted to help my mother but was too young to understand what the solution might be. </p>
<p>In my undergraduate genetics class, I completed a term paper on the domestication of maize. I was surprised to discover that ancestral maize did not produce the type of kernels we consume today. It took humans thousands of years of deliberate selection to breed a maize plant capable of producing edible seeds. Subsequently, more work by plant breeders helped improve the genetics of maize for higher yield and tolerance to environmental stresses. This was fascinating to me, because when plant breeders interbreed plants, large sections of parental genetic material pass on to new varieties, but the function of many genes that end up in the crops we grow and consume remain unknown. </p>
<p>I am a plant physiologist at Iowa State University and director of the <a href="https://pbea.agron.iastate.edu">Plant Breeding Education in Africa Program</a>. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3139">I believe that Africa deserves cutting-edge technologies</a>, including genetic engineering to develop stress-tolerant crop varieties and more nutritious staple crops to improve human health. However, the <a href="https://mg.co.za/article/2018-07-23-resistance-to-genetically-modified-seeds-in-africa">anti-GMO news and campaign</a> across the globe make me wonder whether improved crop varieties would ever reach small stakeholder farmers like my mother. </p>
<h2>Humanitarian work in Africa</h2>
<p>When I was working for UNICEF in Zimbabwe from 1999-2000, I met a young single mother with several children. Her village was in an area of the country that was facing a devastating drought and many families needed food. The purpose of my meeting with the woman was to assess her food security situation and whether she qualified for food aid.</p>
<p>Near the conclusion of my visit, I saw her little girl, probably 3 or 4 years old, sitting on the ground, eating porridge, probably the only meal she would have that day. The little girl did not appear too bothered by my presence, nor the flies that swarmed her plate. I was surprised she seemed happy. It was overwhelming for me to think that there were thousands of children in the area facing a similar situation. That day I dedicated my life to fight hunger and poverty. </p>
<h2>Graduate education and research</h2>
<p>My doctoral training helped me understand the scientific process and biotechnology techniques for inserting new genes more precisely into plants. <a href="http://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-008-0694-4">My research</a> on plant insect defense genes involved gene <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-009-1080-6">cloning and creation of genetically modified plants</a>. During my time in the laboratory, I often thought of my mother and the crop production challenges she faced. I felt that genetic engineering crops to increase resistance to insects could benefit small stakeholder farmers. I was hopeful that my research could benefit Africa. </p>
<p>Scientific research suggests that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3061">climate change will have a negative effect</a> on yields, especially in Africa. In addition, <a href="http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-arplant-042110-103751">millions in Africa rely on starchy crops</a> as their staple foods and are more prone to mineral and protein deficiencies. </p>
<h2>Scientists debunk GMO myths</h2>
<p>In my opinion, scientists need to share more of the scientific facts about GMOs and debunk the myths. In many African countries, the <a href="https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2018/20170276">root cause for resistance to GMO crops</a> is lack of public awareness of the scientific principles and benefits of biotechnology. </p>
<p>To help increase awareness, <a href="http://doi.org/10.1007/s11248-009-9321-9">my team analyzed</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.211329998">dozens of research articles</a> on risk assessment of transgenic maize containing the Bt insect resistance gene. Bt maize is a transgenic crop that contains the Bt gene from the soil bacterium <em>Bacillus thuringiensis</em>. The Bt gene helps maize fight off insect pests such as the fall armyworm, <em>Spodoptera frugiperda</em>.</p>
<p>This work, recently <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2018.10.004">published in Global Food Security</a>, compared the risk assessment process for Bt maize with risk assessment in other fields such medicine and engineering. Risk can be defined as the likelihood of harm that happens from a set of specific conditions. Risk assessment uses fact-based information to define the effect of exposure to such harm on a given population. My team hopes that policymakers and leaders would <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2018.10.004">read this article</a> to help them appreciate that risk assessment for GM crops is similar to the other kinds of risk assessments.</p>
<p>For instance, the maintenance of bridges uses risk assessment studies. Potential hazards with bridges include natural hazards, errors in design and traffic overload. These regular risks assessments determine the probability of bridge collapse to ensure public safety. </p>
<p>Risk assessments are also done to quantify the dangers of exposure to radon, a known carcinogen and significant health hazard recognized by <a href="https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/radon-and-health">many international environmental and health organizations</a>. Radon gas is naturally present in homes and risk assessment studies have enabled recommendations on safe levels of radon above which mitigation efforts might be required. Subsequently, in the United States, during sales of new homes, the seller is obliged to divulge their home’s radon value to the buyer. </p>
<p>For both the bridge and radon examples, the public is willing to trust the analysis by experts in these fields. But when the same kind of analysis is done for GM crops - like Bt maize - these expert risk assessments are considered less trustworthy than those for radon or bridges. </p>
<h2>Educating future hunger fighters</h2>
<p>Through the analysis of numerous research articles, my team agrees with experts in risk assessment that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3021-2_16">no significant impacts on human health or the environment</a> have been found with Bt maize. However, not using Bt maize to block the rapid spread of fall armyworm, which has <a href="http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/1142085/icode/">destroyed maize and other crops across Africa</a>, poses a risk to human health if other control measures such as pesticides are used in large quantities. </p>
<p>Looking to the future, I believe there needs to be more investment in education and outreach concerning biotechnology and its applications in agriculture. Importantly, sustainable use of biotechnology in African agriculture depends on educating the youth. Educational programs such as <a href="https://pbea.agron.iastate.edu/">Plant Breeding E-Learning in Africa</a> are an excellent platform to deliver educational biotechnology content to the next generation of African scientists.</p>
<p>My travels back to Africa from Ames, Iowa, bring back many memories. During daytime flights out of African cities, I look through the window to see the beautiful blue sea or vegetation, and hundreds of brown corrugated iron rooftops. The sheer density of tiny homes with rusty rooftops reminds me of the challenges ahead – the urgent need for agricultural revolution in the face of a <a href="http://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/population/">population explosion in Africa</a>.</p>
<p>With the little girl I met during work with UNICEF and my mother in mind, I listen to a whisper in my ears – “all people at all times have the right to sufficient and nutritious food for a happy, productive and active life.” This is an important reminder to continue spreading knowledge and awareness to improve food security in Africa.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/109632/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Walter Suza receives funding from.
Gates Foundation
USAID</span></em></p>Predictions suggest that Africa will suffer dramatic losses of crops and productive land as the climate warms. Perhaps adopting GM crops designed to tolerate stress can save the continent from famine.Walter Suza, Adjunct Assistant Professor of Agronomy, Iowa State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1021902018-09-06T01:24:21Z2018-09-06T01:24:21ZA fresh opportunity to get regulation and engagement right – the case of synthetic biology<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/235114/original/file-20180905-45181-1up02hb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Synthetic biology has the potential to change how we do agriculture – but will the public accept it? </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/home">from www.shutterstock.com </a></span></figcaption></figure><p>From cells that manufacture chemicals, to better crops, environmental monitoring and tailored medicine, synthetic biology presents many opportunities for Australia. </p>
<p>Released this week, the <a href="https://acola.org.au/wp/sbio/">Synthetic Biology – An Outlook to 2030</a> report by the Australian Council of Learned Academies (<a href="https://acola.org.au/wp/">ACOLA</a>) describes this promise, and appeals to scientists to conduct public consultation and engagement about synthetic biology. </p>
<p>But we are concerned that without the right regulation and engagement, we risk letting the promise of synthetic biology slip through our fingers. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-synthetic-biology-revolution-is-now-heres-what-that-means-102399">The synthetic biology revolution is now – here's what that means</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Synthetic biology involves the application of engineering principles to biology. It allows living systems to be designed and built at the level of DNA. </p>
<p>As the report details, there have been limited studies on public awareness of and attitudes to synthetic biology, and what social values people may associate with it (such as feeling positive about the economic and medical promise, or seeing it as “tinkering” with nature, and something to be feared). </p>
<p>Without addressing this issue, Australia might be at risk of putting substantial resources behind technologies that create products nobody wants – or that some people actively reject (such as has occurred for some types of <a href="https://theconversation.com/perceptions-of-genetically-modified-food-are-informed-by-more-than-just-science-72865">genetic modification research</a>). Conversely, without knowing more about the social values in this context, we may not prioritise areas where synthetic technologies are most needed, and most likely to be accepted. </p>
<p>We strongly agree with the <a href="https://acola.org.au/wp/sbio/">synthetic biology report</a> that mistakes associated with past efforts at public engagement about genetic modification should be actively avoided.</p>
<p>The public should be involved in true deliberation over our shared futures for 2030 and beyond, and what synthetic biology might contribute.</p>
<h2>What people think of synthetic biology</h2>
<p>Data from 2017 <a href="http://www.ogtr.gov.au/internet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/Content/327437B632158967CA257D70008360B1/$File/FINAL%20Report%20-%202017%20Community%20Attitudes%20to%20Gene%20Technology%20261017.pdf">demonstrate</a> the general public has low awareness of the term “synthetic biology”. But once it is defined, 62% of people have positive attitudes about its potential to improve our lives. </p>
<p>More <a href="https://science.gov.au/community/Documents/REPORT-SCAPA172001-CPAS-poll-2018.pdf">recent research</a> indicates that a majority of Australians (88%) view science as having made life easier. But many of us have clear concerns about the use of animals for research and genetic modification. </p>
<p>Based on these studies, we anticipate that people will hold diverse perspectives and values in relation to synthetic biology, particularly about different types of applications. This has implications across scientific disciplines. </p>
<p>If synthetic biological approaches in health are seen to be good, but those in agriculture worrisome, for example, how will Australia generate a consistent response to these types of technologies? </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>
<h2>Small sector can present benefits</h2>
<p>Australia hosts considerable <a href="https://www.ausbiotech.org/biotechnology-industry/fast-facts">biological and technological expertise</a> relevant to synthetic biology – but it’s a small sector. Some see this as a disadvantage for innovation, especially with <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05092-2">uncertain funding</a>. </p>
<p>However, from the perspective of regulation, small size can be an advantage. Australian research currently occurs mostly in the public sector (that is, within universities and the CSIRO) rather than in more commercialised settings – as happens in countries such as the United States.</p>
<p>This means that scientists, social scientists and the public can come together to collaboratively shape future research agendas in Australia. They can communicate in a relatively open fashion, without concerns about “commercial in confidence” strictures. </p>
<p>The public nature of research here in Australia allows (or even forces) us to focus on and transparently debate as a society what we want to explore and build using synthetic biology. Such debates can occur at the level of institutional ethical review committees, via grant processes and even through public involvement in policy reviews.</p>
<p>For example, consultation and participation of the general public plus the medical and scientific communities was influential in recommending reforms to Australian laws around the use of <a href="https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/about/nhmrc-committees/embryo-research-licensing-committee/human-embryos-and-cloning/review-human-cl">human embryos in research</a>. </p>
<h2>Is existing regulation fit for purpose?</h2>
<p>Synthetic biology is a diverse field, covering the design of viruses, bacteria, human and plant cells, as well as the engineering of cells integrated with technology. </p>
<p>This diversity makes the field different to the more familiar, if heavily contested, terrain of genetic modification. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, existing Australian regulation within the <a href="http://www.ogtr.gov.au/internet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/Content/legislation-2">Gene Technology Act</a> does address many of the concerns likely to arise in synthetic biology.</p>
<p>Where there are gaps, regulations can be <a href="http://www.ogtr.gov.au/internet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/Content/amendment%20proposals-1">refined and detailed to address them</a>, as shown by a consultation process over 2017-18 that recommended amendments to the original act of 2001. </p>
<p>Other agencies such as the Therapuetic Goods Administration (<a href="https://www.tga.gov.au/">TGA</a>) may need to review the <a href="https://www.tga.gov.au/what-tga-regulates">regulatory framework</a> governing medical devices, and how therapeutic products are defined, as the technologies associated with synthetic biology evolve.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/proposed-new-regulations-for-3d-printed-medical-devices-must-go-further-90314">Proposed new regulations for 3D printed medical devices must go further</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>It’s also important to acknowledge that capability to work at the level of DNA could create <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/jun/19/urgent-need-to-prepare-for-manmade-virus-attacks-says-us-government-report">the potential</a> for development of <a href="http://dels.nas.edu/Report/Biodefense-Synthetic/24890?_ga=2.103388736.1971269799.1536117428-1095652704.1536117428">bioweapons</a> such as more virulent viruses or modified bacteria. These present challenges not only for biosafety but also biosecurity. </p>
