tag:theconversation.com,2011:/global/topics/gm-food-173/articlesGM food – The Conversation2023-10-09T17:19:20Ztag: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/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/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/1303042020-01-27T13:55:34Z2020-01-27T13:55:34ZNigeria has given a new GM cowpea variety the go ahead. Why it matters<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/311823/original/file-20200124-81395-ng6fwn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Cowpea, also known as Black Eyed Pea, is a staple crop in Nigeria</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Photo by FlowerPhotos/Universal Images Group via Getty Images</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Late last year the world’s first genetically modified (GM) cowpea was <a href="http://www.isaaa.org/kc/cropbiotechupdate/article/default.asp?ID=17899">registered and approved for release</a> to smallholder farmers in Nigeria. The new variety carries a microbial insecticidal gene making it resistant to a major pest that affects this crop.</p>
<p>The decision is significant because this will be the second GM crop commercialised in the country following <a href="https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2018/07/nigeria-commercializes-bt-cotton-first-gmo-crop/">Bt Cotton</a>, and the first one that is a <a href="https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2019/01/nigeria-approves-first-gmo-food-crop/">food crop</a>. The release of a GM crop in Africa is particularly noteworthy as many countries on the continent are still wary of biotechnology. </p>
<p>It is important for another reason too: cowpea, also known as Black Eyed Pea, is a staple crop in the country and is an important source of protein for over 200 million people. Nigeria is also the world’s largest producer of <a href="https://www.iita.org/cropsnew/cowpea/">cowpea</a>. But it still has to import around 500,000 tonnes to meet internal demand. This is because the <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09670877609412369">potential loss in yield</a> due to insects is over 90%. </p>
<p>By controlling one of the major pests – the cowpea pod-borer – the country could become self-sufficient. It could also potentially help reduce rural poverty and hunger. Nigeria has a massive poverty problem – more than <a href="https://allafrica.com/stories/201902150126.html">91 million</a> people are estimated to live without enough food to eat. </p>
<h2>New variety</h2>
<p>The new variety, named Sampea 20-T, carries a microbial insecticidal gene from a bacterium and represents a biotechnology product that has been nearly 20 years in the making. It is fully resistant to a damaging pod-borer insect. </p>
<p>It was developed by an international team, led by the African Agricultural Technology Foundation in collaboration with the Commonwealth Industrial and Research Organisation (CSIRO) in Australia and the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center in the US. </p>
<p>The gene used to develop this variety was provided by <a href="https://apps.fas.usda.gov/newgainapi/api/report/downloadreportbyfilename?filename=Agricultural%20Biotechnology%20Annual_Lagos_Nigeria_5-21-2019.pdf">Bayer on a humanitarian basis</a>, so that smallholder farmers could access it royalty free.</p>
<p>There’s been a very slow uptake of <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-genetically-modified-crops-have-been-slow-to-take-hold-in-africa-44195">GM crops across the continent</a>. The message of anti-GMO organisations sent from Europe has been an obstacle in many African countries. But thanks to science outreach efforts and community information sessions, the concerns about GM crops were left behind in this case to embrace their potential to solve critical food security issues. </p>
<p>Over the last 20 years some of the political resistance and public fear have <a href="https://theconversation.com/i-fight-anti-gmo-fears-in-africa-to-combat-hunger-109632">been overcome</a>, and several African countries including South Africa, Burkina Faso, Egypt and Sudan have introduced GM crops. Many more countries now have passed laws to allow the cultivation of GM crops. </p>
<p>The team that has developed Sampea 20-T was formed in response to requests from African cowpea breeders for a solution to the cowpea pod-borer, <em><a href="http://www.pestnet.org/fact_sheets/bean_pod_borer_037.htm">Maruca vitrata</a></em>, a major pest of this crop in West Africa. </p>
<p>Developing the new variety using traditional breeding was not possible due to the lack of any resistant breeding stock. This means that there were no sources of natural resistance to insects in cowpea anywhere in the world. The only solution possible was to create a GM insect-resistant cowpea using biotechnology. </p>
<p>The partners, supported by the US Agency for International Development and also by the Rockefeller Foundation and the CSIRO, worked to develop a cowpea variety that would provide in-built protection against the pest, allowing a cheap, safe and practical solution to the problem. </p>
<p>The only option farmers have at the moment is to apply chemical insecticides to control the pest. These are expensive and can be dangerous if they aren’t familiar with how to use them safely, or don’t have the necessary protective clothing.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Psb4kk4N93I?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">PBR cowpea project overview.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The science</h2>
<p>The new variety carries a gene from <em>Bacillus thuringiensis</em> (Bt). This is a soil bacterium that can produce a natural insecticide which has been used by humans to control insect pests for over 80 years. It was discovered at the <a href="https://www.britannica.com/science/Bacillus-thuringiensis">beginning of the 20th century</a> by a Japanese biologist <a href="https://www.jcpa.or.jp/labo/column/control/11/">Shigetane Ishiwatari</a> who found that it was killing silkworms. It was first used as an insecticide on flour moths in the 1930s, but it was in the 1980s that the use of Bt increased worldwide due to insects becoming resistant to many chemical insecticides.</p>
<p>The toxin produced by the bacterium is a crystalline inclusion (called crystal) in the Bt spores. There are many types of Bt crystals, and they have specific toxicity against an insect species, but are innocuous to other insects or animals. Bt crystals have been part of commercial insecticide formulations for decades and are the principal active ingredient of organic insecticides. With the adoption of gene technology, <a href="http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/insecticidal-plants/">GM plants were produced</a> by introducing in them the genes that encode the toxic crystal from Bt. </p>
<p>In 1995, the USA Environmental Protection Agency approved the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/11/us/epa-approves-three-genetically-altered-crops.html">commercial production and distribution</a> of Bt crops (corn, cotton, potato).</p>
<p>Most of the corn and cotton grown around the world are Bt varieties. New Bt crops have been developed such the eggplant varieties in Bangladesh and soybean in Latin America. </p>
<h2>Future prospects</h2>
<p>The new cowpea variety is expected to be taken up by a number of countries in West Africa including Ghana, Burkina Faso and Niger. </p>
<p>And work on new varieties continues. A second generation of improved cowpea <a href="http://www.isaaa.org/kc/cropbiotechupdate/article/default.asp?ID=17928">carrying more than one type of Bt gene</a> is under development. This, together with an appropriate insect resistance management plan for the right use of this product, will help guarantee long-lasting protection against the pod-borer and future-proofing the benefits of this biotech product. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/cRZlEJo8u6E?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Breeders and farmers explain the benefits of Sampea 20-T.</span></figcaption>
</figure><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/130304/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jose Maria Barrero works for CSIRO.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>TJ Higgins received funding from the Rockefeller Foundation, the USAID and works for CSIRO. </span></em></p>Nigeria recently approved the world’s first GM cowpea, which provides full protection against the pod-borer Maruca, a major problem for this important crop.Jose Maria Barrero, Research Scientist, CSIROTJ Higgins, Honorary Research Fellow, CSIROLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1133382019-03-21T10:46:21Z2019-03-21T10:46:21ZWill more genetically engineered foods be approved under the FDA’s new leadership?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264654/original/file-20190319-60964-tkeko6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Will food laws change as more GM foods are created?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/law-book-gavel-food-393936415">Zerbor/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The world of food and drug regulation was rocked earlier this month by the news of a change in leadership at the Food and Drug Administration. Commissioner Scott Gottlieb <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/03/05/700482545/fda-commissioner-scott-gottlieb-announces-he-will-resign">resigned</a> and will step down in early April. His <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/12/health/fda-ned-sharpless.html">temporary replacement</a> is <a href="https://www.cancer.gov/about-nci/leadership/director">Dr. Ned Sharpless</a>, director of the National Cancer Institute. </p>
<p>As the news filtered out, stocks went <a href="https://www.thestreet.com/investing/scott-gottlieb-s-exit-has-tobacco-stocks-rising-tuesday-14887017">up</a> and <a href="https://www.thestreet.com/investing/stocks/tobacco-stocks-drop-after-new-acting-fda-commissioner-is-named-14894403">down</a>, consumer advocacy groups <a href="https://www.nclnet.org/scott_gottlieb_resigns">looked back</a> on Gottlieb’s legacy and commentators <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/5/18252139/scott-gottlieb-resigns-fda-opioid-epidemic">worried</a> about the future of the agency.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264645/original/file-20190319-60975-5iveto.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264645/original/file-20190319-60975-5iveto.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264645/original/file-20190319-60975-5iveto.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264645/original/file-20190319-60975-5iveto.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264645/original/file-20190319-60975-5iveto.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264645/original/file-20190319-60975-5iveto.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=626&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264645/original/file-20190319-60975-5iveto.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=626&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264645/original/file-20190319-60975-5iveto.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=626&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">FDA Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb will leave the post in early April.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/washington-dc-november-3-2017-fda-751933783">Albert H. Teich/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Most of the attention surrounding Gottlieb’s departure has focused on the consequences of the resignation for the <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/10/fda-chiefs-departure-might-not-be-a-good-thing-for-vaping-industry.html">vaping and tobacco</a> industries. But the impact of changes in FDA leadership extends well beyond that. FDA-regulated products make up <a href="https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/Transparency/Basics/ucm553038.htm">20 percent of consumer spending</a> in the U.S. In the realm of food alone, FDA regulates <a href="https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/Transparency/Basics/ucm553038.htm">75 percent of our food supply</a>. </p>
<p>As a <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=2667484">professor</a> who studies FDA and health law at Saint Louis University, I have been working with the <a href="https://www.slu.edu/law/health/index.php">Center for Health Law Studies</a> to monitor changes in FDA regulations and policies. Most recently I’ve been tracking progress on the FDA’s regulation of genetically modified food and think I can explain what consumers can expect from the agency after Gottlieb departs.</p>
<h2>How the FDA deals with GM plants and animals</h2>
<p>Genetically modified plants <a href="https://www.fda.gov/food/ingredientspackaginglabeling/geplants/ucm346030.htm">entered the U.S. market</a> in the 1990s. Since then, the official FDA position has been that food derived from genetically modified plants and animals is <a href="https://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/GEPlants/ucm346858.htm">not different</a> “from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way.” This includes considerations regarding safety and long-time effects associated with its consumption. </p>
<p>Many people regard genetically modified food as a means to feed more people at a lower cost. However, recent studies suggest that these promises remain <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/s/522596/why-we-will-need-genetically-modified-foods/">unfulfilled</a> since genetically engineered food first became available in the 1990s.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264662/original/file-20190319-60972-12q744j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264662/original/file-20190319-60972-12q744j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264662/original/file-20190319-60972-12q744j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264662/original/file-20190319-60972-12q744j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264662/original/file-20190319-60972-12q744j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264662/original/file-20190319-60972-12q744j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264662/original/file-20190319-60972-12q744j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264662/original/file-20190319-60972-12q744j.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">The Chinook salmon during spawning.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/closeup-chinook-salmon-during-spawning-1212401593">Kevin Cass/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264660/original/file-20190319-60964-s2kst.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264660/original/file-20190319-60964-s2kst.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264660/original/file-20190319-60964-s2kst.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=386&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264660/original/file-20190319-60964-s2kst.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=386&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264660/original/file-20190319-60964-s2kst.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=386&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264660/original/file-20190319-60964-s2kst.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=485&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264660/original/file-20190319-60964-s2kst.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=485&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264660/original/file-20190319-60964-s2kst.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=485&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Ocean pout from Newfoundland, Canada.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/dkeats/5532424100/">Derek Keats</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Even though scientists have been able to alter the genome of animals for decades, it was not until 2008 that the FDA <a href="https://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/BiotechnologyProductsatCVMAnimalsandAnimalFood/AnimalswithIntentionalGenomicAlterations/ucm113605.htm">issued guidance</a> on genetically modified animals. Since then, the agency has become much more active in this area. In 2017, months before Gottlieb became commissioner, the FDA issued <a href="https://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/BiotechnologyProductsatCVMAnimalsandAnimalFood/AnimalswithIntentionalGenomicAlterations/ucm113605.htm">further guidance</a> on the use of emerging technologies, like <a href="https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/crispr-animals/">CRISPR</a>, that allow scientists to alter animal genomes.</p>