<p>Such risks must be proactively addressed as the field evolves by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (<a href="http://www.ogtr.gov.au/">OGTR</a>) and the TGA, together with international players under the auspices of the <a href="https://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/related-international-agreements/chemical-warfare-and-chemical-weapons/the-biological-and-toxin-weapons-convention/">Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention</a>.</p>
<p>The activities of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/nov/18/biohackers-strange-world-diy-biology">bio-hackers and others who operate outside of usual research settings</a> present additional challenges for regulation. </p>
<h2>We’re in a good position</h2>
<p>Australia is recognised as having <a href="https://www.ausbiotech.org/biotechnology-industry/fast-facts">efficient pathways and internationally standardised approaches to biotechnology regulation</a>. This puts us in a strong position to devise innovative and effective policy solutions for synthetic biology.</p>
<p>Early regulatory consideration of the likely impacts of emerging approaches in synthetic biology <a href="https://theconversation.com/inventing-life-patent-law-and-synthetic-biology-5178">will be critical</a>, including where existing regulation can be redeployed.</p>
<p>As is typically the case with emerging technologies, there are likely to be high hopes and even hype, along with questions and fears about how these approaches can be used to promote shared social goods. </p>
<p>If we don’t do this well, we risk alienating members of the public. We risk closing doors for scientists pursuing promising research. </p>
<p>Our futures are shared, and so too should be our approaches to synthetic biology.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/102190/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rachel A. Ankeny receives funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Joan Leach receives funding from the ARC and Commonwealth government of Australia. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Megan Munsie receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is affiliated with the International Society for Stem Cell Research, Australasian Society for Stem Cell Research and the International Society for Cellular Therapy. </span></em></p>Synthetic biology is highly promising – but if we don’t get the regulation and engagement right, we risk alienating members of the public, and may even close doors for potentially fruitful research.Rachel A. Ankeny, Professor of History and Associate Dean Research (Faculty of Arts), University of AdelaideJoan Leach, Professor, Australian National UniversityMegan Munsie, Deputy Director - Centre for Stem Cell Systems and Head of Engagements, Ethics & Policy Program, Stem Cells Australia, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/861052017-11-29T02:27:34Z2017-11-29T02:27:34ZFewer crops are feeding more people worldwide – and that’s not good<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/196541/original/file-20171127-2077-kgcl3s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Peruvian potatoes and black corn.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/peruvian-raw-ingredients-cooking-black-corn-674562694?src=zdN_5OTLmK8inmReLi8UnA-1-33">www.Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>One day last March I talked with Juliana and Elisa, a mother and daughter who farmed just outside the city of Huánuco, Peru. Although they had only one acre of land in this mountainous landscape, they grew dozens of local varieties of potatoes and corn, along with other crops. And they knew each of their varieties by a common name – mostly in their Quechua language.</p>
<p>Potatoes are native to the Andes, and over <a href="https://cipotato.org/press_room/blogs/native-varieties-2/">4,000 varieties</a> are grown there now. They come in numerous shapes, sizes and colors – red, yellow, purple, striped and spotted. A colorful mound of them resembles the bold, burnished colors of <a href="https://revista.drclas.harvard.edu/book/agrobiodiversity-jazz-improvisation-foodscape-change-and-continuity-0">locally woven shawls</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/196819/original/file-20171128-28913-z8zn4.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/196819/original/file-20171128-28913-z8zn4.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/196819/original/file-20171128-28913-z8zn4.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/196819/original/file-20171128-28913-z8zn4.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/196819/original/file-20171128-28913-z8zn4.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/196819/original/file-20171128-28913-z8zn4.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/196819/original/file-20171128-28913-z8zn4.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/196819/original/file-20171128-28913-z8zn4.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">Farmers near the city of Huánuco continue to grow many species and varieties of food plants in their fields and gardens in this mountainous landscape.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Karl Zimmerer</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This wide array of types is an example of <a href="http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5609e/y5609e01.htm">agrobiodiversity</a> – a genetic legacy created by natural selection interacting with cultural practices over thousands of years. Today, however, agrobiodiversity is <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2006.03.0169gas">declining</a> in many countries. In Mexico farmers are cultivating only 20 percent of the corn types that were grown there in 1930. Chinese farmers are producing only 10 percent of 10,000 varieties of wheat that were recorded there in 1949. More than 95 percent of known apple varieties that existed in the United States in 1900 are no longer cultivated. </p>
<p>According to <a href="https://www.bioversityinternational.org/about-us/who-we-are/">Bioversity International</a>, an international research and policy organization, just three crops – rice, wheat and maize – provide <a href="https://www.bioversityinternational.org/fileadmin/user_upload/online_library/Mainstreaming_Agrobiodiversity/All_you_need_to_know_about_Mainstreaming_agrobiodiversity.pdf">more than half</a> of plant-derived calories consumed worldwide. This is a problem because our diets are heavy in calories, sugar and saturated fat and low in fruits and vegetables.</p>
<p>But there also are bright spots, such as Andean potatoes. In a <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2017.47">recent article</a>, <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Stef_Haan">Stef de Haan</a> of the <a href="http://ciat.cgiar.org/">International Center for Tropical Agriculture</a> and I call for a major effort to strengthen agrobiodiversity for the future. Consuming many different species and varieties provides a diet that offers many unique tastes and a wide selection of nutrients that humans need to thrive. It also can help ensure more stable food systems and the needed variety of desirable genetic traits, such as hardiness. </p>
<h2>Wealthy nations have less-diverse diets</h2>
<p>Generally, agrobiodiversity is significantly lower in wealthy nations, where the industrial food system pushes toward genetic uniformity. For example, federal agriculture policy in the United States tends to favor raising large crops of corn and soybeans, which are big business. <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1247588/">Crop subsidies</a>, <a href="https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program">federal renewable fuel targets</a> and many other factors reinforce this focus on a few commodity crops.</p>
<p>In turn, this system drives production and consumption of inexpensive, low-quality food based on a simplified <a href="https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/chapter-2/current-eating-patterns-in-the-united-states/">diet</a>. The lack of diversity of fruit and vegetables in the American diet has contributed to a <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db219.pdf">national public health crisis</a> that is concentrated among socioeconomically disadvantaged groups. Low agrobiodiversity also makes U.S. agriculture more vulnerable to pests, diseases and climate change.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/196545/original/file-20171127-2038-1v7153f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/196545/original/file-20171127-2038-1v7153f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/196545/original/file-20171127-2038-1v7153f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=190&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/196545/original/file-20171127-2038-1v7153f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=190&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/196545/original/file-20171127-2038-1v7153f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=190&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/196545/original/file-20171127-2038-1v7153f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=239&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/196545/original/file-20171127-2038-1v7153f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=239&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/196545/original/file-20171127-2038-1v7153f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=239&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Agrobiodiversity is a set of genetic resources in food and agriculture.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5609e/y5609e01.htm">FAO</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>To connect these conditions to agrobiodiversity, consider potatoes. Although the United States has 10 times more people than Peru, only about <a href="http://www.potatoesusa.com/potato-products/table-stock-potatoes">150 varieties</a> of potato are sold here. <a href="https://www.potatopro.com/news/2016/top-six-potato-varieties-grown-united-states-fall-crop">Six varieties</a> account for three-quarters of our national potato harvest. They dominate because they produce high yields under optimal conditions and are easy to store, transport and process – especially into french fries and potato chips. Federal policies have helped these varieties become established by reducing the cost of irrigation.</p>
<p>Ironically, rich agrobiodiversity in many low- and medium-income nations supports more standardized and genetically uniform breeding industries in wealthy nations. U.S. and European scientists and seed companies have used the <a href="https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article-pdf/48/6/445/8201446/48-6-445.pdf">diversity of Andean potatoes and their relatives</a> to create commercial varieties that are the roots of modern industrial agriculture.</p>
<h2>How change can promote agrobiodiversity</h2>
<p>To protect and increase agrobiodiversity, we have to know how to value it in a rapidly changing world. In the <a href="https://zimmerergeosyntheses.psu.edu/">GeoSynthESES Lab</a> that I lead at Penn State, we are developing an ambitious new framework to analyze whether and how agrobiodiversity can continue to be produced and consumed in the future.</p>
<p>Thanks to our fieldwork in Peru and other countries, we’re finding that certain global dynamics, such as urbanization and migration, can be <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/110/8/2769.full.pdf">compatible</a> with agrobiodiversity production and consumption. For example, Elisa and Juliana live within a few miles of the Huánuco urban area, and they both work jobs in the city. Their “traditional” farming and eating patterns blend with their part-time farming. </p>
<p>Such changes can even support the <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-06316-190201">innovative use of local food varieties</a>, but only under the right conditions. Farmers must have sufficient land and water. They have to continue preferring these food flavors and tastes. Vibrant local markets for these foods make producing them economically viable. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/196548/original/file-20171127-2077-1d8lsps.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/196548/original/file-20171127-2077-1d8lsps.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/196548/original/file-20171127-2077-1d8lsps.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/196548/original/file-20171127-2077-1d8lsps.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/196548/original/file-20171127-2077-1d8lsps.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/196548/original/file-20171127-2077-1d8lsps.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=507&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/196548/original/file-20171127-2077-1d8lsps.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=507&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/196548/original/file-20171127-2077-1d8lsps.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=507&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Heirloom apples, Stroud Farmers Market, Gloucestershire, England.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://flic.kr/p/dmedGB">Barry W******</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Together with collaborators working in Huánuco, our lab is assessing ways in which global trends could undercut agrobiodiversity in Peru. One concern is local adoption of “improved varieties” of both potatoes and corn that are being created by national and international breeding programs and private seed companies. </p>
<p>Under favorable conditions, these types provide high yields and potentially good sales income. But the seeds can be expensive by local standards, and growing them requires more inputs, such as fungicides and irrigation. Farmers who use them are less resilient if it’s a bad growing year or if cash is low. For these reasons more than one-half of the potato and maize seed being grown by the Huánuco farmers still comes from local sources such as nearby markets, neighbors and family members.</p>
<p>So far, farmers in Huánuco and elsewhere in Peru prefer to growth both their traditional crops and new ones if possible. But discussions of <a href="https://tci.cornell.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/2017-Pingali-Green-Revolutionand-Crop-Diversity.pdf">new initiatives to extend the reach of such “improved varieties”</a> reflect how these challenges will continue to evolve.</p>
<h2>Shifting diets</h2>
<p>We also are analyzing local impacts of the global spread of inexpensive, low-quality industrial foods. Juliana, Elisa and their Huánuco neighbors increasingly depend on staples such as rice and sugar and on heavy use of cooking oil. Many of them still grow high-agrobiodiversity crops, but on a smaller scale, and these crops play a shrinking role in their diets. It is important to counter this trend by revaluing these nutritious foods, both for human health and for the environmental benefits that agrobiodiversity brings.</p>
<p>On the positive side, middle-class Peruvians are embracing agrobiodiverse foods sold through markets and food fairs, such as the huge annual <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/09/17/349038162/mistura-food-fest-gives-peruvian-cuisine-a-chance-to-shine">Mistura food festival</a> in Lima. Internationally renowned elite restaurants and celebrity chefs are potentially important, nontraditional allies. It is crucial to find ways in which Elisa, Juliana and other producers of agrobiodiverse foods can earn rewards from these new markets.</p>
<p>There also is growing interest in agrobiodiversity in the United States. Potato farmers here in central Pennsylvania and across the Northeast are reviving more than 100 local varieties that until recently had been considered lost. In the Southwest, research groups recently uncovered evidence of the ancient “<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1705540114">Four Corners Potato</a>,” the first known wild potato in North America, which was used some 10,000 years ago. DNA from this species could <a href="https://unews.utah.edu/utah-home-to-earliest-use-of-wild-potato-in-north-america/">provide genes</a> to make modern potato strains more resistant to drought and disease.</p>
<h2>Conflicting trends</h2>
<p>Global shifts of urbanization, migration, markets and climate can potentially be compatible with agrobiodiversity, but other powerful forces are undermining it. The imperatives of producing food at lower cost and higher yield clash with efforts to raise high-quality food and protect the environment. The future of agrobiodiversity hangs in the balance.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/86105/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Karl Zimmerer receives funding from the U.S. National Science Foundation, the Carasso Foundation, the Ernst Strungmann Foundation, and Bioversity International.</span></em></p>Over half the calories humans eat today come from corn, wheat and rice. Raising a greater diversity of types of crops and animals (agrobiodiversity) makes diets healthier and farming more resilient.Karl Zimmerer, Professor of Geography, Penn StateLicensed 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/562562016-04-04T13:47:36Z2016-04-04T13:47:36ZAll our food is ‘genetically modified’ in some way – where do you draw the line?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116953/original/image-20160331-28451-gq905k.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">Pixeljoy / shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In the past week you’ve probably eaten crops that wouldn’t exist in nature, or that have evolved extra genes to reach freakish sizes. You’ve probably eaten “cloned” food and you may have even eaten plants whose ancestors were once deliberately blasted with radiation. And you could have bought all this without leaving the “organic” section of your local supermarket.</p>
<p>Anti-GM dogma is obscuring the real debate over what level of genetic manipulation society deems acceptable. Genetically-modified food is often regarded as something you’re either for or against, with no real middle ground. </p>
<p>Yet it is misleading to consider GM technology a binary decision, and blanket bans like those in <a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28283-more-than-half-of-european-union-votes-to-ban-growing-gm-crops/">many European countries</a> are only likely to further stifle debate. After all, very little of our food is truly “natural” and even the most basic crops are the result of some form of human manipulation. </p>
<p>Between organic foods and <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/glowing-plants-spark-debate-1.13131">tobacco engineered to glow in the dark</a> lie a broad spectrum of “modifications” worthy of consideration. All of these different technologies are sometimes lumped together under “GM”. But where would you draw the line?</p>
<h2>1. (Un)natural selection</h2>
<p>Think of carrots, corn or watermelons – all foods you might eat without much consideration. Yet when compared to their wild ancestors, even the “organic” varieties are <a href="http://ediblebajaarizona.com/what-the-ancestors-ate">almost unrecognisable</a>. </p>
<p>Domestication generally involves selecting for beneficial traits, such as high yield. Over time, many generations of selection can substantially alter a plant’s genetic makeup. Man-made selection is capable of <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3428689/What-fruit-vegetables-look-like-Researchers-banana-watermelon-changed-dramatically-ancestors-ate-them.html">generating forms</a> that are extremely unlikely to occur in nature.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116629/original/image-20160329-13709-16zucpw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116629/original/image-20160329-13709-16zucpw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116629/original/image-20160329-13709-16zucpw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=207&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116629/original/image-20160329-13709-16zucpw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=207&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116629/original/image-20160329-13709-16zucpw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=207&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116629/original/image-20160329-13709-16zucpw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=260&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116629/original/image-20160329-13709-16zucpw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=260&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116629/original/image-20160329-13709-16zucpw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=260&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 watermelons (right) look very different to their 17th-century ancestors (left).</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/paintings/giovanni-stanchi-watermelons-peaches-pears-a-5765893-details.aspx;%20https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Watermelon_slices_BNC.jpg">Christies/Prathyush Thomas</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>2. Genome duplications</h2>
<p>Unknowing selection by our ancestors also involved a genetic process we only discovered relatively recently. Whereas humans have half a set of chromosomes (structures that package and organise your genetic information) from each parent, some organisms can have two or more complete duplicate sets of chromosomes. This “polyploidy” is widespread in plants and often <a href="http://www.nature.com/scitable/content/the-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-being-polyploid-1554633">results in exaggerated traits</a> such as fruit size, thought to be the result of multiple gene copies.</p>
<p>Without realising, many crops have been unintentionally bred to a higher level of ploidy (entirely naturally) as things like large fruit or vigorous growth are often desirable. Ginger and apples are triploid for example, while potatoes and cabbage are tetraploid. Some strawberry varieties are even <a href="http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/6/12/3295.full">octoploid</a>, meaning they have eight sets of chromosomes compared to just two in humans.</p>
<h2>3. Plant cloning</h2>
<p>It’s a word that tends to conjure up some discomfort – no one really wants to eat “cloned” food. Yet <a href="http://agridr.in/tnauEAgri/eagri50/GBPR211/lec24.pdf">asexual reproduction</a> is the core strategy for many plants in nature, and farmers have utilised it for centuries to perfect their crops.</p>
<p>Once a plant with desirable characteristics is found – a particularly tasty and durable banana, for instance – cloning allows us to grow identical replicates. This could be entirely natural with a cutting or runner, or artificially-induced with plant hormones. Domestic bananas have long since lost the seeds that allowed their wild ancestors to reproduce – if you eat a banana today, <a href="http://guardianlv.com/2013/12/bananas-are-clones-from-the-stone-age/">you’re eating a clone</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116630/original/image-20160329-13688-1jqabfd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116630/original/image-20160329-13688-1jqabfd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116630/original/image-20160329-13688-1jqabfd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116630/original/image-20160329-13688-1jqabfd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116630/original/image-20160329-13688-1jqabfd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116630/original/image-20160329-13688-1jqabfd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116630/original/image-20160329-13688-1jqabfd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Each banana plant is a genetic clone of a previous generation.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/design-dog/1249337589">Ian Ransley</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>4. Induced mutations</h2>
<p>Selection – both human and natural – operates on genetic variation within a species. If a trait or characteristic never occurs, then it cannot be selected for. In order to generate greater variation for conventional breeding, scientists in the 1920s began to <a href="https://www.biofortified.org/2010/07/all-you-wanted-to-know-about-induced-mutations-in-crop-breeding/">expose seeds to chemicals or radiation</a>. </p>
<p>Unlike more modern GM technologies, this “<a href="http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i0956e/i0956e00.htm">mutational breeding</a>” is largely untargeted and generates mutations at random. Most will be useless, but some will be desirable. More than 1,800 cultivars of crop and ornamental plants including varieties of wheat, rice, cotton and peanuts have been developed and released in more than 50 countries. Mutational breeding is credited for <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1004162323428">spurring the “green revolution”</a> in the 20th century.</p>
<p>Many common foods such as <a href="https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/02/05/pasta-ruby-grapefruits-why-organic-devotees-love-foods-mutated-by-radiation-and-chemicals/">red grapefruits and varieties of pasta wheat</a> are a result of this approach and, surprisingly, these can still be sold as certified “organic”.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116651/original/image-20160329-13691-ii03s1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116651/original/image-20160329-13691-ii03s1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116651/original/image-20160329-13691-ii03s1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116651/original/image-20160329-13691-ii03s1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116651/original/image-20160329-13691-ii03s1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116651/original/image-20160329-13691-ii03s1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116651/original/image-20160329-13691-ii03s1.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 Promise’, a mutant barley made with radiation, is used in some premium whiskeys.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Chetty Thomas/shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>5. GM screening</h2>
<p>GM technology doesn’t have to involve any direct manipulation of plants or species. It can be instead used to screen for traits such as disease susceptibility or to identify which “natural” cross is likely to produce the greatest yield or best outcome.</p>
<p>Genetic technology has allowed researchers to identify in advance which ash trees are likely <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/12167224/New-hope-for-tackling-ash-dieback-as-researchers-claim-charcoal-treatment-makes-trees-more-resilient.html">to be susceptible to ash dieback disease</a>, for instance. Future forests could be grown from these resistant trees. We might call this “genomics-informed” human selection.</p>
<h2>6. Cisgenic and transgenic</h2>
<p>This is what most people mean when they refer to genetically modified organisms (GMOs) – genes being artificially inserted into a different plant to improve yield, tolerance to heat or drought, to produce better drugs or even to add a vitamin. Under conventional breeding, such changes might take decades. Added genes provide a shortcut.</p>
<p>Cisgenic simply means the gene inserted (or moved, or duplicated) comes from the same or a very closely related species. Inserting genes from unrelated species (transgenic) is substantially more challenging – this is the only technique in our spectrum of GM technology that can produce an organism that could not occur naturally. Yet the case for it might still be compelling.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116954/original/image-20160331-28445-1nxcr2y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116954/original/image-20160331-28445-1nxcr2y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116954/original/image-20160331-28445-1nxcr2y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=270&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116954/original/image-20160331-28445-1nxcr2y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=270&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116954/original/image-20160331-28445-1nxcr2y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=270&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116954/original/image-20160331-28445-1nxcr2y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=339&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116954/original/image-20160331-28445-1nxcr2y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=339&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116954/original/image-20160331-28445-1nxcr2y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=339&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Campaigns like these are aimed at cis- and transgenic crops. But what about the other forms of GM food?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/65421715@N02/6262784640/">Alexis Baden-Mayer</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Since the 1990s several crops have been engineered with a gene from the soil bacteria <em>Bacillus thuringiensis</em>. This bacteria gives “<a href="http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/use-and-impact-of-bt-maize-46975413">Bt corn</a>” and other engineered crops resistance to certain pests, and acts as an appealing alternative to pesticide use. </p>
<p>This technology remains <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3791249/">the most controversial</a> as there are concerns that resistance genes could “escape” and jump to other species, or be unfit for human consumption. While unlikely – many <a href="http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-gmo-escape-20150121-story.html">fail safe approaches</a> are designed to prevent this – it is of course possible. </p>
<h2>Where do you stand?</h2>
<p>All of these methods continue to be used. Even transgenic crops are now widely cultivated around the world, and have been for more than a decade. They are closely scrutinised and rightly so, but the promise of this technology means that it surely deserves improved scientific literacy among the public if it is to reach it’s full potential. </p>
<p>And let’s be clear, with global population set to hit nine billion by 2050 and the increasingly greater strain on the environment, GMOs have the potential to improve health, increase yields and reduce our impact. However uncomfortable they might make us, they deserve a sensible and informed debate.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/56256/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>James Borrell is currently a NERC funded PhD student.</span></em></p>Everything from domesticated carrots to glow-in-the-dark tobacco fits somewhere on the spectrum. ‘Banning GM’ isn’t a simple yes-no decision.James Borrell, PhD researcher in Conservation Genetics, Queen Mary University of LondonLicensed 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/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/504812015-12-08T10:31:55Z2015-12-08T10:31:55ZFarmers would do better to understand the land than grow GM crops<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/103301/original/image-20151126-28284-1m2lnas.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">GM: often assumed to be better</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&autocomplete_id=&searchterm=farm%20land&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=158579138">Guo Yu</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Suppose your relationship is falling apart and you want to save it. To find the best counsellor, you might search online or ask your friends. It’s no different in agriculture. The rational response to any food or farming dilemma is to test and compare different options to see which is most effective as a solution. </p>
<p>Except when it comes to genetic modification (GM). I have yet to hear of a research trial where a newly developed GM crop has been compared with other approaches to address the problem it claims to solve. If the goal was to identify the most effective solution, this would be very odd – but if the real goal is to find a use for the technology, it makes perfect sense. </p>
<p>Here’s <a href="https://www.socla.co/wp-content/uploads/2014/Transgenicos_2009-11-04.pdf">an example</a> from my work in the subtropics (I better not name the country). In the 2000s, one region experienced several consecutive years of severe drought. The worst affected area saw over 3,000 wells dry up, and over 2,000 of its cattle lost. Many farmers were unable to sow their staple maize crop. The easy culprit was climate change, since temperatures had risen half a degree in recent years. What was less frequently pointed out was the poor condition of the soils: 60% suffered from erosion, 40% had low water retention, and 45% had low fertility – all the result of several decades of industrial agriculture. </p>