<p>As with plants, the FDA considers genetically engineered animals safe for human consumption. The agency <a href="https://www.fda.gov/animalveterinary/developmentapprovalprocess/newanimaldrugapplications/default.htm">reviews</a> these types of products as new animal drug applications. </p>
<p>In 2015, two years before Gottlieb began his tenure, the FDA <a href="https://www.fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/BiotechnologyProductsatCVMAnimalsandAnimalFood/AnimalswithIntentionalGenomicAlterations/UCM466218.pdf">favorably reviewed</a> an application involving <a href="https://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/BiotechnologyProductsatCVMAnimalsandAnimalFood/AnimalswithIntentionalGenomicAlterations/ucm473238.htm">AquAdvantage salmon.</a> Although AquAdvantage salmon was being produced in Canada in 2016, Congress directed FDA to restrict importation of AquAdvantage salmon into the United States. This genetically modified fish incorporates a growth hormone <a href="https://newfoodeconomy.org/fda-aquabounty-gmo-salmon-seafood-restriction-market/">gene</a> from Chinook salmon and links it to a genetic switch, or promoter. The promoter taken from an eel-like fish called ocean pout keeps the growth hormone gene in the “on” position, allowing it to grow significantly faster than comparable Atlantic salmon. </p>
<h2>Gottlieb’s FDA and regulation of GE food</h2>
<p>Also in 2016, Congress made the U.S. Department of Agriculture the <a href="https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2018/12/20/establishing-national-bioengineered-food-disclosure-standard">leading player</a> in the labeling of genetically engineered food. The USDA issued final <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/12/21/2018-27283/national-bioengineered-food-disclosure-standard">regulations</a> on this topic in late 2018. </p>
<p>As a response, on March 8, 2019, Gottlieb’s FDA <a href="https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm632952.htm">reversed</a> the regulation prohibiting the importation of AquAdvantage salmon. With this decision, FDA underscored the agency’s belief that the product is safe for humans.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264716/original/file-20190319-60949-tfaxip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264716/original/file-20190319-60949-tfaxip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264716/original/file-20190319-60949-tfaxip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264716/original/file-20190319-60949-tfaxip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264716/original/file-20190319-60949-tfaxip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264716/original/file-20190319-60949-tfaxip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264716/original/file-20190319-60949-tfaxip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264716/original/file-20190319-60949-tfaxip.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"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Both the U.S. FDA and the World Health Organization have declared genetically modified crops and engineered food safe.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/genetically-modified-crops-engineered-food-agriculture-295120262">Lightspring/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In addition to endorsing the general safety of genetically engineered foods, Gottlieb’s official statement highlights the FDA’s goal of explicitly <a href="https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm632952.htm">assuring consumers</a> that genetically engineered foods available in the United States market “meet the FDA’s high safety standards.”</p>
<p>In many ways, the response of the agency can be seen as purely mechanical and deferential to USDA and Congress. But I think it also signals continuity of a permissive policy when it comes to genetically engineered food. By treating it the same way it treats traditional food, the FDA will intervene if genetically engineered food is contaminated or prepared under unsanitary conditions, as it normally does under its general mandate as an agency tasked with protecting the public health. </p>
<p>But we should not expect FDA to challenge the <a href="https://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/">prevailing wisdom</a> among <a href="https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/gm-plants/how-are-gm-crops-regulated/">regulatory agencies</a> when it comes to genetically modified food.</p>
<p>The FDA’s behavior in this field is in line with the current scientific consensus in the <a href="http://nas-sites.org/ge-crops/">United States</a> and <a href="https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/gm-plants/">abroad</a>. Numerous reputable institutions have upheld the safety of genetically engineered food. These include the <a href="https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/once-again-us-expert-panel-says-genetically-engineered-crops-are-safe-eat">National Academy of Sciences</a> and the <a href="https://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/">World Health Organization</a>. Nevertheless, there are some critics of this consensus who call for <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-truth-about-genetically-modified-food/">more research</a> into the long-term effects of eating genetically modified food. According to recent data, consumers <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/23/well/eat/are-gmo-foods-safe.html">continue to distrust</a> genetically engineered food as well.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264718/original/file-20190319-60949-1p4e9cy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264718/original/file-20190319-60949-1p4e9cy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264718/original/file-20190319-60949-1p4e9cy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264718/original/file-20190319-60949-1p4e9cy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264718/original/file-20190319-60949-1p4e9cy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264718/original/file-20190319-60949-1p4e9cy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264718/original/file-20190319-60949-1p4e9cy.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">Social justice activists staged a rally in Lafayette Park across from the White House and then marched to Monsanto’s Washington offices.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/stephenmelkisethian/14238580036/in/photolist-nGdrMf-dnoFgn-gvETVj-gr7dUZ-gvExKt-gvDXqK-26unk3Q-gvCYW3-gAtxC4-gvEQFy-gvDTwW-gAk9DK-gr7ega-gADipA-nJdjQB-etV6fy-8Fh1KR-8FjXfQ-nrPTPX-9XXYqx-gArj2b-gDY6Fa-nHXVNi-gBgbPk-gBgceE-nGypqS-gDXngj-gAtq9M-nrWUEU-gBSEdu-nJAToD-gBTcPT-gDXMBz-nJ69dW-gDWUxm-fzCmt6-gArPWH-gBThfr-gBTbxK-gBgaYH-gAjSoP-bkHahh-ngQvxa-gjKT9c-gAjgvp-gAjW3A-gAk3VR-gBTixr-3oABp-65sLVL">Stephen Melkisethian/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>GM food under Sharpless and beyond</h2>
<p>I believe that in the near future, FDA will address this distrust while continuing to guide the industry as different types of genetically engineered food enter the market.</p>
<p>Right now, we know virtually nothing about the views of the incoming acting commissioner on genetically engineered food, or food regulation in general. I think the most likely scenario is that Sharpless’ FDA will not stray from its current path regarding genetically engineered food. In 2018, Gottlieb launched a <a href="https://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/NewsEvents/CVMUpdates/ucm624490.htm">Plant and Animal Biotechnology Innovation Action Plan</a>, describing a public communication strategy to engage stakeholders. The plan includes public webinars on animal genome editing, as well as guidance on plant and animal biotechnology. Given the current scientific consensus, it would be surprising if Sharpless chose to move the agency in a different direction. </p>
<p>On the labeling front, now that FDA has relinquished most of its authority in this matter to the USDA, the debate is likely to shift elsewhere. Already under Gottlieb, much energy was spent on <a href="https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm621824.htm">labeling issues</a> involving almond milk and vegan cheese. The agency worried that using dairy names to described plant-based products might be confusing to consumers.</p>
<p>It is of course possible that Sharpless will not be at the helm of FDA for very long. After all, he is an interim figure of <a href="https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/trump-names-sharpless-lead-us-cancer-institute?r3f_986=https://www.google.com/">Democratic leanings</a>. However, given FDA’s <a href="https://endpts.com/how-do-you-replace-a-rock-star-like-scott-gottlieb-at-the-fda-maybe-you-dont/">improbable</a> recent history, there is reason to expect some institutional continuity in the foreseeable future.</p>
<p>Consumers should therefore count on increasing numbers of genetically modified plants and animals entering our food supply. Absent a change in scientific consensus, FDA will smooth the pathway for companies to bring these products to market.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/113338/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ana Santos Rutschman 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>With Gottlieb’s departure from the FDA imminent, what should we expect from the FDA? How is it likely to regulate the still controversial genetically engineered foods?Ana Santos Rutschman, Assistant Professor of Law, Saint Louis UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/782562017-06-30T03:43:49Z2017-06-30T03:43:49ZGrowing food in the post-truth era<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173909/original/file-20170615-22797-1o9q86j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Critics fear the merger of agricultural giants Bayer and Monsanto will drive an increase in use of pesticides.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/agrilifetoday/16929844842/in/photolist-rN2T3A-8DXsx1-9MgfGd-7TiZ1v-8DXhCU-9zwKsJ-8Zqd7z-cdx66W-eg2HUM-f4x9f4-7TnhMw-7TngnU-9n7zac-9Mdr7Z-4HJkxG-4MtZUF-7TnfAo-4HDXgM-fDx8fH-4SD8sy-a2AY4x-9Mdt24-4HgvNC-8PfXpg-4Sy8Lv-4Momau-nZcxJD-4SCmjG-cYVa8A-9KBLmm-8wTEQi-4StvM3-4SCmnS-9MgdN5-6mtHKD-8aothc-6bH8UH-4StvGy-8vNsza-4Mu41V-mV1z39-5UzgMr-Df1fp5-pFE5TJ-4SCmgf-9MgewL-9MghJ7-8aWBAw-kmjRKg-4StvNA">AgriLife Today/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>This article is part of an <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/post-truth-initiative-38606">ongoing series</a> from the <a href="https://posttruthinitiative.org/">Post-Truth Initiative</a>, a Strategic Research Excellence Initiative at the University of Sydney. The series examines today’s post-truth problem in public discourse: the thriving economy of lies, bullshit and propaganda that threatens rational discourse and policy.</em> </p>
<p><em>The project brings together scholars of media and communications, government and international relations, physics, philosophy, linguistics, and medicine, and is affiliated with the Sydney Social Sciences and Humanities Advanced Research Centre (<a href="http://chcinetwork.org/sydney-social-sciences-and-humanities-advanced-research-centre-sssharc">SSSHARC</a>), the <a href="http://sydney.edu.au/environment-institute/">Sydney Environment Institute</a> and the <a href="http://sydneydemocracynetwork.org">Sydney Democracy Network</a>.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>The global food system has been operating in post-truth mode for decades. Having constructed food scarcity as a justification for a <a href="http://www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/green-revolution/">second Green Revolution</a>, Big Agriculture now employs its unethical marketing tactics to selling farmers “climate-smart” agriculture in the form of soils, seeds and chemicals.</p>
<p>The cover of Monsanto’s 2016 annual report, <a href="http://www.monsanto.com/investors/publishingimages/annual%20report%202016/2016_monsanto_annual_report.pdf">A Limitless Perspective</a>, presents a vista of galaxies worthy of a George Lucas production. The brightest star is an <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-12/basf-syngenta-said-among-bidders-for-bayer-monsanto-disposals">A$88 billion merger with German chemical company Bayer</a>, to be finalised this year.</p>
<p>Critics have described this as a “<a href="http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/manufacturing/bayer-monsanto-merger-an-88b-marriage-made-in-hell/news-story/23e17cf89cbf1a98a6c413410a6afd25">marriage made in hell</a>”. They fear the new mega-corporation will impose even more pesticides and genetically modified seeds on the world’s farmers.</p>
<p>Monsanto’s oft-stated aim is to <a href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/capture-smear-contaminate-the-politics-of-gmos/5459021">“consolidate the entire food chain”</a>. That means a corporatised food regime that concentrates knowledge and power in the hands of a few.</p>
<p>This cedes control of food security to profit-making companies. The democratic governance of food and agriculture policy is under threat.</p>
<h2>The myth of scarcity</h2>
<p>Framing market opportunities as moral imperatives, the agribusiness narrative is to “<a href="https://static.ewg.org/reports/2016/feeding_the_world/EWG_FeedingTheWorld.pdf?_ga=2.136434672.1539845188.1496713081-816214048.1496713081">feed the world</a>”. That’s while making exorbitant profits at the expense of small-scale farmers and consumer health.</p>
<p>The rhetoric of scarcity is hollow; <a href="http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/est/Investment/Agriculture_at_a_Crossroads_Global_Report_IAASTD.pdf">excess production</a> is the problem. The food industry is a major contributor to overproduction, food insecurity and environmental degradation.</p>
<p>This includes the production of up to one-third of <a href="https://www.nature.com/news/one-third-of-our-greenhouse-gas-emissions-come-from-agriculture-1.11708">global greenhouse gas emissions</a>, when fertiliser production, food storage, and packaging are included.</p>
<p>Yet “Big Ag” is committed to raising output, intensification of farming, mass processing, mass marketing, homogeneity of product, monocultures, and chemical and pharmaceutical solutions.</p>
<p>The post-truth claim that the powerful US agribusiness lobby uses to justify these practices is that America’s farmers <a href="https://static.ewg.org/reports/2016/feeding_the_world/EWG_FeedingTheWorld.pdf?_ga=2.136434672.1539845188.1496713081-816214048.1496713081">must double grain and meat production</a> to meet the needs of a global population of 9 billion by 2050.</p>
<p>In reality, the surplus, heavily subsidised production of the US grain-livestock complex makes little contribution to ending global hunger and malnutrition. Some <a href="https://static.ewg.org/reports/2016/feeding_the_world/EWG_FeedingTheWorld.pdf?_ga=2.136434%20672.1539845188.1496713081-816214048.1496713081">90% of US exports</a> go to countries where people can afford to buy food.</p>
<h2>The corporate capture of climate change</h2>
<p>Ironically, a new enemy within threatens Big Ag’s market opportunities. </p>
<p>When US President Donald Trump met his election commitments by stepping out of the Paris Agreement on June 2, 2017, he stepped on some big toes. Following Trump’s election, Monsanto and Du Pont had joined more than 360 US-based multinationals in signing a letter to Trump demanding action on climate change: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Implementing the Paris Agreement will enable and encourage businesses and investors to turn the billions of dollars in existing low-carbon investments into the trillions of dollars the world needs to bring clean energy and prosperity to all.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The altruism of these motives is questionable, given the profits to be made in the corporate capture of climate change. The low-carbon economy is big business.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.adm.com/en-US/company/Pages/overview.aspx">Archer Daniels Midland</a>, which bills itself as “supermarket to the world”, is investing in carbon capture and sequestration projects with the aim of reducing emissions and storing them underground.</p>