<p>The mainstream agricultural sector proposed constructing a large water pipeline from the wetter part of the country to the drier parts. Yet the government didn’t have the funds. A GM drought-tolerant maize was also suggested, but thankfully wasn’t yet available.</p>
<p>I started working with a local research team to develop a low-cost pilot in two communities with a very different approach. It sought to help farmers understand the water cycle and manage water sustainably; and also to experiment with simple techniques to improve soil fertility. These included planting <a href="http://www.rodalesorganiclife.com/garden/cover-crop-basics">cover crops</a>, which are crops put there primarily to protect the bare soil from high temperatures and from water escaping through plants and Earth (evapotranspiration); as well as adding organic fertilisers; <a href="http://www.savetherain.info/rainwater-harvesting-faqs.aspx">rainwater harvesting</a> and testing numerous crop varieties to see which worked best. Farmers and households were particularly supported to share their own local knowledge and experiences.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/103303/original/image-20151126-28272-benp4a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/103303/original/image-20151126-28272-benp4a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/103303/original/image-20151126-28272-benp4a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/103303/original/image-20151126-28272-benp4a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/103303/original/image-20151126-28272-benp4a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/103303/original/image-20151126-28272-benp4a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/103303/original/image-20151126-28272-benp4a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/103303/original/image-20151126-28272-benp4a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Seeds of a new approach.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&autocomplete_id=&search_tracking_id=mPaKBUSsLkIiZJ9wBLauCQ&searchterm=seeds%20handful&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=342188120">MrMohock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Reaping benefits</h2>
<p>After just one year, <a href="https://www.socla.co/wp-content/uploads/2014/Transgenicos_2009-11-04.pdf">we saw</a> various intended and unintended results. There was much more crop diversity, and yields and production had increased across the board. Manure had become a valuable resource, which farmers were collecting systematically from livestock. There was more water available for these animals, and the soil’s capacity for water retention had improved too. The farmers were widely using biological fertilisers, and had generally become better at working together and experimenting. </p>
<p>Above all, the first vegetable market had opened – previously there had never been any surplus to sell – along with an informal seed market. Family incomes had gone up and there were more nutritious foods for everyone. For an investment of just £15,000, the project seemed to tick all the development boxes. </p>
<p>Most telling were the responses from community members who were asked what had changed: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>A year ago drought was a worry to us, but now we don’t rate this as important as other concerns.</p>
<p>The main change? Now we can afford for all the children in our village to wear shoes. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Suppose instead that a GM drought-tolerant maize had been available at the time. Farmers would have had to buy patented seed every year. At best, the crop would have needed slightly less water and the yield might have been maintained or even increased a little. No other crops could have been grown since the soil would have remained degraded, and irrigation would have still been required. (This kind of GM maize has since been developed, <a href="http://www.monsanto.com/improvingagriculture/pages/water-efficient-maize-for-africa.aspx">at a</a> cost of millions of pounds.)</p>
<p>I’m not the only one with these sorts of findings. Previous studies have <a href="http://www.doria.fi/handle/10024/104258">shown that</a> this kind of agroecological approach produces better results than GM in terms of environmental impact, human health and societal benefits; while it has been convincingly <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/node/1263/pdf">argued that</a> using GM varieties does nothing for biodiversity in agriculture. </p>
<h2>The industrialised mindset</h2>
<p>The conventional corporate model legally obliges chief executives – on behalf of shareholders – to prioritise profits over ethics and sustainability, whatever their personal inclination. It is a manifestation of an underlying mindset. This can be seen in Cuba, where until recently there was no private corporate sector, and where the government <a href="https://www.socla.co/wp-content/uploads/2014/Transgenicos_2009-11-04.pdf?iv=40">made several varieties of GM maize available</a> to some parts of the country in 2006. Cuba inherited its agricultural approach from the former Soviet Union, which unwittingly shared a mindset with Western countries that has been dominant for over 300 years. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/101461/original/image-20151110-21190-l12lgw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/101461/original/image-20151110-21190-l12lgw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/101461/original/image-20151110-21190-l12lgw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=858&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/101461/original/image-20151110-21190-l12lgw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=858&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/101461/original/image-20151110-21190-l12lgw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=858&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/101461/original/image-20151110-21190-l12lgw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1079&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/101461/original/image-20151110-21190-l12lgw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1079&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/101461/original/image-20151110-21190-l12lgw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1079&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Blame Descartes.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&autocomplete_id=&search_tracking_id=sCvJs-b5gHbkzm9EQVNNuA&searchterm=descartes&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=122675578">Brendan Howard</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Borrowing from the French philosopher <a href="http://www.britannica.com/topic/Cartesianism">Descartes</a>, this world view breaks down complex processes into smaller parts to be analysed in isolation, and sees nature as a resource to be exploited and conquered. It wasn’t and isn’t always so – as indigenous communities continue to demonstrate with their reverence for nature and their sense of inter-connectedness. The organic and regenerative farming movements attempt to take a similar approach, as did the “drought-proofing” project that I outlined above. </p>
<p>GM is simply a manifestation of the same misguided industrial mindset, a mindset that tries to control nature rather than work with it. From a psychological perspective, the need to control is driven by fear, as I found from years of interviewing farmers about why they felt they needed to continue with industrial agriculture rather than switch to organic.</p>
<p>Allowing private companies to peddle their wares in the name of development or to “feed the world” is arguably immoral when there are alternatives that can bring much wider benefits. If GM were banned, though, similar problematic technologies would continue to present themselves. It is the mindset from which they emerge that needs reprogrammed. Its not as if there aren’t better ways of achieving the same result.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/50481/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Julia has in the past received funding from DFID and Oxfam</span></em></p>The solutions presented by GM crops are rarely tested against the other options. Take a look at our philosophy of farming and it all starts to make sense.Julia Wright, Senior Research Fellow, Agroecological Futures, Coventry UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/508732015-11-30T11:03:23Z2015-11-30T11:03:23ZWhy Europe will let member states opt out of GM crops<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/102612/original/image-20151120-10412-r5i67k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/uw67/19018074593/in/photolist-phKBsY-7h4Qjb-uYyAZP-7g2umr-fPfkgD-9miLgr-2VSayT-cy1P67-yPRfUs-81jyTq-rpbQTQ-ip7gr-bzmqna-7BZZ9a-9MaDwE-bzmqBn-bmrybL-ajoFMC-gPtXWs-f7SXhV-81qdxj-9Pzpca-eQUNvf-bq4YAC-6Nrzn7-81n3eD-br1GSg-gjcsCd-buYi9B-ovvDBA-9PD7xB-7h4Pzm-c3v5J7-89bjde-oJ7WzV-crTTPw-bkZhpH-88tGZb-9rhaXV-qXHJsM-r2Wxw-nQa3s-8jTKEA-6mGeA-bEQ9Si-9fhfJe-bu2Bhe-9wk1pa-oyqDr6-7ay9Y6">Uwe Potthoff/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In the US, farmers have been cultivating crops with genetically engineered traits since the 1990s, and their use – and consumption – is <a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-us/">widespread</a>. </p>
<p>That’s not the case in Europe. In fact, a <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:JOL_2015_068_R_0001">directive</a> passed by the European Parliament in April 2015 gave member states (MS) freedom to decide for themselves whether or not to cultivate genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in their territory. </p>
<p>Under the new directive, by October over half of the European countries have now opted out of genetically modified (GM) crop cultivation.</p>
<p>But what exactly have they opted out of, and why? </p>
<h2>Checkered map</h2>
<p>Under previous regulations, any approval given for cultivation applied Europe-wide. This meant countries that opposed the cultivation of GMOs regularly worked to block authorization procedures. </p>
<p>Several national bans were also implemented. These bans were based on the <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/embor.2011.254/full">only grounds available at the time</a> – new (or reinterpreted) scientific evidence demonstrating a risk to human or environmental health. The legitimacy of these bans was, however, regularly contested and in some cases legally challenged within both <a href="https://www.rt.com/news/court-overturns-french-monsanto-ban-930/">national</a> and <a href="http://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/court-of-justice-of-the-european-union-france-preliminary-ruling-finds-frances-ban-on-genetically-modified-corn-illegal/">European courts</a>. </p>
<p>The European Commission recognized that this situation was undesirable, and for the last five years, negotiations have been taking place on how to reform the system to allow EU member states to decide for themselves on GMO cultivation. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/102532/original/image-20151119-18436-ylox4m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/102532/original/image-20151119-18436-ylox4m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=547&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/102532/original/image-20151119-18436-ylox4m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=547&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/102532/original/image-20151119-18436-ylox4m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=547&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/102532/original/image-20151119-18436-ylox4m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=687&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/102532/original/image-20151119-18436-ylox4m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=687&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/102532/original/image-20151119-18436-ylox4m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=687&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Mapping GMO cultivation opt-out in Europe. Source: Greenpeace.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>However, there seems to be confusion about these reforms, as recently demonstrated in an opinion <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/25/opinion/sunday/with-gmo-policies-europe-turns-against-science.html">piece in The New York Times </a> that presented the new directive as “anti-GMO policy” and suggested that countries were adopting blanket bans. </p>
<p>In what follows, we clarify what the new European directive entails. We also explain why we think it is a positive move for shifting GMO politics away from the unproductive and deeply polarized pro-anti trench warfare of recent decades. </p>
<h2>The opt-out process</h2>
<p>Under the new directive, a member state can now ask that all or part of its territory not be included in the geographical area for which a GMO is approved for cultivation. This request is submitted after the European Food Safety Authority has completed its scientific assessment of potential risks to human and environmental health: it in no way challenges or changes this assessment. </p>
<p>The applicant seeking approval for cultivation – primarily biotechnology companies – can actually then choose to accept or deny this request. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/103246/original/image-20151125-23856-1ujf640.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/103246/original/image-20151125-23856-1ujf640.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/103246/original/image-20151125-23856-1ujf640.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=481&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/103246/original/image-20151125-23856-1ujf640.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=481&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/103246/original/image-20151125-23856-1ujf640.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=481&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/103246/original/image-20151125-23856-1ujf640.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=605&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/103246/original/image-20151125-23856-1ujf640.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=605&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/103246/original/image-20151125-23856-1ujf640.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=605&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">GM corn is widely planted in the US, unlike Europe, which now has rules allowing members states to opt out of GMO cultivation.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/16502322@N03/4806634131/in/photolist-8jKfSg-fEhza6-fEzabq-5Gqiu1-pyDYmz-wPDMba-Wak1r-PWSSN-wQauXe-k47GFH-abesfe-zyehHa-fNNuF7-eg9W5v-csdWMf-dcvG6F-fa9S2g-uZSZ36-fEhzAg-8kTXVW-yeC7np-arutzU-dtjNHJ-9SrTph-votfbA-f3Gn3E-oio6EE-7ZZwbW-8PHfGb-aiycb8-9ZW6Bx-rGUEYY-5f6XzW-uQWxEK-53ty7C-xgURCE-fr4S7B-3KpNra-xWj5q5-xWjanE-6mAojo-akjAi3-6f8wf6-chxnf7-5vjpuQ-5pbmhw-5dw1We-f6LoSS-doXpPe-59B5J">fishhawk/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>If the applicant (or “economic operator”) denies the request to exclude a certain country or region from the introduction of the approved GM crop, the member state can then formally implement restrictions based on a broader range of justifications than was previously allowed. </p>
<p>Beyond human and environmental health risks, these justifications can now be based on environmental, agricultural or public policy objectives, socioeconomic impacts, town and country planning, land use and concerns regarding the possibility for organic, conventional and GM agriculture to coexist. </p>
<p>Importantly, countries can also choose to opt back in at any time by simply submitting a request to have their territory included again. </p>
<h2>Flexibility</h2>
<p>What this means is that countries (or regions) are not opting out of GMO cultivation in general. That is, they are not declaring an “anti-GMO” position. Rather, opt-out requests are submitted in relation to specific crops and are decided on a case-by-case basis.</p>
<p>Member states can choose to opt out of either the cultivation of individual GM crops or groups of GM crops modified to express the same trait. For example, due to a desire to try to advance sustainable agriculture, MS may choose to opt out of all GM crops designed to tolerate the use of herbicides. But they could remain open to crops modified to resist disease. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/103248/original/image-20151125-23861-1xchnyh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/103248/original/image-20151125-23861-1xchnyh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/103248/original/image-20151125-23861-1xchnyh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/103248/original/image-20151125-23861-1xchnyh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/103248/original/image-20151125-23861-1xchnyh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/103248/original/image-20151125-23861-1xchnyh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/103248/original/image-20151125-23861-1xchnyh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/103248/original/image-20151125-23861-1xchnyh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The new EU directive allows member states to opt out for reasons other than human and environmental health.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/swalophoto/9548263366/in/photolist-fxKm3s-pb8KbY-8SjYsh-iSGSBu-o84LE3-6RBEQF-pULMU5-4KjepK-bCjYvm-uQhuK9-ejvkif-kevGC9-fNfaMA-6nyxtC-71Z5AC-odnfMz-hgtu5a-vzbh7U-ztJN8R-4SD8Qv-4Ue95g-cwWPed-emGXBV-z14Pfc-yGBmqU-6E9gSG-b8RZn2-dVVbXo-yGGqCv-iFLSHm-y1nn1h-aeJxtz-6DRB7P-rpfmxr-mxCxyX-7ctCuL-yYf8V1-eQJKc8-aeeUUh-cr4mzh-yWXnRw-cZ2UmG-fjahb3-i3xEa-cqEPoL-hQEPbf-4XcssU-frn6Re-dpqGRo-dbm9QA">swalophoto/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This new directive therefore creates a more flexible form of regulation. It is not about member states taking a pro or anti position on GMOs in general, which they then hold forever. Rather, it allows for more differentiated assessment of desirability regarding both different forms of the technology and across different cultures. </p>
<p>Flexibility on what type of genetic modification is deemed acceptable is particularly important now. Biotechnology continues to evolve, and techniques like <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marker-assisted_selection">marker-assisted breeding</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombinant_DNA">recombinant DNA</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRISPR">CRISPR</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_biology">synthetic biology</a> give people more tools for modifying genes. These may legitimately be judged to have different levels of acceptability by different individuals and/or member states.</p>
<p>Under the new directive, different countries and cultures are therefore being given the possibility to break the straight jacket of a pro-anti dichotomy and adopt a more nuanced position on what types of crops are desirable. Far from being “anti-GMO” legislation, this new directive actually opens the way for more approvals (for those countries wanting them) by breaking the political deadlock that has stalled authorization procedures for years. </p>
<h2>Not all about human health</h2>
<p>This enhanced flexibility and freedom to decide is important. </p>
<p>The European approach to GM crops, food and feed supports <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32003R1830&from=EN">traceability and labeling</a>, and emphasizes the importance of having in place measures that allow <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/gmo/coexistence/index_en.htm">organic, conventional and GM agriculture to coexist</a>. This represents a commitment to transparency and is designed to give both consumers and farmers the rights to know and choose. </p>
<p>Now countries and regions are also being given the right to choose how they want to practice agriculture. </p>
<p>The connection between food and culture is widely recognized, but how we go about producing that food is also deeply cultural. Both food and agriculture are connected to beliefs, values and ways of life. Views on how we should feed ourselves involve much more than just questions of safety. They include questions of how we want to live on this planet, how we want our societies to be structured and how we want to relate to all the other species our survival depends upon. </p>
<p>Furthermore, GMOs are not just technical devices. As all technologies, <a href="http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/7/8/11321">they are a package</a> involving particular sociopolitical beliefs and leading to particular socioecological systems. </p>
<p>This is clear in the controversy around GMOs, which is not limited to questions of the health impacts of this technology but is also connected to a number of other issues, including patents on living organisms, monopoly ownership rights, concentrations of power and the socioeconomic implications of trying to control that other systems are not contaminated with GMOs. </p>
<p>All this means that we should approach GMOs from a systems perspective and assess the whole package – something we are currently working toward in Spain and South Africa through <a href="http://blogscat.com/agricultures/">The Agri/Cultures Project</a> (funded by the <a href="http://www.forskningsradet.no/en/Home_page/1177315753906">Norwegian Research Council</a> under their <a href="http://www.forskningsradet.no/prognett-fripro/Home_page/1226994096426">FRIPRO program</a>). </p>
<p>The new era for GMOs brought on by this directive in Europe is only just beginning, and many questions and challenges remain, such as the question of whether supporting evidence for the new opt-out justifications is available and necessary. </p>
<p>However, we believe that giving member states the freedom to adopt more nuanced positions, and the ability to make choices based on social, ethical, environmental and health grounds, is a positive move for the future of GMOs in Europe.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/50873/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rosa Binimelis receives funding from the Comissionat per a Universitats i Recerca del Departament d’Innovació, Universitats i Empresa de la Generalitat de Catalunya and the COFUND programme-Marie Curie Actions under the FP7 of the European Community. She is affiliated with the Chair on Agroecology of the University of Vic and ENSSER. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Amaranta Herrero receives funding from the Norwegian Research Council.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Fern Wickson receives funding from the Norwegian Research Council and the seventh framework program of the European Union. She is affiliated with the Norwegian Biotechnology Advisory Board and the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER). </span></em></p>Why are half of European Union members opting out of GMO crops? Hint: it’s not about food and environmental safety.Rosa Binimelis, Postdoctoral Researcher, Universitat de Vic – Universitat Central de CatalunyaAmaranta Herrero, Postdoctoral Researcher, GenØk - Centre for BiosafetyFern Wickson, Senior Scientist & Research Leader, GenØk - Centre for BiosafetyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/511532015-11-26T15:42:23Z2015-11-26T15:42:23ZWhatever happened to ‘bans’ on GM produce in British supermarkets?<p>Once upon a time, UK retailers welcomed genetically modified (GM) foods. In the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/5/newsid_4647000/4647390.stm">late 1990s</a>, Sainsbury’s and Safeway (since <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3542291.stm">purchased by</a> Morrisons) both offered GM tomato purée, which so far as I recall was the first such product made available in the UK. GM and non-GM cans of purée stood side by side on their shelves, the former <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.4161/gmcr.18041#.VlWJHryoKu4">some 18% cheaper</a> per unit weight. The cans were conspicuously labelled and pamphlets explaining what GM was all about were to hand nearby. But when the stock ran out and it was time to re-order, the anti-GM food balloon had gone up and the product was discontinued.</p>
<p>The late 1990s and early 2000s in Britain was a period of intense back-and forth argument about GM. In 1999 Marks & Spencer <a href="http://www.thefreelibrary.com/M%26S+BANS+GM+FOODS.-a060402770">announced that</a> it was removing all GM foods from its shelves. (In a House of Lords inquiry at that time, M&S said their customers demanded it. When asked by their lordships how many customers that meant, it turned out to have been rather a small percentage. But those who positively wanted GM were, it seems, even fewer in number). </p>
<p>Sainsbury’s, then the second-largest chain in the UK after Tesco, <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/298229.stm">responded</a> only weeks later by saying it would guarantee that all of its own-brand products were GM-free. All the other retailers followed suit: the UK’s retail industry was to be GM-free – or was it?</p>
<p>In fact some GM products, though not many, were always to be found. Until 2004, when GM labelling became mandatory under <a href="http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/regulation/labelling/93.new_labelling_laws_gm_products_eu.html">EU regulations</a>, it was difficult to identify them. With a label prescribed by law it obviously became easier, and every now and again, a variety of minor products turned up in this or that supermarket chain but did not last very long. </p>
<p>Yet one product which was always on sale, unlabelled before 2004 but properly indicating its GM source thereafter, was soya cooking oil. It can still be found – I spotted it in one of my local Sainsbury’s stores just a few weeks ago. The distributors told me some years ago that the advent of labelling had had no effect on sales. When I questioned a small shopkeeper selling the product, he had no idea that what he was selling was GM (“What’s that?”). Nor, it seems, had his customers.</p>
<h2>Feed fad</h2>
<p>Then there is the question of GM fodder for animals. Around the time of their own-brand GM-free commitments, retailers said that they would not sell any products from pigs or poultry that had been exposed to GM feeds. </p>
<p>This ban became a distinct red line that remained in place for a decade or so. Until, that is, when Asda became the first of <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/7852762/Supermarkets-selling-meat-from-animals-fed-GM-crops.html">the leading</a> UK supermarkets <a href="http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Science/article329472.ece">to abandon</a> its commitment to eggs and poultry fed with GM in 2010. This greatly upset anti-GM campaigning groups, <a href="http://www.gmfreeze.org/news-releases/33/">who demanded</a> that Asda and other supermarkets “respond to public opinion” (as the anti-GM brigade saw it) by pledging to keep GM out of the nation’s meat and dairy. </p>
<p>But by then public opinion on the issue had become almost completely mute so far as I could see. So in 2012, Morrison’s <a href="http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/channels/supermarkets/morrisons/morrisons-gambles-on-gm-chicken-feed-shift/227510.article">did the same</a>: in neither case, as far as I am aware, was there any perceptible consumer reaction. By 2013, all the remaining UK supermarket chains, except Waitrose, <a href="http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/buying-and-supplying/categories/fresh/sainsburys-ms-and-the-co-op-follow-tescos-lead-on-gm-feed/238400.article">had followed suit</a>: GM-feed for pigs and poultry was no longer to be excluded. One or two newspapers noted this at the time but, once more, there appears to have been no noticeable consumer rejection of products from animals fed GM.</p>
<h2>Where we go from here</h2>
<p>And that is (almost) it. In 2014 it was <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2826108/Frankenstein-foods-slip-M-S-Anger-store-puts-GM-food-shelves-despite-opposed-engineered-products.html">reported that</a>, while Marks & Spencer still doesn’t use GM ingredients in its own-label products, it sold products from other brands which did contain GM soya or corn – these included teriyaki, ginger and hibachi sauces from the US brand TonTon and three flavours of Moravian Cookie. I checked at the time and found all of them were indeed on sale. Apart from own-brand, of course, GM ingredients can be found across the board in food products and should indeed be labelled as such. </p>
<p>That just leaves cotton – in clothing not in food. Some people have estimated that more than half the world’s cotton <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a5A1ygCQjxeY">is GM</a>, so this is likely to be the case with products on sale in the UK. There is no obligation to label GM cotton so one cannot be sure, but nobody seems to ask and few seem to care. Every now and again, up pops an ad for some cotton product or other which is said to be made with organic cotton (and so <em>ipso facto</em> non-GM) but such examples are rare.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/102841/original/image-20151123-18233-2frjtg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/102841/original/image-20151123-18233-2frjtg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/102841/original/image-20151123-18233-2frjtg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=421&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/102841/original/image-20151123-18233-2frjtg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=421&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/102841/original/image-20151123-18233-2frjtg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=421&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/102841/original/image-20151123-18233-2frjtg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=529&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/102841/original/image-20151123-18233-2frjtg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=529&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/102841/original/image-20151123-18233-2frjtg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=529&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Spot the difference.</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=cotton%20clothing&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=263492549">Eyes Wide</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Though a few stalwarts keep up their anti-GM rhetoric, public interest in this subject has largely waned in my view. UK government policy is now <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/13/gm-crops-to-be-fast-tracked-in-uk-following-eu-vote">openly pro-GM</a>. The devolved governments in <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34316778">Northern Ireland</a>, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/aug/09/scotland-to-issue-formal-ban-on-genetically-modified-crops">Scotland</a> and <a href="http://sustainablepulse.com/2015/10/02/wales-joins-total-ban-on-gm-crops/">Wales</a> take a different view (as does <a href="https://theconversation.com/gm-crops-an-uneasy-truce-hangs-over-europe-48835">much of Europe</a>), but England has 87% of the UK’s total population. </p>
<p>Though one can never be quite sure, it does begin to look as though the GM issue will fade away in the fullness of time, in England at least, even if it takes a while. I suspect GM food and crops will become commonplace and the protesting community will veer off in another direction, chasing new demons. </p>
<p><em>Postscript</em>:</p>
<p>Having read this article, a colleague told me that he had in May 2015 undertaken a web search for GM-labelled products on sale in UK supermarkets. His list has been rechecked and updated to find that the five major UK supermarket chains are currently describing on their websites about 60 products labelled as containing GM-ingredients. Nine of them are pet foods manufactured in the UK. All the others are human food products apparently imported from North America or Israel. Several are to be found on the websites of more than one supermarket chain.</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/51153/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>Since the heyday of retail bans on products containing genetically modified ingredients 15 years ago, the tide has been heading in the other direction.Vivian Moses, Visiting Professor of Biotechnology, King's College LondonLicensed 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/501062015-11-06T05:48:42Z2015-11-06T05:48:42ZSeeds of doubt: why consumers weigh up GM produce – and turn it down<p>I harvested potatoes the other day. Each plant had two to three kilos of potatoes beautifully arranged just under the foliage. But if you believe this is natural, you are mistaken. Like all modern crops, they are genetic variants selected by our ancestors and improved by modern breeders. Breeding always involves changing genes. That this is genetic modification (GM) is generally overlooked. The combination of whole gene families by grafting gets even less attention.</p>