<p>Bayer is <a href="https://www.cropscience.bayer.com/en/crop-compendium/key-crops/oilseeds">developing</a> stress-tolerant oilseeds, maize and wheat varieties that will cope with extreme weather.</p>
<p>Global Swiss agro corp Syngenta’s <a href="http://www4.syngenta.com/what-we-do/the-good-growth-plan">Good Growth Plan</a> assures us the private sector can deliver on “the promise of sustainable and inclusive development” while mitigating the effects of climate change.</p>
<h2>If you tell the same story five times, it’s true …</h2>
<p>Rising global temperatures will bring new varieties of pests and disease, and a new twist on the time-worn post-truth spin that pesticides are the solution to feeding a fast-growing population. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173913/original/file-20170615-21345-7oggf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173913/original/file-20170615-21345-7oggf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173913/original/file-20170615-21345-7oggf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=745&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173913/original/file-20170615-21345-7oggf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=745&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173913/original/file-20170615-21345-7oggf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=745&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173913/original/file-20170615-21345-7oggf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=936&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173913/original/file-20170615-21345-7oggf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=936&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173913/original/file-20170615-21345-7oggf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=936&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
pesticide business is huge, despite the increasingly well-documented evidence of the harm it does.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/jz909/1450513463/">jetsandzeppelins/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In a report in March this year, the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation <a href="https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G17/017/85/PDF/G1701785.pdf">publicly dismissed</a> this claim. The report cites evidence that pesticides cause 200,000 deaths a year.</p>
<p>In the report, the UN special rapporteur for the right to food, Hilal Elvar, says global corporations manufacturing pesticides are guilty of “systematic denial of harms” and “aggressive, unethical marketing tactics”.</p>
<p>She condemns lobbying practices that have “obstructed reforms and paralysed pesticide restrictions”. Companies infiltrate federal regulatory agencies via “revolving doors” and “cultivate strategic public-private partnerships that call into question their culpability or help bolster the companies’ credibility”.</p>
<p>This credibility is propped up by networks of academics and regulators recruited as consultants. In accepting corporate funding and signing confidentiality agreements, scientists sacrifice autonomy and are co-opted into disinformation campaigns that support Big Ag agendas, at the cost of their ethics.</p>
<p>For example, when bee scientist James Cresswell presented findings that linked Syngenta pesticides to colony collapse, he was pressured “<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/31/business/scientists-loved-and-loathed-by-syngenta-an-agrochemical-giant.html?_r=1">to consider new data and a different approach</a>” in his industry-sponsored research. The “Faustian bargain” he had made cost him dearly.</p>
<p>Some are brave enough to call out post-truth claims. Angelika Hilbeck found toxins in genetically modified corn killed lacewing bugs as well as pests. Scientists like her are <a href="https://geneticliteracyproject.org/glp-facts/angelika-hilbeck-ecologist-claims-agri-corporations-stalk-claiming-gmos-dangerous/">labelled</a> “ideological researchers” and part of the “extremist organic movement”.</p>
<h2>World views collide</h2>
<p>This frank dismissal of alternative production systems represents a collision between competing frames, stakes and forms of expertise in food and agriculture policy.</p>
<p>Big Ag relies on the myth that large-scale, conventional agriculture generates higher yields and is more efficient than small-scale, family farms. Yet the latter produce <a href="http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/hlpe/hlpe_documents/HLPE_Reports/HLPE-Report-%206_Investing_in_smallholder_agriculture.pdf">more than three-quarters of the world’s food</a>.</p>
<p>Concerns about the lack of sustainability and resilience of industrial farming practices has led to critical questions about the way we produce food. Notably, in 2008 the Internal Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) recognised the need for changes in “<a href="http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/est/Investment/Agriculture_at_a_Crossroads_Global_Report_IAASTD.pdf">paradigms and values</a>” to include alternative, agro-ecological production systems.</p>
<p>A multi-year study involving 44 scientists from more than 60 countries, the IAASTD considers the political conditions that contribute to food insecurity. This includes damaging structural adjustment policies and unfair international trade agreements.</p>
<p>The findings highlight how poverty rates, levels of education, knowledge of nutrition, war and conflict marginalise those most vulnerable to hunger and malnutrition. Importantly, the report emphasises that critical communities, by raising questions of ownership and control of technologies, play a vital role in food systems governance.</p>
<p>These include the global peasant farmers’ movement <a href="https://viacampesina.org/en/index.php">La Via Campesina</a>, which openly rejects climate-smart rhetoric as <a href="http://sydney.edu.au/environment-institute/blog/whats-%20wrong-with-%20climate-smart-%20agriculture/">promotion of an agribusiness agenda</a>.</p>
<p>Promoting the concept of food sovereignty, La Via Campesina denies simplistic linkages between population growth, climate change, conflict, and resource scarcity. We are reminded that technological solutions are not neutral. The <a href="https://nyeleni.org/spip.php?article290">2007 Nyeleni Declaration</a> of the Forum for Food Sovereignty asserts:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>the right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and their right to define their own food and agricultural systems.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>These farmers are the vanguard of resistance to Big Ag’s efforts to further intensify agricultural production at the expense of people and environments.
We have a responsibility to join them in challenging the logic of an industrial food system that is about growth at all costs.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>You can read other pieces in the post-truth series <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/post-truth-initiative-38606">here</a>.</em> </p>
<p><em>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/democracy-futures">Democracy Futures</a> series is a <a href="http://sydneydemocracynetwork.org/democracy-futures/">joint global initiative</a> between The Conversation and the <a href="http://sydneydemocracynetwork.org/">Sydney Democracy Network</a>. The project aims to stimulate fresh thinking about the many challenges facing democracies in the 21st century.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/78256/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alana Mann is affiliated with the Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance.</span></em></p>The global food system has been operating in post-truth mode for decades.Alana Mann, Chair of Department, Media and Communications, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/728652017-02-15T19:09:05Z2017-02-15T19:09:05ZPerceptions of genetically modified food are informed by more than just science<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156891/original/image-20170215-19609-1ke9zpm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">There are many considerations that go into buying food, and science is just one.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>When people don’t seem to use science to make decisions, it is tempting to assume that it’s because they don’t understand the underlying science. In response, scientists and science communicators often just try harder to explain the science in the hope that eventually the facts will persuade people to change their behaviours or beliefs. This is known as “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_deficit_model">the deficit model</a>” of science communication.</p>
<p>While there have been many attempts in science communication to move away from the deficit model, it continues to persist, partly because we still don’t really understand the different ways in which people interact with science in their everyday lives. </p>
<p>Even the idea that there is a single body of knowledge known as “science” is problematic: various sciences have different ways of weighing up evidence or looking at things such as risk. </p>
<p>Another issue is that people have multiple roles that affect the ways they make decisions: citizen, consumer, scientist, and carer, to name a few. And finally, <a href="https://theconversation.com/to-tackle-the-post-truth-world-science-must-reform-itself-70455">the role of science in our “post-truth” world</a> is more contentious than ever.</p>
<h2>Perceptions of harm versus safety</h2>
<p><a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14636778.2017.1287561">Our recent qualitative research on women’s attitudes</a> to genetically modified (GM) food attempts to unpack a few of these issues. We wondered how women involved in the production of GM crops made their food choices, whether they used “science” when they chose food for themselves and their families, and whether their decision-making was different from that of women with less science education. </p>
<p>We looked specifically at women because previous research had shown them to be <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2005.00441.x/abstract">generally more negative about GM foods</a> because they tend to have less education in science, and because they often have caring roles that tend to make them more concerned with food risks. Women are also more involved, generally speaking, with food provisioning.</p>
<p>Among our participants was a group of women with health science backgrounds, as well as plant scientists and women with lower levels of science education. </p>
<p>It was interesting that for all of the women in our study, they preferred food that was “natural” (as in unprocessed), locally produced, healthy and nutritious, and free from additives. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156894/original/image-20170215-19589-2iwg0d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156894/original/image-20170215-19589-2iwg0d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156894/original/image-20170215-19589-2iwg0d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156894/original/image-20170215-19589-2iwg0d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156894/original/image-20170215-19589-2iwg0d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156894/original/image-20170215-19589-2iwg0d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156894/original/image-20170215-19589-2iwg0d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156894/original/image-20170215-19589-2iwg0d.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">Many people value ‘natural’ foods, although what qualifies as ‘natural’ varies from person to person.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Ruth Hartnup/Flickr</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A key difference between them was that the plant scientists did not see food made using GM techniques to be in conflict with any of these categories, and were not worried about eating GM food. </p>
<p>But almost all of the other women in the study – even the highly science-literate women who worked in health science – saw GM food as being in conflict with these core food values.</p>
<p>All of the women with science backgrounds used evidence to support their stance. The plant scientists said that lack of evidence <em>of harm</em> meant that GM food was safe for them to eat. However, the women in health sciences said that a lack of evidence <em>of safety</em> made them cautious. </p>
<p>Note that these are two very different perceptions of risk, which we think may be a result of the women’s different disciplinary backgrounds. For women without science backgrounds, GM food presented unknown risks, and as such was to be avoided. </p>
<p>It is important to remember that all of the women in our study had multiple roles that also <a href="http://muse.jhu.edu/article/612145">influenced their food choices</a>. Most were carers of others who were factored into their food choices: children, elderly parents, and partners. Price, familiarity of brands, and allergies and other dietary needs were all important.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156893/original/image-20170215-19595-15xiisq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156893/original/image-20170215-19595-15xiisq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156893/original/image-20170215-19595-15xiisq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=270&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156893/original/image-20170215-19595-15xiisq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=270&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156893/original/image-20170215-19595-15xiisq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=270&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156893/original/image-20170215-19595-15xiisq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=340&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156893/original/image-20170215-19595-15xiisq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=340&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156893/original/image-20170215-19595-15xiisq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=340&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Canola is one of the crops that can involve genetic modification.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Paul/Flickr</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Multiple dimensions</h2>
<p>As researchers keen to foster engagement around the role of science and technology in food production, we feel that this research holds several lessons for science communication. </p>
<p>First, it is important to remember that everyday decisions that involve science don’t occur in a vacuum, and that the multiple roles each of us plays also influence our choices. </p>
<p>Second, there is not one singular body of knowledge called “science” with which people engage. Helping people to navigate different disciplinary approaches to risk is particularly important. </p>
<p>Third, one of the consequences of the deficit model has been to limit conversations about GM foods to how they are made, and how risk is assessed by regulators, rather than discussion of broader issues. </p>
<p>This simplistic framing was particularly frustrating for the women in our study with science backgrounds. They wanted a much more sophisticated conversation about GM food than is currently happening in the public domain.</p>
<p>But most importantly, our work points to shared food values between those who eat, and those who do not eat, GM foods. Shared values are an important foundation for engagement, and we believe that our work can contribute to the development of better engagement strategies across different sciences and sectors of the public.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/72865/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>This work was supported by funding from the former Australian Government Department of Industry,
Innovation, Science and Research’s National Enabling Technologies Strategy’s (NETS) Public
Awareness and Community Engagement Program, administered by the Government of South Australia,
Science and Information Economy, Department of Further Education, Employment, Science and
Technology (DFEEST).