<p>What people usually mean when they talk about GM is specific genetic engineering (GE) of crops. Scientists prefer the term GE because it advertises the real innovation, that they know which genes they introduce and why. </p>
<p>Introduced in the 1990s, GE crops have become much more commercially available. There are currently ten different crops available in the US alone, including corn, soybeans, sugar beet and cotton. Yet ask ten people in the street what they think about GE crops you will find a lot of caution, some rejection, and no support. None of them are likely to have anything against traditional breeding or grafting. Neither will they object to injecting insulin, say, even though it has been purified from a GE micro-organism. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/100919/original/image-20151105-16253-k6rc5h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/100919/original/image-20151105-16253-k6rc5h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/100919/original/image-20151105-16253-k6rc5h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/100919/original/image-20151105-16253-k6rc5h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/100919/original/image-20151105-16253-k6rc5h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/100919/original/image-20151105-16253-k6rc5h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/100919/original/image-20151105-16253-k6rc5h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/100919/original/image-20151105-16253-k6rc5h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Cotton is more genetically engineered than most.</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=cotton&media_type=images&media_type2=images&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=106885658">THPStock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Important mishaps</h2>
<p>Efforts <a href="https://gmoanswers.com/sites/default/files/GTK_GMOs_TriFold_InfoGuide_Spread.pdf">to genetically engineer crops</a>, have tended to focus on things like herbicide tolerance and disease and insect resistance. Insect resistance was tackled as far back as the early 1990s <a href="http://www.bt.ucsd.edu/bt_crop.html">by the creation of</a> transgenic crops that produce small amounts of the <em>Bacillus thuringiensis</em> (Bt) toxin. This removed the need to combat insect pests by spraying fields with tonnes of this chemical, which ends up in the soil because it falls next to the plant or is washed off with the next rain. It sounded like a win-win – both better for the environment and more effective.</p>
<p>Herbicide-resistant crops also began appearing in the 1990s. Farmers traditionally controlled weeds using herbicides like <a href="http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Actives/paraquat.htm">paraquat</a> that can only be sprayed before the crop has started growing. These are highly toxic, harming biodiversity and also animals and humans. Scientists engineered crops with built-in resistance to less toxic and more biodegradable herbicides. This has enabled farmers to switch to the likes of Roundup, which kills all weeds and can be sprayed on even once the crop is already growing. Another win-win? </p>
<p>Not quite. Both types of crops are grown in many parts of the world, but they are not embraced by consumers. Hardly anyone seems to know about the drawbacks of spraying Bt toxin or paraquat. Yet the <a href="https://www.foeeurope.org/sites/default/files/foee_briefing_hr_gm_crops_2011.pdf">typical criticism that</a> herbicide-resistant crops are just a marketing strategy to promote the use of different herbicides seems to have stuck. </p>
<p>These examples highlight two key failures in the industry. The first is about marketing: from the start, these products have lacked appropriate advertising and consumer information. </p>
<p>The second failure relates to the disproportionate focus on crop protection: trying to improve resistance to things like pests, frost and droughts is both very difficult and will only benefit farmers’ production costs. Only a small proportion of this is passed on to consumers. </p>
<h2>Field of dreams</h2>
<p>Some true GM jewels have meanwhile failed to make an impact. Take golden rice, a GE rice that contains high levels of vitamin A. It could really make a difference to vitamin A deficiency, which <a href="http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/126004-overview">leads to</a> blindness and death in many parts of the developing world. This rice is one of the best examples of genetic engineering, achieving a trait that could take millennia to stumble upon through conventional breeding. </p>
<p>Yet people are not benefiting. Opposition has <a href="http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/golden-rice-opponents-should-be-held-accountable-for-health-problems-linked-to-vitamain-a-deficiency/">meant that</a> it has not been licensed anywhere. Golden rice received far better public support compared to insect or herbicide-resistant crops, but by the time it emerged in the late 1990s, GE negativity had taken hold.</p>
<p>More recently scientists have succeeded in dramatically increasing protein content in <a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19473-transgenic-indian-superspuds-pack-more-protein/">potatoes</a> and <a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20927984-800-cassava-packs-a-protein-punch-with-bean-genes/">cassava</a>. This is much simpler and cheaper than engineering resistance to insects and the like, and also promises to improve nutrition in many parts of the world. If the first GM crop had been golden rice or a high-protein potato, public perception of the new technology might have been very different. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/100913/original/image-20151105-16235-1ke66qv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/100913/original/image-20151105-16235-1ke66qv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/100913/original/image-20151105-16235-1ke66qv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/100913/original/image-20151105-16235-1ke66qv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/100913/original/image-20151105-16235-1ke66qv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/100913/original/image-20151105-16235-1ke66qv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/100913/original/image-20151105-16235-1ke66qv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/100913/original/image-20151105-16235-1ke66qv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">‘Mmmmm, cheaper production’.</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=aaqS_qsxRD_FlzptkgAhvg&searchterm=tomato%20puree%20tube&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=85564">Miss Louise Worth</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>When I think about the opportunity we have missed with GE foods, I think of Flavr Savr tomatoes. I would have loved to try one: sweet, juicy, beautifully red and yet crunchy, great for a salad with mozzarella, basil and olive oil and a sprinkle of sea salt. If only I could buy them in the supermarket.</p>
<p>But as one of the first GE products to be licensed, it was withdrawn in 1997. Why did it fail? Instead of putting any emphasis on the benefits to the consumer, much of it was turned into tomato puree, marketed as 10% cheaper to manufacture. Would you have been drawn by an advert offering such dazzling features? I guess not.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/50106/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jurgen Denecke receives funding from the BBSRC to research fundamental processes related to intracellular protein transport in plant cells. </span></em></p>Over 20 years since GM crops reached the public consciousness, the industry has struggled to get off the ground. Had it played a better hand, it could all have been very different.Jurgen Denecke, Professor for Plant Cell Biology and Biotechnology, University of LeedsLicensed 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/459822015-08-12T05:37:51Z2015-08-12T05:37:51ZGM crop ban: how Scottish salmon – and public health – could have benefited from this technology<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91486/original/image-20150811-11097-t5jar9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">World's omega-3 shortage affects farmed salmon</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=salmon&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=88774291">HLPhoto</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-33833958">plan</a> to ban the growing of genetically modified crops is disappointing to many scientists. It would be highly unsatisfactory if, as it appears, such an important decision has been made by the Scottish government without a proper informed debate that takes the scientific evidence fully into consideration. It is not enough for the rural affairs secretary, Richard Lochhead, to <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-33833958">say that</a> he is not prepared to “gamble” with the future of Scotland’s £14bn food and drink sector. </p>
<p>What we are talking about is simply biological technology with potentially wide and varied applications. <a href="http://www.nature.com/srep/2015/150129/srep08104/full/srep08104.html">Our work</a> at the University of Stirling’s Institute of Aquaculture is a case in point. We have been testing and assessing oils from genetically modified (GM) oilseed crops developed to provide sustainable sources of long-chain omega-3 fatty acids. These nutrients are <a href="http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Goodfood/Pages/fish-shellfish.aspx">recommended</a> as part of a healthy diet because they can protect against cardiovascular diseases and promote heart health. </p>
<p>Marine microalgae make most of the world’s omega-3, allowing it to work its way up the marine food chain as they are consumed. As a result, it can only be obtained in any significant amount from fish and seafood. This is why oily fish such as Atlantic salmon are among the best sources of the nutrient. </p>
<p>When it comes to farmed fish, the omega-3 has to be included in their diets, both for the good of their own health and to ensure that they have the high levels required to pass on to the consumer. This means that the feeds must mimic their wild cousins’ natural diet – hence the historic use of fishmeal and fish oil in “traditional” feeds. These tend to be imported at present, particularly from the west coast of south America, from Peru and Chile. </p>
<p>Unfortunately <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0044848615000137#">there is insufficient</a> omega-3 of the type required available in the world to satisfy human dietary requirements. As fishmeal and especially fish oil supplies are finite and limited, they are being spread thinner in feeds, and the levels of omega-3 in farmed fish <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0007114514001603">are declining</a>. Without new sources of omega-3, the absolute levels of the nutrient will fall below those of wild fish. </p>
<h2>Omega-3 being developed</h2>
<p>The oils that we are developing from GM oilseed crops – in collaboration with crop scientists led by Professor Johnathan Napier at <a href="http://www.rothamsted.ac.uk">Rothamsted Research</a> – offer a new and sustainable source of omega-3 that can be used to replace the wild fish oil. Having proven the concept, we are now seeking funding for commercial-scale trials. With a fair wind, the work will foreseeably be ready for full-scale commercialisation in the next two or three years. </p>
<p>The project addresses not only an important aspect of population health but also issues of environmental impact, sustainability and food security. When you consider that Scotland <a href="http://www.hriuk.org/about-heart-disease/Scotland/">has a high death rate</a> from heart disease – one third of all deaths – it is ironic that that we are also a nation producing many thousands of tonnes of farmed salmon that can be a rich source of the beneficial omega-3 fatty acids. </p>
<p>Yet the Scottish government would not permit these GM crops to be grown in the very country where the oils the crops produce can be applied most effectively. Assuming our work reaches the market, this would mean that Scotland would lose the financial benefits from growing the oilseed. Neither is it environmentally sound to grow crops elsewhere and ship the oils around the world when they could be grown locally.</p>
<p>These extra costs could undermine the sustainability of the aquaculture industry in Scotland, one of the key segments of the country’s food and drink sector. This is of direct relevance to the health and welfare of its people, not to mention consumers of Scottish farmed salmon all over the world. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91488/original/image-20150811-11088-cs6n0t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91488/original/image-20150811-11088-cs6n0t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91488/original/image-20150811-11088-cs6n0t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=609&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91488/original/image-20150811-11088-cs6n0t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=609&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91488/original/image-20150811-11088-cs6n0t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=609&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91488/original/image-20150811-11088-cs6n0t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=766&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91488/original/image-20150811-11088-cs6n0t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=766&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91488/original/image-20150811-11088-cs6n0t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=766&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Man with the ban: Richard Lochhead (left)</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/scottishgovernment/6916327849/in/photolist-bxaZiT-rurjoo-bnpXUD-ruzi7F-r9LFW5-rrfLP3-rp49dL-pRDBaM-9NJZVx-7uWyZ3-rLe5R8-rrUPKH-qPeBzm-rPgPGn-o5ZaHh-nQAJVn-oCZCV1-fPgu87-ciHL5q-rwLFt9-rwUvvD-qJEUrp-qJLczJ-qJL9sS-o61hv3-rFmJR8-qspTnn-roTz41-bqz2mv-bqz9Sv-cik4iy-rLeV64-rHXccE-rL8w8j-rL9Pfc-kG9uc6-bxaYPk-bxaWpH-bxaVWD-bxaWYg-bxaXqD-bxaXWX-ovsuiS-bxaVdg-bnqhZF-ovsQ3Q-bnZhBR-bnZhx6-rT36kw-rAGM1X">Scottish government</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Obviously this is not to suggest that omega-3 or GM are panaceas for all our ills. Our research simply highlights one application of GM technology to solve a critical problem, and the context within which it was developed. But while few would disagree that Scotland has a beautiful natural environment or that seeking to protect it is a good policy, what exactly are the risks that growing GM crops actually pose? The Scottish government’s announcement is rather unclear when it comes to this question. </p>
<p>In <a href="https://www.scotreferendum.com">September 2014</a>, Scotland showed the world how to have a truly public and inclusive debate on a subject of massive national and international importance, make a decision based on that debate, and then accept and live with that decision. If the true lesson of that was not to have a debate that you think you might lose, the Scottish government appears to have learned it all too well.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/45982/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Douglas receives funding from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council.</span></em></p>New research is looking at obtaining precious omega-3 from GM crops – just as the Scottish government announced a ban.Douglas Tocher, Professor of Molecular Nutrition, University of StirlingLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/407122015-04-24T05:08:49Z2015-04-24T05:08:49ZCan you really be GM-free? Why new European laws pose a moral dilemma<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/79129/original/image-20150423-25558-uj0hnz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">You know what you're eating - but what about them?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/arg_flickr/16825809372">Andrew</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>It’s all very well choosing not to eat genetically modified (GM) food, or even banning it entirely, but what if you then rear your cows on GM soya? Can you really maintain a consistent moral objection? </p>
<p>This is the dilemma many European countries are faced with now the <a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-4779_en.htm">EU has proposed measures</a> that will <a href="https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/articles/partner_article/pm-eu-gmo-policy-undermining-single-market">further de-harmonise</a> rules on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/docs/plant_gmo_authorisation_proposal_regulation_en.pdf">latest proposal</a> would allow member states to “opt-out” from the use of GM food and animal feed, thereby mirroring <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:JOL_2015_068_R_0001">legislation</a> passed earlier this year that allowed members to opt-out from GM cultivation. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/docs/plant_gmo_authorisation_proposal_regulation_en.pdf">official aim</a> is to allow member states to impose restrictions on GM food and feed “in respect of democratic choice and in the interest of consistency”. But countries expecting to pick and choose from different GMOs, whether crops, food or feed, will find their freedom heavily constrained.</p>
<p>Any GM restrictions must still comply with EU law. This firstly requires that any measures be necessary to protect a “relevant legitimate objective”. Worries over the environment or public health don’t count – in theory these are dealt with under the initial authorisation process. This leaves objectives such as public morality, consumer protection or agricultural policy (preventing contamination between GM and non-GM crops, or having to change farms to use for GM crops). Even then, there must still be no arbitrary discrimination or disguised protectionism. </p>
<h2>An Italo-Irish headache</h2>
<p>Consider the example of Ireland and Italy: two green, agricultural nations who may shortly be faced with serious headaches. Both <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_341_en.pdf">have mixed</a> feelings regarding GMOs and both have interests in prohibiting certain products, but crucially not all. </p>
<p>In particular, a substantial proportion of animal feed used in both <a href="http://www.agbioforum.org/v17n2/v17n2a03-boccaletti.htm">Italy</a> and Ireland is of GM origin. A <a href="http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/media/migration/publications/2011/briefforministermarch2011/Chapter%204%20Main%20Brief%20Part%201.pdf">2010 report</a> indicated that more than 90% of protein feed for livestock in Ireland contained EU-authorised GM varieties – mostly soya, maize, cotton and rapeseed.</p>
<p>As imported feed is vital to keep Ireland’s cows and sheep well fed, and since it’s tough to guarantee zero contamination by GM sources, the country supported an amendment to <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:166:0009:0015:EN:PDF">EU legislation</a> allowing for temporary tolerances of unauthorised GM feed at a level of 0.1%. Even if they would avoid GM feed in neutral circumstances, the market has created a high level of dependency by national producers on GM feed.</p>
<h2>Dilemma time</h2>
<p>This adds to a dilemma surrounding specific products produced nationally with GM counterparts produced outside the EU. </p>
<p>Rapeseed is an <a href="http://www.irishexaminer.com/farming/news/rapeseed-oil-may-be-a-golden-crop-for-irish-farmers-194098.html">important crop in Ireland</a>, for instance, just as it is <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18249840">in the UK</a>. Although GM rapeseed is not currently authorised for cultivation in the EU, GM rapeseed food and animal feed grown elsewhere, mostly in Canada, is <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/food/dyna/gm_register/index_en.cfm">authorised</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/79131/original/image-20150423-25563-fsmb4s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/79131/original/image-20150423-25563-fsmb4s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/79131/original/image-20150423-25563-fsmb4s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/79131/original/image-20150423-25563-fsmb4s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/79131/original/image-20150423-25563-fsmb4s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/79131/original/image-20150423-25563-fsmb4s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/79131/original/image-20150423-25563-fsmb4s.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 rapeseed turns the countryside yellow.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/26085795@N02/6193178809">Jan Smith</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Italy is Europe’s <a href="http://www.soya-food.com/soy-world-production.html">main producer of soybeans</a>. As with rapeseed, you can’t grow GM soya in the EU, but GM soya products are authorised if imported, with the main suppliers based in America, Brazil and Argentina. Therefore European producers (all non-GM) are in competition with those beyond the EU, both GM and non-GM. </p>
<p>While Ireland and Italy depend on imported GM rapeseed and soya feed too much to impose restrictions, the two nations might be tempted to give their national producers a helping hand by attempting to prohibit GM rapeseed and soya food products. Yet if either were to prohibit these GM foods and not others, irrespective of any legitimate objective claimed, it would indicate “arbitrary discrimination” – whether <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:61985CJ0121">direct</a> or <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:61984CJ0112">indirect</a>.</p>
<h2>Moral confusion</h2>
<p>What of a general ban on GM food, based on consumer protection or public morality? Consumer protection won’t work. Shoppers could be sufficiently protected by labelling, which is <a href="http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/consumers/product_labelling_and_packaging/l21170_en.htm">already required</a> (even if not considered full and accurate information). </p>
<p>Public morality might justify such restrictions, but if purely on GM food this would appear hypocritical. If public morality justifies a national ban on GM food, why is no such ban required for GM feed and GM crops also? Especially when the GM feed or crops lead eventually to food. </p>
<p>That just leaves environmental and health protection that could justify restricting one GM food and not another, or GM food generally and not feed or crops. However both are expressly excluded under the EU’s proposed legislation.</p>
<p>Consequently, Ireland and Italy may be able to impose unilateral restrictions on GM crops, food or feed for a range of legitimate objectives. They could indeed be truly “GM-free”. However, if you claim public morality justifies prohibiting GM crops or food, you cannot then backflip and still permit GM feed. </p>
<p>Restrictions on cultivation might be permitted without restrictions on other GM products, but this is due to it also promoting separate objectives such as protection of traditional farming or producer choice. For the measures to be acceptable, they must be consistent.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40712/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mary Dobbs receives funding from the British Academy for some future research relating to genetically modified crops </span></em></p>European countries can stop growing genetically modified crops, but many of their cows are still fed with imported GM.Mary Dobbs, Lecturer in Law, Queen's University BelfastLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/380162015-02-26T01:02:10Z2015-02-26T01:02:10ZGM regulation ‘not fit for purpose’, says Commons committee – and it’s right<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/73051/original/image-20150225-1774-17kobp2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=101%2C30%2C1096%2C820&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Vitamin A-enhanced GM Golden Rice has become a flashpoint for campaigners despite its health benefits.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/ricephotos/5516789000/in/album-72157626241604366/">IRRI</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>As a scientist who has spent the past 32 years using genetic modification to improve crops and make biological discoveries, the <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/science-and-technology-committee/inquiries/parliament-2010/gm-foods-and-application-of-the-precautionary-principle-in-europe/">report</a> published by the House of Commons Science & Technology Committee on GM technology is a joy to read. Others, particularly campaigners against the technology, will be dismayed at their failure to convince ten independent-minded MPs of their concerns. </p>
<p>The report is a carefully written assessment of the arguments for and against a controversial method, with many sensible recommendations for what should happen next. It’s a good read for anybody with an interest in new technologies to improve crops, or in how public misunderstanding (often encouraged by campaigners) can result in disproportionate regulation that can hamper innovation.</p>
<h2>Reviewing regulations</h2>
<p>The report starts by remarking on the scale of the food security challenge, notes that GM has already been widely adopted and points to <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf">published findings</a> regarding its safety. The question is whether UK and EU regulations regarding GM food are fit for purpose – and what changes, if any, are required.</p>
<p>Crucially, the MPs endorsed the view that it is wrong to think of GM as a single, generic technology – as the government’s chief scientific adviser Sir Mark Wolpert said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Whether GM technology is a good or bad thing is not a sensible question; it depends on how it is applied. The question in every case is: what gene, what organism and for what purpose?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The report quite rightly strongly recommends that the government re-frames the debate away from an overly simple notion of “GM”.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/73052/original/image-20150225-1765-glierp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/73052/original/image-20150225-1765-glierp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/73052/original/image-20150225-1765-glierp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73052/original/image-20150225-1765-glierp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73052/original/image-20150225-1765-glierp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73052/original/image-20150225-1765-glierp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=518&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73052/original/image-20150225-1765-glierp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=518&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73052/original/image-20150225-1765-glierp.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">Land area in 2011 used for GM crops was 160m hectares, or 1.6m sq km.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gmo_acreage_world_2009.PNG">Fafner</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Reasoning with the opposition</h2>
<p>Those opposed to GM tend to claim it is represented as a “silver bullet” that could alone provide food security, or that it is a technology that could lock its users into a method that “cannot peacefully co-exist with other methods”, or is one that has “squeezed out” other approaches to agricultural innovation. After careful examination of the evidence, the committee found none of these criticisms to be valid. </p>
<p>Paul Burrows, the executive director of <a href="http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/organisation/structures/executive/executive-index.aspx">BBSRC</a>, told the committee that, of BBSRC’s nearly £500m annual research budget (including £70m spent on plant science), only £4m is allocated to GM research. By this measure GM, far from displacing other research, accounts for only a tiny fraction of it.</p>
<p>The report highlights more complex concerns over intellectual property rights. Industry representatives argued that the long regulatory process and large costs involved in the EU meant that without a competition-free period (through patents) to exploit the inventions, nobody would invest. Such investment is indispensable if we want to meet the food security challenge. On the other hand, the absolute position of campaign group <a href="http://www.gmfreeze.org/">GM Freeze</a> is that “genetic resources are a public good and should not be owned by anybody”. The report is right to recommend that this issue should be examined in depth after the election. </p>
<h2>Sidestepping the ‘precautionary principle’</h2>
<p>European regulation and the “precautionary principle” (which can be paraphrased as “look before you leap”) have had a major influence on the import and cultivation of GM crops. The committee urges the European Commission to “clearly and publicly state when it has drawn on the precautionary principle in the policy formation process” since there is lack of clarity on this issue. The report is right to “remind the commission that any legislation guided by the precautionary principle must allow for an exit from precautionary measures once there is strong scientific consensus that any risks are low”. </p>
<h2>Not fit for purpose</h2>
<p>Among the evidence cited in the report is that from Eric Poudelet, the safety director of the European Commission, about the influence of politics on whether or not the European Commission and the Council of Ministers decide to act on the recommendations of the <a href="http://www.efsa.europa.eu/">European Food Standards Agency</a>. “Dysfunctional” EU regulation has led to abandonment by major companies of GM-based crop improvement in Europe. <a href="http://www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal/en/persons/joyce-tait(9593e0b1-924c-4d95-b964-5bcab0243306).html">Professor Joyce Tait</a> of the University of Edinburgh pointed out that “the more onerous the regulatory system, the more difficult it is for small companies to get through to the market”. This only reinforces the tendency towards domination of the sector by a few large companies. </p>
<p>A crucial finding of the committee is that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>A regulatory system under which it takes many years – sometimes decades – to reach a decision cannot possibly be considered fit for purpose.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The recommendations include several very important points. For example, those campaigning against the technology, such as <a href="http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/">Greenpeace</a> against pro-Vitamin A-enhanced Golden Rice, should “review their public communication materials to ensure that they are evidence-based and honest in setting out the reasons for opposition to this technology”.</p>
<p>The Committee considered alleged health and other concerns about GM crops and concluded that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The current EU legislative framework for novel plants is founded on the premise that genetically modified plants pose inherently greater risk than their conventional counterparts. The weight of peer-reviewed scientific evidence, collected over many years, has shown this to be unjustified. Where genetically modified crops have been shown to pose a risk, this has invariably been a result of the trait displayed – for example, herbicide tolerance – rather than the technology itself. </p>
<p>We are disappointed that the government has not more publicly argued this fact. We recommend that the government publicly acknowledge that genetically modified crops pose no greater inherent risk than their conventional counterparts.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Bravery in controversy</h2>
<p>In summary, ten MPs from three parties currently seeking re-election have written a brave report on a controversial technology. Their recommendations are indisputable. There is nothing intrinsically risky about GM. Current regulation is not fit for purpose; we should regulate specific traits, not the method by which they are delivered, in each member state. </p>