Heather Bray is supported by funding from the Australian Research Council to work with Prof Rachel Ankeny on projects on ethical food choices, social aspects of genetic modification and animal welfare issues. She was Public Engagement Officer with the Waite Research Institute between 2011 and 2014 and between 2003 and 2010 she developed and delivered community and schools education programs on GM crops for the Molecular Plant Breeding CRC.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rachel A. Ankeny received funding for this work from the former Australian Government Department of Industry, Innovation, Science and Research’s National Enabling Technologies Strategy’s (NETS) Public Awareness and Community Engagement Program, administered by the Government of South Australia, Science and Information Economy, Department of Further Education, Employment, Science and Technology (DFEEST). She also receives funding from the Australian Research Council for research projects on ethical food choices, social aspects of genetic modification, and animal welfare issues. </span></em></p>Informing people about genetically modified food means more than dumping more facts on them.Heather Bray, Senior Research Associate, University of AdelaideRachel A. Ankeny, Professor of History, University of AdelaideLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/719162017-01-26T18:25:34Z2017-01-26T18:25:34ZScientists have unlocked the secret of making tomatoes taste of something again<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/154388/original/image-20170126-30424-1annqdy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>If you shop in a supermarket you may well have asked why the fruit and veg you buy there is so tasteless, especially if you’ve also tried homegrown alternatives. Traditional breeds of tomatoes usually grown in gardens, known as heirloom tomatoes, for example, are often small and strangely shaped and coloured but renowned for their delicious taste. Those in the supermarkets, meanwhile, are often pumped up in size but somewhat insipid to eat.</p>
<p>This is because plants used by most tomato farms have gone through an intensive artificial selection process to breed fruit that are big, red and round – but at the expense of taste. Now a 20-strong international research team <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi/10.1126/science.aal1556">have identified</a> the chemical compounds responsible for the rich flavour of heirloom tomatoes and the genes that produce them. This information could provide a way for farmers to grow tomatoes that taste of something again.</p>
<p>The unique flavour of a tomato is determined by specific airborne molecules called volatiles, which emanate from flavour chemicals in the fruit. By asking a panel of consumers to rate over a hundred varieties of tomato, the researchers identified 13 volatiles that play an important role in producing the most appealing flavours. They also found that these molecules were significantly reduced in modern tomato varieties compared to the heirloom ones. And they found that bigger tomatoes tended to have less sugar, another reason why large supermarket fruits often fail to inspire.</p>
<p>Tomatoes <a href="https://academic.oup.com/aob/article/100/5/1085/136832/Domestication-and-Breeding-of-Tomatoes-What-have">originally hail</a> from the Andean region of South America and belong to the Solanaceae family, making them relatively close relations of potatoes and peppers. The original, ancestral tomato was very small, more like a pea, showing just how much human intervention has swollen the fruit. We don’t know how long they have been grown for human consumption but they had reached an advanced stage of domestication by the 15th century when they were taken to Europe.</p>
<p>Before the 20th century, tomato varieties were commonly developed in families and small communities (which <a href="http://www.salon.com/2015/06/14/heirloom_tomatoes_bizarre_evolution_the_secret_history_of_the_tastiest_summer_treat/">explains the name “heirloom</a>”). With the industrialisation of farming, the <a href="http://www.actahort.org/members/showpdf?booknrarnr=100_1">serious business of tomato breeding</a> began with intensive selection for fruit size and shelf life. </p>
<p>Some <a href="https://academic.oup.com/aob/article/100/5/1085/136832/Domestication-and-Breeding-of-Tomatoes-What-have">more recent effort</a> has been put into improving the flavour of tomatoes through breeding. But the new research appears to indicate that this has ultimately been unsuccessful and that earlier breeding efforts have doomed modern commercial varieties to mediocrity. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/154391/original/image-20170126-30413-1r3vpik.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/154391/original/image-20170126-30413-1r3vpik.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154391/original/image-20170126-30413-1r3vpik.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154391/original/image-20170126-30413-1r3vpik.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154391/original/image-20170126-30413-1r3vpik.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154391/original/image-20170126-30413-1r3vpik.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154391/original/image-20170126-30413-1r3vpik.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Family heirlooms.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The new paper, <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi/10.1126/science.aal1556">published in Science</a>, emphasises what seems to be a constant conflict between the food industry’s desire for profit and what the public actually want. The researchers tactfully excuse the way tomatoes have been bred for size and shelf-life at the expense of taste as being down to breeders’ inability to analyse the fruit’s chemical composition and find the right volatiles.</p>
<p>But many people will find this hard to swallow. After all, the new research itself used the most ancient volatile analysis system there is: the human taster. It wouldn’t have taken much for farmers to incorporate taste trials into their breeding programmes.</p>
<p>Because modern farmed tomatoes have only lost their flavour in the last hundred years or so and varieties are still available that produce the tasty volatiles, it should be possible to reinsert the crucial taste genes back into commercial varieties. This could be done by genetic modification or conventional breeding. Just as we are seeing a resurgence in <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/ed0edb8e-d9ab-11e5-a72f-1e7744c66818">organic and artisan growing</a>, it would be great to see a new generation of tomato breeders interested in returning flavour to the fruit using wild and heirloom varieties, while maintaining other commercially desirable traits. </p>
<p>There is significant <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-scientists-failure-to-understand-gm-opposition-is-stifling-debate-and-halting-progress-62142">public opposition</a> to the idea of genetically modifying foods by inserting genes into a plant’s DNA in the lab. But the idea of reinserting lost genes <a href="https://theconversation.com/all-our-food-is-genetically-modified-in-some-way-where-do-you-draw-the-line-56256">may be more palatable</a> to the public than introducing completely new ones. Either way, it shows how perverse the food industry’s methods are that we may need to use one of the world’s most advanced technologies to give an inherently delicious food some flavour.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/71916/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Colin Tosh receives funding from the UK Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) and previously has recived grants from the UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC). He is active at a local level with the Green Party, England and Wales. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Niall Conboy receives funding from BBSRC</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Thomas McDaniel receives funding from BBSRC. </span></em></p>New research pinpoints the genes that could counteract decades of bland breeding.Colin Tosh, Lecturer in Ecology, Evolution and Computational Biology, Newcastle UniversityNiall Conboy, PhD candidate, Newcastle UniversityThomas McDaniel, PhD candidate, Newcastle UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/615602016-06-24T21:30:23Z2016-06-24T21:30:23ZWhy the GM food labeling debate is not over<p>The U.S. Senate this week reached a compromise to require food manufacturers to label foods that contain genetically modified (GM) ingredients, a bill that would preempt state-level laws. The <a href="http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/06/23/483290269/senate-unveils-a-national-gmo-labeling-bill">deal</a> comes only one week before Vermont’s law to require GM food labeling will go into effect. If the Senate compromise bill is voted on and passed by a supermajority and signed into law by President Obama, Vermont’s law will be superseded.</p>
<p>The Vermont law stipulates a positive declaration – that is, a label must indicate there are some ingredients are genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The Senate proposal, which <a href="https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/roberts-stabenow-reach-deal-gmo-labeling#.V2xPNvmgZ28.mailto">backers</a> said is meant to avoid a patchwork of state laws, gives food manufacturers a number of options for how to disclose which products have GM ingredients. Companies could place text on labels, offer a Quick Response (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QR_code">QR</a>) code that would be read with a smartphone or provide a phone number or website with more information. Organic products can be <a href="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article85533907.html">labeled</a> “non-GMO.”</p>
<p>Although the Vermont law and the Senate bill bring the question of labeling to the forefront, the debate over GM food and consumer education has been percolating for some 25 years. </p>
<p>I have studied the social science research about whether and how GM foods should be labeled. In my view, the proposed federal legislation, while consistent across the country, makes it very difficult for consumers to obtain the information they want to know – namely, whether a product has been produced using GM technology or ingredients. </p>
<h2>What labels convey</h2>
<p>In a 2013 <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.4161/gmcr.26163">study</a>, Arizona State University professors Gary Marchant and Guy Cardineu identified five issues that are important to the decision of whether or not to label: </p>
<ul>
<li>public opinion </li>
<li>consumer choice </li>
<li>the legality of labeling requirements</li>
<li>costs and benefits of labeling, and </li>
<li>risks and benefits of GM foods. </li>
</ul>
<p>They concluded: “While the case for GM labeling seems compelling on first appearance, a closer examination of the scientific, legal, economic and policy arguments and evidence demonstrates that compulsory GM labeling is unwarranted, unnecessary and being manipulated by a cynical and self-serving campaign funded and organized by the organic food industry.” </p>
<p>But I have examined the current state of evidence and have come to the opposite conclusion, as have American courts and several major corporations.</p>
<p>For starters, for at least 15 years, research surveys have found that consumers desire labeling. This has been indicated by <a href="http://4bgr3aepis44c9bxt1ulxsyq.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/foodpoll2008.pdf">Consumer</a> <a href="http://4bgr3aepis44c9bxt1ulxsyq.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/2014_GMO_survey_report.pdf">Reports</a>, my <a href="http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.468.9987&rep=rep1&type=pdf">own research</a> and <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97567">many</a> <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/aepp/ppt015">others</a>. Public opinion is on the <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2990/32_1_73">side of labeling</a>.</p>
<p>Labels play a significant role in <a href="http://www.agbioforum.org">facilitating consumer choice</a> in the case of credence goods. These are goods for that consumers cannot determine, through search nor experience, whether a product contains an attribute or quality they prefer, such as the use of GM technology. Labels convey to consumers a <a href="http://econpapers.repec.org/article/ucpjpolec/v_3a82_3ay_3a1974_3ai_3a4_3ap_3a729-54.htm">desired or undesired attribute</a>.</p>
<p>On the question of legality of labeling requirements, it is worth noting that legal arguments against labeling have failed. Challenged by the Grocery Manufacturer’s Association of America and several other trade groups, the Vermont law was <a href="http://www.agweb.com/blog/ag-in-the-courtroom/recapping-round-1-of-the-vermont-gmo-labeling-lawsuit/">upheld in April 2015</a>. And, while bill HR 1599 passed the U.S. House of Representatives in July of 2015, which would have prohibited states from promulgating their own labeling laws, it <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/17/business/bill-to-stop-states-requiring-labeling-of-gmo-foods-fails.html">failed to pass the U.S Senate</a> in March 2016.</p>
<p>Also, there is no published evidence that GM labels will increase the cost of food. Reports, funded by industry, advocacy and consumer groups have estimated cost ranges between <a href="https://consumersunion.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/GMO_labeling_cost_findings_Exe_Summ.pdf">zero and US$500 per year for a family of four</a>.</p>
<p>But the Campbell’s company has publicly stated the cost of labeling is negligible. If there are costs, they will not be passed on to consumers. Company spokesman Tom Hushen <a href="https://www.organicconsumers.org/blog/campbell%E2%80%99s-will-label-gmos%E2%80%94and-sky-will-not-fall">said</a>, “To be clear, there will be no price increase as a result of Vermont or national GMO labeling for Campbell products.”</p>
<h2>Changing corporate positions</h2>
<p>That leaves only Marchant and Cardineu’s fifth point: the risks and benefits of GM foods. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine earlier this year released an <a href="https://theconversation.com/new-report-on-ge-crops-avoids-simple-answers-and-thats-the-point-study-members-say-59289">exhaustive report</a> on GM foods and found there is no evidence of health risks from genetically modified ingredients.</p>
<p>But pro-GM labeling advocates have not used the GM safety issue in their arguments. Instead, they focus on consumers’ right to know what is in their food and how it is produced.</p>
<p>Several major corporations, which have previously spent millions of dollars to defeat mandatory GM labels, have indicated they will label their products or have already. Campbell’s, General Mills, Kellogg’s, Mars and ConAgra had said <a href="http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/2016/04/02/companies-begin-embracing-gmo-labeling/82267542/">they would label</a> their products nationwide in order to be in compliance with Vermont’s anticipated law. PepsiCo and Frito Lay have quietly <a href="https://consumerist.com/2016/05/11/pepsi-frito-lay-quietly-adding-gmo-ingredient-labels-to-some-foods/">begun to label</a> already without public fanfare.</p>
<p>Campbell’s President and CEO Denise Morrison <a href="http://www.campbellsoupcompany.com/newsroom/news/2016/01/07/labeling/">said in a statement</a>, “Our decision (to label) was guided by our Purpose; rooted in our consumer-first mindset; and driven by our commitment to transparency – to be open and honest about our food. I truly believe it is the right thing to do for consumers and for our business.” </p>
<p>However, the Senate proposal, if it comes into law, does not make it easy for consumers to actually find out whether a product has GM contents at the supermarket.</p>
<p>One food manufacturing company may choose a QR code, another a label, another a symbol and another a toll-free number. If consumers do not see a disclosure using words, as the Vermont law requires, they look for a symbol. If they don’t see a symbol, they scan the product with a smartphone or call a telephone number. If that doesn’t provide information, they go to a website. For a consumer purchasing multiple products, this will be a cumbersome process. While it has been said that Vermont’s law, in isolation, <a href="http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/282763-assaults-on-modern-agriculture">may cause chaos for industry</a>, as proposed, the compromise bill will cause chaos for consumers seeking more transparency in the food system.</p>
<p>In the months ahead, we will see whether the Senate bill is turned into law and how food makers choose to comply with any disclosure requirements. But given the strong consumer support for labeling, it is unlikely that the debate over GM food labeling will die down.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/61560/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jane Kolodinsky receives funding from USDA. She provided a literature review on consumer perceptions of the word natural related to GMOs for the VT Attorney General and has consulted with them on origin labels. She is a professor at the University of Vermont and Directs their Center for Rural Studies/Food Systems Research Collaborative. She has conducted research on the issue of the economics of information for almost 30 years. </span></em></p>Lawmakers reach a deal on national labeling rules for foods that contain GMOs, but if passed, it won’t give consumers what research has shown consumers want.Jane Kolodinsky, Professor and Chair Community Development and Applied Economics, University of VermontLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/565302016-06-24T14:42:45Z2016-06-24T14:42:45ZWhat consumers want in GM food labeling is simpler than you think<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127835/original/image-20160622-7158-whqi66.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Social research shows that consumers want a say in GM food labeling. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/ctsenatedems/8777078498/in/photolist-enAPDC-aAWFte-mewcDs-aAZo1f-en2rKP-hRL2AF-o24vU2-22rMwT-dxDPTg-6RFrVE-emLR4X-F5FJYd-encnLw-emLSSH-fcATGZ-emLN3a-encmhd-nbFeP4-aAZodU-domMbu-enAWZf-emLY5e-emLWB4-emLQhp-eoj2RG-encwqf-emLNXR-eFuPac-eFuNX6-encz6N-emLNsF-encscu-emLWDB-emLYSB-nGdqwj-pHG6cJ-emLXhk-encwwQ-emLXK2-emLSkV-dBmsTC-emLPBD-emLYor-gvEQFy-nJ25cB-fk4oJw-axmtsC-etV6fy-dnf1dp-ofh6vU">ctsenatedems/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The fast-approaching July 1, 2016, deadline for Vermont’s new labeling law – and a new federal proposal that would set a <a href="http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/06/23/483290269/senate-unveils-a-national-gmo-labeling-bill">national system for disclosure</a> – for genetically modified (GM) food has provoked a range of responses from food manufacturers while reigniting debate about the need to balance the weight of scientific evidence against consumer demand for transparency. At the center of the debate lay questions of trust in science and how the ways we communicate risk serve to increase or decrease that trust. </p>
<p>On the industry side, in January, Campbell declared support for <a href="http://www.campbellsoupcompany.com/newsroom/news/2016/01/07/labeling/">mandatory labeling for products containing GM ingredients</a>, and in March, General Mills announced its own intent to <a href="https://www.generalmills.com/News/Issues/on-biotechnology">voluntarily label GM food products</a>. Other big players, such as chocolatier Mars, have made similar <a href="http://www.mars.com/global/about-us/policies-and-practices/gmo-policy">announcements</a>. With Vermont’s labeling law looming, General Mills and others have appeared to focus their efforts on arguing for a nationwide approach to GM food labeling. </p>
<p>Perhaps not coincidentally, General Mills’ announcement came only days after the failed efforts by the U.S. House and some members of the U.S. Senate to ban states from requiring mandatory GM food labeling. Specifically, the House bill would have prohibited states from requiring GM food labeling on the basis that informing them is not <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1599">“necessary to protect public health and safety or to prevent the label from being false or misleading.”</a> The Senate bill sought to establish voluntary labeling standards for GM foods, an effort that ultimately expired due to <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/opposition-stalls-gmo-food-labeling-bill-us-senate">lack of needed support</a>. </p>
<p>As the debate over GM food labeling continues to rage, it’s worth looking at the reasons consumers support or oppose labeling. A body of communication research, including a recent study we co-authored, suggests that consumers’ views on GM foods reflect their values and how information about labeling is communicated to them more than the actual science. </p>
<h2>Shouldn’t latest science settle it?</h2>
<p>The fault lines over GM food labeling at this point are well-established. </p>
<p>On the one hand, labeling proponents argue that consumers have the <a href="http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2016/03/124802/#.V2rHeZMrI6g">right to know</a> what is in the food they purchase so as to avoid possible health risks associated with GM ingredients. Others argue that labeling gives consumers the ability to avoid GM ingredients as a larger ideological statement about agro-food industry. </p>
<p>More generally, one could say that resistance to labeling flies against consumer demand in an age when experts admonish us to read nutrition labels to watch our sugar intake and avoid certain types of fats. Also, not telling people makes it look like there is something that the food manufacturers are hiding, which can damage the trust consumers place in them. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127838/original/image-20160622-7175-1jm2vz0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127838/original/image-20160622-7175-1jm2vz0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127838/original/image-20160622-7175-1jm2vz0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127838/original/image-20160622-7175-1jm2vz0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127838/original/image-20160622-7175-1jm2vz0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127838/original/image-20160622-7175-1jm2vz0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127838/original/image-20160622-7175-1jm2vz0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127838/original/image-20160622-7175-1jm2vz0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Campbell’s is one food company that has come out in support of labeling genetically modified ingredients in foods, despite the fact that scientific reviews do not show any harm to human health.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/scjn/11969323654/in/photolist-j7u8wJ-dAZEwX-qJT9mH-8Pqijw-mabeTx-jeFUVd-8aBmdL-jbrrkZ-9s54D-8aBm4s-7pKv3G-7FHswk-5Uzeat-48V57s-qiTEkC-qap3o3-pmKmdU-fVnQ62-q9Kgqx-ont589-p38XLp-ctkEGE-2R7zbX-qxczwx-jhtXgn-kvnaDL-nZ4N9y-hc9w1f-n2mvyk-8VA5Sw-fS7Txw-HRhJMw-gFK7rw-3ZtJF-DAgsKP-4C8kXz-7983Dc-5ErcXJ-6iZQ9U-i2TF1-6iZQmq-6iZQx7-dpYqaK-2CXULP-2twVSL-tUdKu8-7q4b8w-frx1E-2mEua3-2eDSA7">scjn/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>On the other hand, labeling opponents point to a lack of scientific evidence that GM ingredients are harmful to public health or the environment and argue that labeling will present an unnecessary financial burden on food manufacturers. Others note that consumers who wish to avoid food with GM ingredients <a href="http://people.forestry.oregonstate.edu/steve-strauss/sites/people.forestry.oregonstate.edu.steve-strauss/files/Strauss%20-%20GMO%20labeling%20summary%20-%20Univ%20N%20TX%20-%20Oct%202014.pdf">already have the option to purchase organic food products</a>, which provide non-GM options. </p>
<p>Regarding the balance of scientific evidence on safety, a recently released <a href="http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=23395">National Academies of Sciences (NAS) report</a> would seem to <a href="https://theconversation.com/new-report-on-ge-crops-avoids-simple-answers-and-thats-the-point-study-members-say-59289">lay to rest the issue</a>. Its exhaustive review of over 900 scientific publications found, among other things, no solid findings showing a difference between the health risks of eating genetically engineered or conventionally bred food ingredients. </p>
<p>It is doubtful, however, that the NAS report will entirely remove public doubt about the risks or demands for labeling. </p>
<p>Research on public risk perceptions <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/236/4799/280">shows</a> that it is not only the objective scientific assessment of risk that matters but also the subjective qualities of risk. These include whether people have control over their exposure to potential risks and whether they believe the risks are well-understood by scientists. Trust in the risk managers is also key, and people want to have a voice in decisions that ultimately affect them. </p>
<h2>Value of consumer involvement</h2>
<p>In terms of risk perceptions, results from a 2015 Pew Center study found that 57 percent of Americans did not believe that GM foods are safe. The Pew study found that 67 percent do not believe that scientists yet have a clear understanding of the public health implications of GM foods. Indeed, the Pew study found that the strongest predictor of believing that GM foods are safe is whether people believe scientists have a <a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/07/01/chapter-6-public-opinion-about-food/">clear understanding of the risks</a>. </p>
<p>In comparison, 88 percent of scientists with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) <a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/pi_2015-01-29_science-and-society-00-01/">believed GM foods to be safe</a>.</p>
<p>Some may see this opinion divide as evidence of an irrational public. We see it as evidence of communication processes that have paid inadequate attention to how consumers’ values affect risk-based decision making. </p>
<p>Rather than having a voice in the decisions, consumers are mostly asked to trust the experts, typically a faceless government institution or regulatory body. This can lead to a disconnect in what scientists and consumers consider the relevant facts in a decision.</p>
<p>Our <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2015.1118149">own research</a>, recently published in the Journal of Risk Research, found that people are much more supportive of a labeling decision (regardless of the outcome) when they were told that food companies had considered public input before making their decision. Therefore, recounting consumers’ influence in GM labeling decisions is an important factor on how people support the decisions.</p>
<p>Examples show how some organizations are recognizing the importance of conveying this information. In the <a href="http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=23395.">press release</a> accompanying the recent NAS report, Committee Chair Fred Gould offered this statement: that the committee “focused on listening carefully and responding thoughtfully to members of the public who have concerns about GE crops and foods….” </p>
<p>Similarly, Campbell’s President and Chief Executive Officer Denise Morrison said in a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/08/business/campbell-labels-will-disclose-gmo-ingredients.html?_r=0">New York Times article</a> about the food manufacturer’s labeling decision, “We’ve always believed consumers have a right to know what’s in their food…. We know that 92 percent of Americans support G.M.O. labeling, and transparency is a critical part of our purpose.” </p>
<p>Examining the effect of these statements remain questions for future research. Our previous work would suggest, however, that underscoring how public input was considered may likely lead to greater support for the NAS conclusions or Campbell’s decision, even if people do not wholly endorse the outcomes. </p>
<p>Although transparency is not a cure-all, including people in the decision-making process and providing information about how an organization reached its decision can lead to greater decision acceptance. </p>
<p>To this end, incorporating consumers’ values in decisions that affect them, such as what ingredients manufacturers put in their food products, and communicating that back to the public can go a long way toward building trust and bridging the gaps between scientific and public understanding of risk.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/56530/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Katherine McComas has received funding from the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the U.S. National Parks Service. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Graham Dixon receives funding from the National Science Foundation. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Besley receives funding from the Department of Agriculture.</span></em></p>The Senate has just reached an agreement for a national system to label foods with genetically modified ingredients. What do consumers actually want from GM food labeling?Katherine McComas, Professor of Communication, Cornell UniversityGraham Dixon, Assistant Professor of Science and Risk Communication, Washington State UniversityJohn C. Besley, Associate Professor of Advertising and Public Relations, Michigan State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/596342016-06-09T14:42:32Z2016-06-09T14:42:32ZThe next ‘green revolution’ should focus on hunger – not profit<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125718/original/image-20160608-3516-1eg0dei.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=84%2C446%2C5319%2C2768&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">avemario / shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The “<a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=frNfVx-KZOcC&pg=PA1&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false">green revolution</a>” of the 1960s delivered vast increases in food production, averting famines and political instability across the world. There are now urgent appeals for a <a href="http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/population/2015-report.html">second green revolution</a> to make food more sustainable, involving climate-adapted crops (some genetically-modified), healthier soil and reduced chemical inputs. Sadly, incentives on offer for agri-tech firms mean our hopes of achieving such a revolution are under grave threat.</p>
<p>As was the case 50 years ago, those who grow our food are tasked with growing healthy plants in the face of drought, lack of nutrients, pests, and diseases. But this is where the similarity ends. In 2016, climate change is already hitting home, wreaking havoc with <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/341/6145/508.full.pdf+html">patterns of weather</a> and <a href="http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/60/10/2827">disease</a>. Furthermore, <a href="http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/population/2015-report.html">ten billion people</a> will need feeding by 2050, requiring us to produce as much food between now and then as has been produced in the <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/world-hunger-50-years-food-history/story?id=8736358">whole of human history</a>. </p>