<p>As they themselves conclude: “Regulatory reform is no longer merely an option, it is a necessity.” The report recommends the government makes a commitment to argue for major reform of EU regulation of genetically enhanced novel crops. Legislators must grasp this nettle and remove the regulations that prevent science and technology from improving our crops and providing solutions to longstanding crop problems of weeds, pests and disease.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/38016/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jonathan Jones is co-founder and former science advisor to Mendel
Biotechnology. He co-founded Norfolk Plant Sciences in 2007 with Cathie
Martin of John Innes Centre, working on flavonoid-enriched tomatoes. In
the 1980s he worked for Advanced Genetic Sciences (now defunct) in Oakland
California</span></em></p>MPs call for a revamp of GM regulations, after finding “no greater inherent risk” with GM crops compared to conventional ones.Jonathan Jones, Professor of Plant Biology, Sainsbury LaboratoryLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/257532014-06-22T20:28:25Z2014-06-22T20:28:25ZGM techniques: from the field to the laboratory (and back again)<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/51258/original/xjfm6mvm-1402969650.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Laboratory-based genetic modification is relatively new when you consider the centuries of selective breeding that precedes it.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/ricephotos/8364141562">IRRI Photos/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Welcome to <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/gm-in-australia">GM in Australia</a>, a series looking at the facts, ethics, regulations and research into genetically modified crops. In this first instalment, Peter Langridge describes two GM techniques: selective breeding and genetic engineering.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>Genetic modification (GM) sounds very laboratory-based – people in white coats inserting and deleting <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-a-gene-12951">genes</a> – but the vast majority of GM work was completed in the field through selective breeding.</p>
<p>Early Middle Eastern farmers collected grain from natural grasslands, but they needed to time their harvest very carefully. If they were too early the grain wouldn’t store well, and if they were too late the grain would spread over the ground making collection difficult.</p>
<p>At some stage, one of these early farmers must have noticed that some heads remained fixed on their stems even after the grain was fully dry. He obviously didn’t understand this at the time, but these were plants with a mutation in the genes controlling seed dispersal.</p>
<p>Farmers began preferentially choosing plants with this useful mutation and planting them, perhaps the first case of breeding and selecting for a novel trait.</p>
<h2>Exploiting genetic variation</h2>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/51287/original/jdf5x58b-1402979267.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/51287/original/jdf5x58b-1402979267.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/51287/original/jdf5x58b-1402979267.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=759&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/51287/original/jdf5x58b-1402979267.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=759&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/51287/original/jdf5x58b-1402979267.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=759&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/51287/original/jdf5x58b-1402979267.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=954&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/51287/original/jdf5x58b-1402979267.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=954&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/51287/original/jdf5x58b-1402979267.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=954&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Gregor Mendel.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Wikimedia</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Systematic breeding really began in the early 1900s when scientists rediscovered Silesian monk Gregor Mendel’s <a href="http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/gregor-mendel-and-the-principles-of-inheritance-593">groundbreaking work</a> on genetic inheritance in peas.</p>
<p>Breeding involves utilising genetic variation to produce new combinations of genes and gene variants. A breeder will cross two different lines and then select offspring that have improved performance.</p>
<p>Breeders are always looking for new sources of variation, normally from within the elite germplasm pool – that is, within established varieties. Many important traits, such as disease resistance, are controlled by single genes and can be crossed into elite lines, with only the resistant offspring selected.</p>
<p>But for many crops the level of diversity available within the elite germplasm pool is very narrow and breeders must look further afield for novel variation. This search led breeders to explore land races (varieties grown by traditional farmers) and even wild relatives (undomesticated progenitors of our modern crops). </p>
<p>In many cases crosses between the wild relatives and modern lines will not produce normal seeds, but the embryos can often be isolated from the developing seed and grown in sterile tissue culture to produce viable, fertile plants.</p>
<p>This technique, called <a href="http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/42085/PDF">embryo rescue</a>, has been widely used and many modern cultivars contain genes from wild relatives.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/51304/original/g3dq6f26-1402982029.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/51304/original/g3dq6f26-1402982029.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/51304/original/g3dq6f26-1402982029.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/51304/original/g3dq6f26-1402982029.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/51304/original/g3dq6f26-1402982029.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/51304/original/g3dq6f26-1402982029.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/51304/original/g3dq6f26-1402982029.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/51304/original/g3dq6f26-1402982029.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/mr-morshee/4117842213">danbruell/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The normal number of genes present in a crop plant is around 30,000 to 40,000 – the same as for humans. In making the crosses all 30,000 genes from the wild relative are introduced but the breeder may only want one gene.</p>
<p>The genes are linked along chromosomes with each chromosome carrying several thousand genes. The breeders need to break up the chromosomes from the wild relative into small fragments so that only the desired region is transferred – a process called chromosome engineering.</p>
<p>This can take several decades of work, making the use of wide crosses technically difficult and slow. Breeders want other methods of generating useful variation.</p>
<h2>Engineering mutations</h2>
<p>In the 1950s the idea of inducing mutations became an important technique for creating new variation. This involved using ionising radiation, such as X or gamma rays, or chemical mutagens.</p>
<p>These techniques produce random damage to the genetic information in the plant by changing the DNA directly or knocking out segments of the genome (the genetic make-up). Most mutations are deleterious, and the mutagenesis usually generates many thousands of unwanted changes, so the clean-up can be slow. </p>
<p>After exposing the plants to the mutagen, the breeders need to select for the beneficial mutations and remove the deleterious mutations.</p>
<p>Scientifically the ideal solution would be to be able to take a gene from any source and introduce it into your crop plant to change the plant’s characteristics. This would allow breeders to use variation from diverse sources and make changes just one gene at a time without the extensive collateral damage done by mutagenesis or wide crosses. This is what genetic engineering offers.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/JMPE5wlB3Zk?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>Enter the lab coats …</h2>
<p>The first genetically engineered crops <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/80/15/4803.short">were produced in the 1980s</a> and, as in all areas of science, the technology continues to advance. The most widely used method today takes advantage of a natural DNA transfer mechanism.</p>
<p>Several groups of soil bacteria are able to engineer plants for their own benefit. These bacteria transfer a segment of their genome into the plant’s genome so that the transformed plant cells will proliferate and produce compounds that only the bacteria can use. In this way the bacteria control the plant development to produce nutrients for the bacteria.</p>
<p>The mechanisms for this type of natural genetic engineering are now well understood, allowing scientists to change the DNA segment transferred so that the genes causing altered plant growth are removed and new genes inserted.</p>
<p>How does this work practically? In a laboratory the scientist will design and build a DNA sequence containing specific sequences that delineate the region of DNA to be transferred (the left and right borders). They then insert the gene of interest and usually a selectable marker, such as resistance to a herbicide. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/51308/original/dnf5zbwj-1402982216.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/51308/original/dnf5zbwj-1402982216.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/51308/original/dnf5zbwj-1402982216.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=760&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/51308/original/dnf5zbwj-1402982216.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=760&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/51308/original/dnf5zbwj-1402982216.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=760&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/51308/original/dnf5zbwj-1402982216.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=956&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/51308/original/dnf5zbwj-1402982216.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=956&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/51308/original/dnf5zbwj-1402982216.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=956&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>Agrobacterium tumefaciens</em> attaching to a plant cell.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Wikimedia</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This construct is then introduced into a bacteria called <a href="http://www.nepadbiosafety.net/subjects/biotechnology/plant-transformation-agro"><em>Agrobacterium tumefaciens</em></a>, which readily takes up DNA. The bacteria are then applied to growing plant tissues in sterile culture.</p>
<p>After a period the bacteria are removed and the plant tissues placed onto media containing the herbicide. Only the plant cells that have been transformed (those that took up the construct from the bacterium) are able to grow and divide.</p>
<p>These cells are allowed to multiply and divide until they produce plants, which are taken out of sterile culture to a glasshouse where they can grow to maturity. The genes that have been transferred will now be included in the genetic make-up of the plant.</p>
<p>Different species and even varieties will differ in their ability to take up DNA from the bacterium and to regenerate normal plants. Where in the genome the new DNA inserts is usually random but will preferentially occur in regions containing active genes.</p>
<p>Extensive growth trials and evaluation are needed to ensure that the transgenic or genetically engineered plant behaves as expected.</p>
<h2>… and back to the field</h2>
<p>In Australia all aspects of genetic engineering research are closely regulated. The researcher, organisation and facilities used must all be licensed and meet tight standards.</p>
<p>Before a field trial can be grown, the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (<a href="http://www.ogtr.gov.au/">OGTR</a>) conducts a detailed risk assessment of the genes used, the reasons for the trial, and the design and management of the trial site. </p>
<p>The OGTR have issued 103 licenses for field trials covering 14 different crops. In Australia 37 genetically engineered crops have been approved for commercial cultivation for seven different species, but only GM cotton (eight different events) and canola (three events) are grown to any great extent.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/51311/original/ps88t452-1402982616.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/51311/original/ps88t452-1402982616.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/51311/original/ps88t452-1402982616.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/51311/original/ps88t452-1402982616.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/51311/original/ps88t452-1402982616.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/51311/original/ps88t452-1402982616.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/51311/original/ps88t452-1402982616.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/51311/original/ps88t452-1402982616.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"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/basf/4837267013/in/photolist-gBsi5y-gBsMcB-gBthYi-gBtgT2-gBsifd-gBshWN-gBsLfY-gBsHL9-gBsHKB-gBtiaa-gBsLaX-gBsKDN-gBsK3N-gBsKpt-gBsbZC-gBseD5-gBteLr-gBsfQ3-gBsCeC-8nsfXp-gBsJUa-gBsdvU-gBsfkq-gBsESd-gBsbfS-gBtdDM-gBtdfa-gBtdo6-gBsDXB-gBsGBA-gBtdQt-gBsEr3-gBsdPQ-gBsC9B-gBt9L6-gBs8VG-gBsars-gBtbki-gBtam4-gBsCPL-gBsD6h-8Ze8pK-8Zhbbh-8ZhaYd-dQJkWp-5x5GGa-9sWJ3f-nxyYDp-9RPXGo-a86UDZ">BASF - The Chemical Company/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The resistance to GM crops in many parts of the world has encouraged scientists to look for alternative techniques for making targeted changes to the genetic make-up of crops and other organisms. </p>
<p>For example, a new technique called “<a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-genomic-editing-25072">genome editing</a>” allows us to make specific changes to native genes within the plant that are essentially identical to the changes induced by mutagenesis but at only one site rather than all over the genome. Mutagenesis is widely used and is not subject to regulation – will the same apply to genome editing?</p>
<p>There are other developments that are also challenging the community’s views on new technologies. How will people feel about GM crops where a native gene has been isolated, changed and re-inserted (a process known as <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24396278">cisgenics</a>)?</p>
<p>What about using GM rootstocks engineered for resistance to root diseases, but grafted with non-GM scion so that they produce non-GM apples or avocados?</p>
<p>These questions are now challenging the regulators since the first examples are starting to become available.</p>
<hr>
<p><em><strong>Further reading: <br>
<a href="https://theconversation.com/setting-the-standards-who-regulates-australian-gm-food-25533">Setting the standards: who regulates Australian GM food?</a><br>
<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><br>
<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><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/25753/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Langridge receives research funding from Pioneer/Dupont, the Australian Research Council, the Grains Research and Development Corporation, the South Australian Government, Australia/India Strategic Research Fund and the US AID program . He provides advice to several public sector research organisation in Europe, North America and to international agricultural aid programs.</span></em></p>Welcome to GM in Australia, a series looking at the facts, ethics, regulations and research into genetically modified crops. In this first instalment, Peter Langridge describes two GM techniques: selective…Peter Langridge, CEO, Australian Centre for Plant Functional GenomicsLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.