<p>This isn’t just a technical problem for agricultural scientists. Alongside the challenge of supplying adequate calories in ever harsher environments, we must also tackle some deep-rooted obstacles to a fair and safe food supply.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125915/original/image-20160609-7074-wer8x5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125915/original/image-20160609-7074-wer8x5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125915/original/image-20160609-7074-wer8x5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125915/original/image-20160609-7074-wer8x5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125915/original/image-20160609-7074-wer8x5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125915/original/image-20160609-7074-wer8x5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=621&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125915/original/image-20160609-7074-wer8x5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=621&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125915/original/image-20160609-7074-wer8x5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=621&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">High-yielding wheat developed at government research institutes in the 1950s and 60s by Nobel-winner Norman Borlaug was distributed across the world – in particular famine-stricken India.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://blog.cimmyt.org/from-east-asia-to-south-asia-via-mexico-how-one-gene-changed-the-course-of-history/">CIMMYT</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The economic landscape of agricultural research is radically different to that which enabled the first green revolution. Today, it is overwhelmingly driven by an international private sector, whereas in the past government-funded institutes would develop and distribute better crops and farming techniques. </p>
<p>This shift away from state-funded research poses significant risks when government regulation threatens profits, as evidenced by the recent debate over the re-licencing of the herbicide glyphosate. The argument here should be about the trade-off between the weed-killing benefits of a chemical versus possible negative effects on <a href="http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045%2815%2970134-8/abstract">human health</a> and the <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0929139313001923">environment</a>. However, the profitability of glyphosate-containing herbicides and glyphosate-tolerant crop plants is dependent upon its legality. As a result, conflicts of interest between profits and safety are the true drivers of such controversies, leading to <a href="http://lobbyfacts.eu/">industrial-scale lobbying</a> by agri-tech which undermines the potential for EU regulators to make a balanced decision.</p>
<p>Of equal concern is the <a href="https://www.oecd.org/sti/sci-tech/24508541.pdf">rampant patenting of the biological resources</a> which underlie our food systems. As we obtain more and more information from crop genomes, the scientific process of sharing one’s research should facilitate huge improvements in crop production around the world. Instead, each additional level of biological information has provided a further opportunity for these crops to become ever more exclusive, based on the ability to pay for access rather than a requirement.</p>
<p>The profitability of patents is also distorting the priorities of agri-tech and research institutes. For instance, engineering so-called “resistance” genes into a crop suffering from a microbial disease is a <a href="http://www.google.com/patents/WO2003000906A2?cl=en">readily patentable process</a>. In addition, once a microbe evolves to overcome the resistance gene, the farmer must then purchase a different variety which has been genetically engineered with the next line of defence. Both of these factors have the potential to push research away from a more multi-layered approach to crop protection and more towards those “innovations” which can be licenced for profit.</p>
<p>Finally, the idea in most privatised sectors is that competition between different companies promotes innovation and maintains fair prices for consumers. This simply isn’t the case in agri-tech. At present, just <a href="http://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/files/etc_breakbad_23dec15.pdf">three companies</a> own a staggering 51% of the world’s agri-chemicals and 55% of the world’s commercial seed varieties. This situation is only worsening, as these <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/may/05/monsanto-dow-syngenta-rush-for-mega-mergers-puts-food-security-at-risk">companies seek mergers</a> to consolidate their market share and increase investment potential. </p>
<p>Such concentration of power over the price and distribution of products is rarely tolerated in other industries, and it is particularly worrying to see such a monopoly over our means to grow food. If access to the knowledge gained during the second green revolution is to be shaped by market forces, we should at least ensure that this is a market with competition.</p>
<p>It should be possible to avert a global food crisis, but we must start by <a href="https://theconversation.com/royal-society-president-gm-crops-feed-much-of-the-world-today-why-not-tomorrows-generations-59715">reframing the debate</a>. Most public discussion of food security is dominated by an anti-science lobby that is <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2014/may/27/gm-crops-food-security-calestous-juma-africa">highly sceptical</a> about the safety of GM-technology, when all GM crops really represent is a small part of a complex solution. </p>
<p>The deeper issue lies in the ownership of the technology we need to grow food, and the way that science and intellectual property have been misappropriated. We require nothing less than a total <a href="http://osseeds.org/faqs/">restructuring</a> of the global agri-tech sector – only then can we ensure billions more people can sustainably feed themselves.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/59634/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Will Buswell receives funding from the Leverhulme Trust, a charitable trust which provides grants and scholarships for research and education.</span></em></p>Ensuring the next 10 billion people are fed fairly will require a radical restructuring of global agri-tech.Will, PhD Student in Plant Immunity, University of SheffieldLicensed 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/513182015-12-08T19:08:34Z2015-12-08T19:08:34ZGM crops can benefit organic farmers too<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/104785/original/image-20151208-3139-cekgah.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Genetically modified soybeans.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Reuters/Bogdan Cristel</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Have you eaten organic food today? If you have eaten anything, then technically you’ve eaten organic. By definition, all food is organic, it just may not have been grown under industry standards, such as Australian Certified Organic (<a href="http://aco.net.au/">ACO</a>).</p>
<p>Most people who choose to eat certified organic do so because they believe it is cleaner and greener, or chemical free. But the most modern cultivated plants are genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and so are precluded from being certified organic.</p>
<p>The Australian Organic organisation <a href="http://austorganic.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Consumer_Standards_Final_21.pdf">says</a> that’s because there are no long-term studies on human health. </p>
<p>Prince Charles <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/3349308/Prince-Charles-warns-GM-crops-risk-causing-the-biggest-ever-environmental-disaster.html">has warned</a> that the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops is the biggest environmental disaster of all time.</p>
<p>The Australian Greens <a href="http://greens.org.au/GMO">argue that</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[…] genetically modified foods have still not been proven safe […] Crop yields have not increased, but the use of pesticides on our food has. The only ones profiting from GM are the large GM companies.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>But the research says different</h2>
<p>Perhaps the Greens need to brush up on the science behind their claims. In the most comprehensive meta-analysis (of 147 publications) to date, researchers from Goettingen University <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25365303">have concluded</a> that the adoption of GM technology has:</p>
<ul>
<li>Reduced pesticide use by 37%</li>
<li>Increased crop yield by 22%</li>
<li>Increased farmer profits by 68%.</li>
</ul>
<p>The yield and profit gains are considerably higher in developing countries than in developed countries, and 53% of GM crops are grown in developing countries. </p>
<p>A <a href="http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nicholas_Piggott/publication/237717600_THE_NET_BENEFITS_INCLUDING_CONVENIENCE_OF_ROUNDUP_READY_SOYBEANS_RESULTS_FROM_A_NATIONAL_SURVEY/links/5410fc760cf2df04e75d6c58.pdf">survey</a> in the United States uncovered great difference in motivation among farmers who adopted GM herbicide-resistant soybean. Farmers like the no-till and low chemical use attributes. Even when it did not increase profitability, they enjoyed the increase in farm safety and particularly the safety of their families when using less herbicide with very low toxicity.</p>
<p>A similar <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0169-5150.2005.00006.x/abstract">study</a> of the same soybeans in Argentina showed that total productivity increased by 10%, and more than half of the benefit had gone to the consumer.</p>
<p>In 2012, a joint Chinese-French <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7407/full/nature11153.html">study</a> on GM cotton showed that insecticide usage more than halved, and the survival of beneficial insects had a positive impact on pest control. Since they adopted genetically modified <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bt_cotton">Bt cotton</a>, India has been producing twice as much cotton from the same land area with 65% less insecticide.</p>
<h2>What do organic farmers really want?</h2>
<p>Organic farmers really do care for their land and want to balance their impact on the land with producing healthier foods and improving the health of the soil. </p>
<p>But organic farms use <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v485/n7397/full/nature11069.html">more land and labour</a> to produce the same amount of produce as conventional agriculture. That’s the major reason you <a href="http://www.news.com.au/finance/money/we-plough-millions-into-expensive-organic-food/story-fnagkbpv-1226578226483">pay more</a> for organic products. </p>
<p>Organic farmers will maintain that if you can improve soil health, you can reduce the impact of pests and diseases. In fact, most farmers in Australia will say that, organic or not. </p>
<p>It works for some of the soil-borne problems but, not surprisingly, weeds really like healthy soils too. And fungal spores, plant-eating insects and aphids harbouring pathogenic viruses can and will travel a long way to get a piece of those healthy plants.</p>
<p>With all crop production, there is an element of biological warfare. No matter how hard any farmer tries, her crop will often need a little help to fight back.</p>
<h2>All farmers use some ‘inputs’</h2>
<p>So reluctantly, there will come a time when a farmer will have to use chemicals, or allowed “inputs” (remember that organic agriculture is chemical-free). They include things such as copper, rotenone, acetic acid, light petroleum derivatives, sodium chloride, boric acid and sulfur. </p>
<p>Different organic certifiers allow different “inputs”. Let’s use the case of the potato, which infamously succumbed to potato blight and precipitated the great Irish diaspora of the 19th century. </p>
<p>Potato blight is still around and organic potatoes succumb just like others, so farmers are allowed to apply copper sprays to control the fungus. After repeated applications, some soils accumulated toxic levels of copper, hence in 2001 the European Union (EU) and Australian organic certifiers limited application to 8kg/ha annually. </p>
<p>In 2006, the EU dropped this to 6kg/ha, and subsequently Germany and Switzerland cut further to 3-4kg/ha while Scandinavian countries banned the use of copper in agriculture, organic or conventional. Organic potato yields remain at 50% that of conventional yields.</p>
<p>In 2011, BASF launched a potato (Fortuna) that was totally <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/2a1906dc-98f7-11e3-a32f-00144feab7de.html">resistant to potato late blight</a>, and it could be cultivated without the need for fungicidal sprays, including copper. The potato contained two genes from a wild Mexican potato relative, and except for the fact that it was a GMO, it would be perfect as a clean and green organic potato crop. </p>
<p>Sadly, European agriculture <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-21294487">rejected</a> Fortuna potatoes.</p>
<h2>Reduced emissions</h2>
<p>There can be other benefits in GM crops, beyond yield and resistance. Rice produces 10% of the world’s methane emissions so imagine if somebody could reduce emissions by 90%, and make plants with larger seeds containing more energy. </p>
<p>Chuangxin Sun’s group at Swedish Agricultural University has done <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v523/n7562/full/nature14673.html">precisely that</a> by transferring a single gene from barley to rice.</p>
<p>If all the world’s rice used this technology, it would be the equivalent of closing down 150 coal-fired power stations or removing 120 million cars from the road annually.</p>
<p>With many other plant scientists, I propose that the case-by-case scrutiny of GM crops would allow the organic industry to show it is willing to use the smartest technologies for improving the sustainable productivity of food and fibre production.</p>
<p>Many labs around the world, including those in my building, are full of bright young innovative scientists who want to make the world cleaner and greener. </p>
<p>We have GM crop plants with enhanced nutritional qualities, pest and disease resistance, larger grain sizes and the ability to produce more food with lower fertiliser inputs. Many of these plants have been modified with only a few DNA letters altered from the “wild” genes. </p>
<p>Adoption would massively improve the productivity of organic agriculture, and the productivity boost would help make organic food price competitive. So let’s talk about GM organics.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/51318/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ian Godwin receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Grains R&D Corporation, Rural Industries R&D Corporation, Qld Government, Chinese Academy of Sciences.
In addition he has previously received funding from a seed company Advanta Seeds as part of ARC Linkage grants. He was once awarded an ARC Linkage grant with BASF as industrial partner to produce starch polymers for industrial use but after a change in personnel, BASF withdrew from the grant, hence $0 was received. In the past he has received research funding from the OECD, SIDA (Swedish AID), AusAID, Sugar Research Australia, Dairy Innovation Australia, SEQ Council of Mayors, CSIRO and DAAD (German International Academic Exchange).
He is a current member of the Gene Technology Technical Advisory Committee of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, Department of Health.</span></em></p>Scientists are developing GM crops that don’t need pesticides and other chemicals to help them grow. Isn’t that what organic farmers want too?Ian Godwin, Professor in Plant Molecular Genetics, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/487092015-11-06T02:44:56Z2015-11-06T02:44:56ZHow we got to now: why the US and Europe went different ways on GMOs<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/98569/original/image-20151015-30702-72jvjq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Part of the ongoing debate: some papaya growers in Hawaii have planted a strain that has been genetically modified to resist a virus.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/remembertobreathe/17580233976/in/photolist-rTakd9-sMvi5m-e8uS69">remembertobreathe/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>There is a myth that circulates on both sides of the Atlantic: Americans accepted genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in their food supply without question, while the more precautionary Europeans rejected them. But GMOs went through a period of significant controversy in the US during the early years starting in the 1980s. </p>
<p>A boomerang effect is only now being felt in the US, as the last half-decade has seen a rise in consumer concern, state-based initiatives for <a href="https://theconversation.com/study-gm-food-labels-do-not-act-as-a-warning-to-consumers-45283">labeling</a> and the emergence of “GMO-free” claims on a growing number of products marketed in the US.</p>
<p>In Europe, meanwhile, the controversy seems to have never subsided. Earlier this month, half of the European Union’s 28 countries indicated they intend to <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/01/half-of-europe-opts-out-of-new-gm-crop-scheme">opt out of a new GM crop plan</a>, apparently over concerns over food safety, in a blow to the biotech industry.</p>
<p>Why have EU and US consumers and policymakers taken such different routes? A look at the recent history of GMOs helps explain why. </p>
<h2>An uproar over dairy cows</h2>
<p>The first two genetically engineered food products in the US were recombinant chymosin, or rennet (an enzyme used in cheese production), and recombinant bovine somatotrophin (BST), a growth hormone used to extend the lactation cycle in dairy cows. Both are produced in a genetically engineered microbe in much the same manner as many drugs. Recombinant rennet was accepted without a whisper in both the US and Europe. Recombinant BST caused an uproar. </p>
<p>It began in 1985 when economists predicted that recombinant BST (rBST) would lead to concentration in the dairy industry. The US dairy industry was already starting to consolidate due to computerized record keeping, herd management and control of milking equipment. Yet there were worries that small dairies across the United States would go bankrupt as the industry transitioned to milking not dozens or hundreds but thousands of cows thanks to the longer lactation cycle. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/98567/original/image-20151015-30705-138y4ri.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/98567/original/image-20151015-30705-138y4ri.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/98567/original/image-20151015-30705-138y4ri.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=280&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/98567/original/image-20151015-30705-138y4ri.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=280&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/98567/original/image-20151015-30705-138y4ri.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=280&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/98567/original/image-20151015-30705-138y4ri.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=352&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/98567/original/image-20151015-30705-138y4ri.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=352&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/98567/original/image-20151015-30705-138y4ri.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=352&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Touting a rBST-free cheese.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/tillamook/4663970660/in/photolist-j9a71c-grLsBx-pfGa5-ne676T-pfBX3-pfB17-pfGXE-pfFCZ-pfFj5-pfEJ4-pfEnM-pfDdN-pfCV1-pfCyS-pfChH-pfBEw-pfBkP-pfDy3-pfGFt-pfGpE-pfFTh-pfF1S-pfAFZ-pfAkv-pfzYj-anuKGE-8794Zf-uSF7rj-6TU51u">tillamook/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>rBST went through an <a href="http://www.agbioforum.org/v3n23/v3n23a14-collier.htm">extraordinarily long and drawn-out approval process</a> at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and was in fact withheld from the market after it was approved by a highly unusual act of Congress. The <a href="http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/SafetyHealth/ProductSafetyInformation/ucm130321.htm">special review</a> mandated by this act concurred with the FDA’s assessment of safety and further stated that the US government had never before regulated a novel technology in light of predicted socio-economic consequences. The moratorium against rBST was allowed to expire during the early years of the Clinton administration in the early 1990s, allowing rBST to go on the market. </p>
<p>This did not end the controversy, however. There were numerous attempts to promote labels for “rBST-free” milk, especially in New England where people love their small dairies. And in general, there is a tendency for any food-related claim to be regarded as a health claim by a subset of consumers. The FDA judged the rBST-free claim to be misleading since all milk contains BST, and they had already concluded that rBST milk was as safe as regular milk. </p>
<p>The agency was quite aggressive in policing these claims. Ben & Jerry’s ice cream was one of the few companies willing to jump through all the hurdles to maintain its “rBST-free” label. The company added disclaimers saying that all milk has BST and that sourcing their milk from non-rBST dairies was found to have no health implications. By the time they added further required language stating that they couldn’t be sure all of their suppliers had done the same thing, the label that satisfied the FDA was a paragraph long. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, agencies in Canada and Europe ruled against rBST on animal health grounds. Inducing higher milk production is accompanied by a statistical increase in the <a href="https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00902768/document">risk of mastitis</a>. </p>
<p>The US, by contrast, was primed for a political environment that was pro-biotechnology and hostile to demands for regulation or labeling on any but the strictest of health-based claims. </p>
<h2>Ethics</h2>
<p>If the larger social context in agriculture was pro-biotech, this was certainly not true for a loose-knit coalition that was to prove its mettle in the years to come. </p>
<p>An almost forgotten document from 1990, <a href="http://blog.ucsusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Biotechnologys-Bitter-Harvest.pdf">Biotechnology’s Bitter Harvest</a> laid out a series of complaints. Foremost among them were concerns about small-farm bankruptcies and concentration in agriculture and the tendency for US agricultural research to underfund and ignore more environmentally-friendly alternatives to large-scale monoculture, mechanization and chemical inputs. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97471/original/image-20151006-7335-1j9nhwr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97471/original/image-20151006-7335-1j9nhwr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97471/original/image-20151006-7335-1j9nhwr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=577&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97471/original/image-20151006-7335-1j9nhwr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=577&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97471/original/image-20151006-7335-1j9nhwr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=577&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97471/original/image-20151006-7335-1j9nhwr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=724&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97471/original/image-20151006-7335-1j9nhwr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=724&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97471/original/image-20151006-7335-1j9nhwr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=724&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Published in 1990, Biotechnology’s Bitter Harvest argued that traditional methods, now generally referred to as organic, were better than a heavy reliance on biotech.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The authors of Biotechnology’s Bitter Harvest predicted that genetic manipulation would follow this path and they demanded that land-grant universities and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) expand their portfolio to be more accommodating to production methods, which today we associate with organic farming. It is at least arguable that had agricultural research institutions followed this advice, we would not see the extreme alienation and bifurcation between industrial and alternative agriculture that exists today. </p>
<p>There may also have been a brief moment when the biotechnology industry itself could have endorsed such a move. During the early 1990s, the nonprofit Keystone Center facilitated a series of “national conversations” on new genetic technologies, discussing the ethical issues associated with both medical and food applications. I attended one of these sessions and read all the reports. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97469/original/image-20151006-7378-1xcwszh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97469/original/image-20151006-7378-1xcwszh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97469/original/image-20151006-7378-1xcwszh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=417&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97469/original/image-20151006-7378-1xcwszh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=417&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97469/original/image-20151006-7378-1xcwszh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=417&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97469/original/image-20151006-7378-1xcwszh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=524&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97469/original/image-20151006-7378-1xcwszh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=524&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97469/original/image-20151006-7378-1xcwszh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=524&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Resistance to GM foods in the US appears to be building through state-level efforts to label products.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/khalidhameedphotos/14115527258/">khalidhameedphotos/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 effort testified to significant and growing dissatisfaction with mainstream agriculture, but the human medical questions were clearly the gorilla in the room. The upshot of these talks was recognition that people want drugs that could be developed by manipulating genes, but saw ethical issues with applications of genetic engineering to the <a href="https://www.sciencenews.org/article/editing-human-germline-cells-sparks-ethics-debate">human germ line</a>. Similar ethical concerns with the manipulation of food crops and especially food animals tapered off. </p>
<p>In any event, although concerns were being expressed, US regulatory agencies were reluctant to base their decisions on factors that are not clearly articulated by Congress in the authorizing legislation. US regulatory decisions can be and regularly are challenged in court. </p>
<p>Although the internal discussions at the USDA, EPA and FDA are not made public, we can presume that legal advisers at these agencies would have urged them to resist the pressure to consider anything but health and environmental impact, narrowly construed. The first genetically engineered crops were approved in the late 1990s, and by 2000 a large percentage of US corn and soybean farmers were growing GMO varieties. </p>
<h2>Safety and regulation</h2>
<p>What about food safety? Understanding this part of the story requires a look at how food is regulated in the US. The FDA has clear authority to regulate additives (like coloring agents or preservatives) and animal drugs (like rBST). Foods themselves, however, are not subject to any mandatory review under US law, and the FDA has long circulated a list of foods and food ingredients that are Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS). Food companies combining items on the GRAS list have a blanket endorsement from FDA that shields them from arbitrary lawsuits that might otherwise be brought under US liability law. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, dating back to the days of the first Bush administration, regulatory agencies had been directed to use existing laws to regulate biotechnology – that is, no mandatory review of GMO foods. This is a decision that remains controversial to this day. The Union of Concerned Scientists and Consumers Union continue to argue for mandatory regulatory review of GMOs.</p>
<p>The FDA eventually announced that it would treat any gene product, such as the protein or active agent produced by a genetic modification, that was not itself from a source on the GRAS list as an additive, giving the agency strong authority over truly novel introductions into food. </p>
<p>But given that it had no authority to require regulatory review, the FDA was in the position of relying upon voluntary action by biotechnology companies to report what genes had been introduced into crops. The case for animals has been different: all genetic modifications are regulated as animal drugs – a difference that may explain why no transgenic animals have yet been approved for food use in the United States. </p>
<p>This approach has subsequently been called “substantial equivalence,” which falls short of a regulatory <em>approval</em> since the FDA only reviews data submitted by companies on the chemical composition of GRAS foods. GMOs do receive formal approval from the US Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency, but these agencies are reviewing environmental rather than food safety risk.</p>
<p>The approach has endured in part because nothing has gone wrong (at least nothing we know of) and because the alternative is difficult to define. Natural variation in the chemical composition of virtually all common foods is quite large, which means the use of standard toxicological methods for testing the safety of whole foods is subject to many confounding variables. </p>
<p>Food safety experts are well aware that there are many ways in which ordinary plant breeding can produce unsafe whole foods. This would be especially true for foods such as tomatoes or potatoes, which are known to carry the genes for potent toxins. However, there is no law in the US that would require any whole food to be subjected to any regulatory review. The only protection that keeps toxic plants off the shelves of grocery stores in the US is the professional ethic of plant breeders, reinforced by the fear of a product liability lawsuit.</p>
<p>Indeed, the litigious nature of American society and the ready supply of trial lawyers anxious to have a shot at any well-heeled company that might market an unsafe food is an important feature that is often overlooked in comparing the US regulatory approach with the rest of the world. </p>
<h2>US biotech goes to Europe</h2>
<p>The development of GMO foods in Europe played out at the same time as the initial steps toward integration of national food safety systems into the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) were taking place. It was politically contentious because national constituencies were losing some of their influence over home-based regulation. For example, the <a href="http://www.germanbeerinstitute.com/beginners.html">Reinheitsgebot</a>, or German beer purity laws, had virtually insured that anything labeled as beer had to have been produced in Germany. The economic interests of individual countries threatened by EU-wide food safety rules created a touchy political climate. </p>
<p>What is more, a series of high-profile food safety debacles undercut Europeans’ confidence in the food and agricultural industry, as well as the regulatory science behind government mandated food safety risk assessments. <a href="http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/1040/mad-cow-disease/timeline-mad-cow-disease-outbreaks">Mad cow disease in the UK</a> was the most prominent of these events, while the radioactive contamination of European fields after Chernobyl led Europeans to be especially leery of bad scientific decisions made elsewhere. </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/98568/original/image-20151015-30718-1jmrk1d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/98568/original/image-20151015-30718-1jmrk1d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/98568/original/image-20151015-30718-1jmrk1d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=781&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/98568/original/image-20151015-30718-1jmrk1d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=781&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/98568/original/image-20151015-30718-1jmrk1d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=781&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/98568/original/image-20151015-30718-1jmrk1d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=981&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/98568/original/image-20151015-30718-1jmrk1d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=981&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/98568/original/image-20151015-30718-1jmrk1d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=981&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 FlavrSavr was the first commercially grown genetically engineered food to be granted a license for human consumption, but it was pulled from store shelves within a few years.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavr_Savr#/media/File:Tomatoes_ARS.jpg">Jack Dykinga</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The US biotechnology industry blustered its way into this already touchy regulatory environment with GMO crops that they hoped to sell to European farmers. They insisted that Europeans simply accept the safety assessments that had already been made by a trio of US regulatory agencies – the FDA, USDA and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Needless to say, the Europeans were not having any of it. </p>
<p>At the same time, European scientists themselves were moving into GMOs. A <a href="http://www.agbioforum.org/v3n4/v3n4a12-nunn.htm">canned and labeled GMO tomato</a> had been successfully test-marketed in the mid-1990s through a cooperative agreement between Sainsbury’s, a major UK grocery chain, and the University of Nottingham. </p>
<p>As news about the US biotechnology industry’s attempt to force its way into European markets began to break, activists began campaigns against “<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/5/newsid_4647000/4647390.stm">Frankenfoods</a>.” Sainsbury’s competitors began to advertise that their store brands were “GMO-free” and Sainsbury dropped the experiment, <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/298229.stm">saying</a> “our customers have indicated to us very clearly that they do not want genetically-modified ingredients.”</p>
<p>One lasting legacy of this episode is that European grocery stores are willing to compete against one another by making claims that impugn the safety of foods being sold by their competitors, while American grocery chains are generally not. The aggressive approach taken by FDA against claims about rBST may well be a contributing factor to a legacy of American stores accepting the safety of GMO products. And as FDA has relaxed its efforts to police claims about the alleged health benefits of foods, the American food industry has shown signs of willingness to attract customers by touting the attractiveness of organic or “GMO-free” foods. The putative benefits of either are still not recognized by US regulatory agencies. </p>
<p>A slightly more complete history would point to a number of other incidents that have led to the sharp division of opinion that exists today. The <a href="http://ucanr.org/repository/CAO/landingpage.cfm?article=ca.v054n04p6&fulltext=yes">Flavr Savr tomato</a> in 1994 was the first genetically modified crop to be commercialized. Designed to stay ripe and firm longer, the product <a href="http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v13/n6/full/nbt0695-540.html">failed to meet the needs</a> of the US tomato industry. But there is also ice-nucleating or “<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1987/06/10/business/altered-bacteria-fight-frost.html">Frostban</a>” bacteria; <a href="http://ccr.ucdavis.edu/biot/new/StarLinkCorn_new.html">StarLink corn</a>; the <a href="http://www.psrast.org/pusztai.htm">Pusztzai incident</a>; African <a href="http://faculty.washington.edu/jhannah/geog270aut07/readings/GreenGeneRevolutions/Zerbe%20-%20GMOs%20in%20food%20aid.pdf">rejection of US food aid</a> – the list continues. </p>
<p>At the same time, contemporary activists, who have probably never heard of Biotechnology’s Bitter Harvest, are now building steadily on the dissatisfaction expressed a quarter of a century ago to create an economically and politically vibrant “food movement” that wants nothing to do with biotechnology or genetically engineered foods.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/48709/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paul B Thompson receives funding from the U.S. National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Sloan Foundation and the U.S. National Institute for Standards and Technology.</span></em></p>What explains the huge gap between US and European consumers on GMO foods? A short history helps explain.Paul B. Thompson, Professor & W K Kellogg Chair in Agricultural, Food and Community Ethics, Michigan State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/452832015-07-29T18:33:20Z2015-07-29T18:33:20ZStudy: GM food labels do not act as a warning to consumers<p>There is an economic and political battle taking place in America over the labeling of genetically modified (GM) foods. In 2015, 19 US states considered GM food labeling legislation and three States, Connecticut, Maine and Vermont have passed mandatory GM labeling laws. </p>
<p>The US House on July 23 passed the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling bill (<a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1599">HR 1599</a>), which will move to the Senate and, if passed, will prohibit both state-level legislation regarding GM labels and the labeling of products that contain GM ingredients. </p>
<p>Proponents of HR 1599 argue that GM labels will act as a warning. Another reason people oppose labeling is that they say scientific evidence has shown GM foods are safe. </p>
<p>Opponents of this legislation call it the DARK (Denying Americans the Right to Know) Act. Food and biotechnology companies reported more than US$60 million in anti-GM labeling lobby expenditures in 2014, almost <a href="http://www.ewg.org/research/anti-label-lobby">three times</a> what was spent in 2013. </p>
<p>As an applied economist who studies the economics of information and consumer choice, I wondered what the evidence was regarding the labels-as-warnings argument.</p>
<p>It turned out that there is scant, if any scientific evidence to show that GM food labels will act as warning labels. Surveys of people in Vermont show that people are unlikely to see GMO labels as an indicator of a dangerous or inferior product. And for some people, the label can actually build trust in the technology.</p>
<h2>The Vermont situation</h2>
<p>In the US, there have been only two published studies about whether GM labels will serve as warning labels. Neither study provides strong evidence that GM labels will signal a warning to consumers.<br>
A 2014 study on GMO labeling <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.08.005">concluded</a>, “any (negative) signaling effects, should they exist, are likely to be small.” Another in 2008 <a href="http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/42460/2/LuskRozan.pdf">found</a> that labels are likely to affect consumers’ views toward GM-labeled food with the caveat that their results are based on consumer beliefs that a labeling law is in effect, not whether they support such a law or the existence of a law. </p>
<p>In Vermont, where a GM labeling law will go into effect in July 2016, we have been collecting information from citizens for over 15 years about their attitudes, beliefs and intentions toward GM technology and products derived from it. We have five years of data (2003, 2004, 2008, 2014 and 2015) where questions about both support for and opposition to GM were asked. We also have information on whether and what kind of labeling citizens prefer. </p>
<p>These questions were asked as part of the annual Vermonter Poll administered by the University of Vermont’s Center for Rural Studies. </p>
<p>The Vermonter Poll is a representative statewide poll that includes questions about a variety of issues important to consumers, ranging from employment and health care to agriculture and community development. We analyzed the data from 2,102 respondents to better understand whether labels change people’s preferences toward GM foods or whether they provide information which provides a basis for choosing products to purchase.</p>
<p>Labels help consumers make choices. In some products, consumers cannot determine whether a product contains an attribute or quality they prefer by looking or handling it, which is the case with GM foods. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1243501">Research shows</a> it is for these kinds of goods that labels play a more important role in choice. </p>
<h2>The data</h2>
<p>I presented the results of the study at the annual conference of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association in San Francisco on July 27. </p>
<p>On average, across all five years of the study, 60% of Vermonters reported being opposed to the use of GMO technology in food production and 89% desire labeling of food products containing GMO ingredients. These numbers have been increasing slightly since 2003. In 2015, the percentages were 63% and 92%. </p>
<p>The study focuses on the relationship between two primary questions: whether Vermonters are opposed to GMOs in commercially available food products; and if respondents thought products containing GMOs should be labeled. </p>
<p>When analyzed in a way that accounts for the possibility that labels influence opposition, we found no evidence that GMO labeling would act as warning labels and scare consumers away from buying products with GMO ingredients. </p>
<p>Results also found that for some demographic groups, GM labels decrease opposition toward GM technology. For people with less education, who live in single-parent households and those earning the highest incomes, a GM label builds more trust in GM technology. </p>
<p>Opponents to labeling often refer to <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/10/gmo-labels-congress_n_5576255.html">consumers’ lack of education</a> on the issue as a reason not to label. In addition, <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-6606.2005.00003.x/abstract">two</a> <a href="http://www.researchgate.net/publication/223810676_Preferences_and_willingness_to_pay_for_GM_labeling_policies">studies</a> have shown that higher income households and households with children have been found to be more willing to pay for labeling. Households with children may also be more risk-averse regarding foods. </p>
<p>Men are the least opposed demographic overall. The analysis found that for men and people living in middle-income households, desiring a GM label increases opposition. For all of these demographic characteristics, the change in opposition toward GMOs was not larger than three percentage points in the positive or negative direction. </p>
<p>Overall, we found that supporting labeling (including after Vermont’s labeling law was passed) has no direct impact on opposition to GM foods. This conclusion is not what I had expected and runs counter to the reasoning behind the introduction of The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling bill. </p>
<h2>Beyond Vermont</h2>
<p>In Vermont, GMO food labels would provide consumers with information on which to base their purchasing decisions. </p>
<p>Consumers who wish to avoid GMO ingredients would do so and those who either want GMO ingredients or are indifferent can also make that choice. The label would not signal to consumers that GMO ingredients are inferior to those produced using other agricultural production methods. </p>
<p>The study was conducted in one state. Because there are no labels currently in the marketplace, the study is based on survey data. Using a statistically valid methodolgy, it seems that for Vermont, where a labeling law has been passed, the law will act as intended: it will provide consumers with the information they want in order to make choices about the food they want to buy and it will not scare them away from GM technology. </p>
<p>More research is needed to determine whether these results are generalizable to consumers in other states.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>For other studies on GMO labeling, see:</em></p>
<p><em>- Caswell, J. A. (1998). <a href="http://agbioforum.org/v1n1/v1n1a06-caswell.htm">Should Use Of Genetically Modified Organisms Be Labeled?</a> AgBioForum, 1(1), 22-24. http://www.agbioforum.org</em></p>
<p><em>- Caswell, J. A., & Mojduszka, E. M. (1996). <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1243501">Using informational labeling to influence the market for quality in food products</a>. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 78(4), 12481253.</em></p>
<p><em>- Costanigro, M., & Lusk, J. L. (2014). <a href="http://agecon.okstate.edu/faculty/publications/4929.pdf">The signaling effect of mandatory labels on genetically engineered food</a>. Food Policy, 49, Part 1(0), 259-267.</em></p>
<p><em>- Fulton, M., & Giannakas, K. (2004). <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0092-5853.2004.00561.x">Inserting GM products into the food chain: The market and welfare effects of different labeling and regulatory regimes</a>. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 86(1), 42-60.</em></p>
<p><em>-Loureiro, M. L., & Bugbee, M. (2005). <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.2005.00003.x">Enhanced GM foods: Are consumers ready to pay for the potential benefits of biotechnology?</a> Journal of Consumer Affairs, 39(1), 52-70.</em></p>
<p><em>-Loureiro, M. L., & Hine, S. (2004). [Preferences and willingness to pay for GM labeling policies](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2004.07.001 Food Policy, 29(5), 467-483.</em></p>
<p><em>- Lusk, J. L., & Rozan, A. (2008). <a href="http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/42460/2/LuskRozan.pdf">Public Policy and Endogenous Beliefs: The Case of Genetically Modified Food</a>. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 33(2), 270-289.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/45283/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jane Kolodinsky receives funding from Vermont Agricultural Experiment Station for this research. She is affiliated with the Vermont Public Health Association, the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, Vermont Chapter of the American Heart Association. None of her findings represent the views of funding organizations or affiliations.
I have received funding from a host of funders for a variety of researchers over the past 30 years to conduct applied research in a variety of areas.</span></em></p>Statewide survey in Vermont finds GM food labels don’t scare consumers or indicate an inferior product. In some cases, labels built trust in the technology.Jane Kolodinsky, Professor and Chair Community Development and Applied Economics, University of VermontLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/438642015-06-30T14:21:41Z2015-06-30T14:21:41ZRevealed: why GM food is so hard to sell to a wary public<p>Whether commanding the attention of rock star <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/neil-young-frontal-assault-monsanto-walmart-180303652.html">Neil Young</a> or apparently being supported by the former head of <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-33058662">Greenpeace</a>, genetically modified food is almost always in the news – and often in a negative light.</p>
<p>GM divides opinion, and even individual people can find themselves pulled in two different ways. On the one hand it is a largely new technology and new tech often brings prosperity, solves problems and offers <a href="https://theconversation.com/tomorrows-technology-will-lead-to-sweeping-changes-in-society-it-must-for-all-our-sakes-36023">hope for the future</a>. But this also makes it a step into the unknown and people are frightened of what they do not know, or what cannot be known. </p>
<p>In a study recently published in the journal <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666315002767">Appetite</a>, colleagues and I examined why some people reject GM technology. We were neither arguing for nor against GM, but rather we wanted to look at the characteristics which determine people’s views. </p>
<p>Specifically, we examined attitudes in the EU to two different types of genetic modifications made to apples. Both involve the introduction of genes to make them resistant to mildew and scab. The first is a gene that exists naturally in wild/crab apples. This is an example of what is called “<a href="http://www.cisgenesis.com/content/view/2/25/lang,english/">cisgenesis</a>”. In the second one the gene is from another species such as a bacterium or animal, and is an example of “transgenesis”.</p>
<p>As an idea of the gains available from this process, the production of a new apple cultivar may take 50 years or more. Gene transfer technologies can substantially shorten this. At the same time they may introduce characteristics from totally alien species which is virtually impossible to do naturally. This may then introduce many desirable qualities into the apple – for instance, in the hypothetical case we are analysing, the apples were made more resistant to disease.</p>
<p>We found people’s attitudes tend to be driven by their fears of risk, and their hopes of gain, with hopes being more important for cisgenesis (introduced genes from other apples) and the former for transgenesis (genes from other species). </p>
<p>But quite separate to risk and gain are perceptions that the technologies are “not natural”. Evidently people are disturbed when science takes us away from what they see as the laws of nature. People are also concerned about environmental impact.</p>
<h2>Digging into the data</h2>
<p>Our data is based on a <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/index_en.htm">Eurobarometer survey</a> carried out in 2010 of 15,650 people from around the EU. In general people seem to be more hesitant about transgenesis, than cisgenesis (apple to apple gene transfer). Thus 57.1% of respondents wished to see cisgenesis encouraged compared to just 31.4% for transgenesis. Clearly people are more worried about having animal genes in their apples, compared to genes from wild apples.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/86738/original/image-20150629-9102-b4qta5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/86738/original/image-20150629-9102-b4qta5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/86738/original/image-20150629-9102-b4qta5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/86738/original/image-20150629-9102-b4qta5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/86738/original/image-20150629-9102-b4qta5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/86738/original/image-20150629-9102-b4qta5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/86738/original/image-20150629-9102-b4qta5.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">A ‘natural’ apple? This robot doesn’t care.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/aidanwojtas/5879866927/">Aidan</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Attitudes are not spread randomly across the population. Rather there are systematically different views dependent on gender, level of education, home background, whether in a village or a large town and across different countries. </p>
<p>Men are significantly more likely to support cisgenesis, for example, as are better educated and more prosperous people. Religion is also important and Muslims, Catholics and Orthodox Christians are significantly less approving than the general population. </p>
<p>People are more united in their disapproval of transgenesis (adding genes from other species). But, again, more educated people tend to be more approving as do men and the more prosperous, while older people tend to be more wary. Finally, for both technologies studying science, or having a father who studied science, impacted favourably on attitudes.</p>
<p>Some figures show the impact of religion: compared to the 31.4% who approved of transgenesis overall, just 23.3% of Orthodox Christians did so. The situation is reversed for cisgenesis with 57.1% approving overall, but Greek Orthodox Christians now more supportive with 60.9% approving. It is now Muslims who are substantially less supportive with only 40.6% approving. </p>
<p>This is an example of how religious diversity leads to differing opinions on new technologies. Thus if a government wishes to encourage GM technology, it might give some thought to opening up dialogue with religious leaders.</p>
<h2>The great GM catch-up</h2>
<p>The EU is one of the world’s toughest places to gain approval for GM crops, in part because of these concerns expressed by its citizens. This has resulted in the EU falling behind other countries. </p>
<p>The more positive attitudes of scientists and better educated people may suggest wariness of GM foods is simply driven by ignorance. Increasing knowledge and understanding would help reduce this, but there may be limits – in reality few of us are fully able to evaluate the relevant technical arguments. Hence we tend to rely on the opinions of those we trust, religious leaders in some cases, experts, scientists and governments in others.</p>
<p>The evidence is that people are more supportive and less concerned with cisgenesis than transgenesis. This perhaps makes sense as many in the sample perceived apples crossed with genes from other apples as more “natural” than apples crossed with something else. If from the outset these had been separately labelled, then it is possible the EU would have been quicker to give the green light to cisgenesis. </p>
<p>On the other hand treating them all as one and the same increases the possibility that the green light will eventually be given to all GM products, cisgenesis and transgenesis alike. It is an example of the dangers of placing disparate technologies in a single basket and saying: take it or leave it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/43864/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>I did not receive funding but my colleagues did as the article notes: The paper was prepared with the support from the project:
“Increasing the quality of doctoral studies and the support of the International Research
at the FNE, University of Economics in Bratislava”, ITMS 26140230005, activity
1.2 Realisation of joint research 2. Modern education for knowledge society. Project
is co-financed by the European Union</span></em></p>Major survey shows how attitudes towards GM food in Europe depend on gender, background and profession.John Hudson, Professor in Economics, University of BathLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/403332015-05-01T09:30:52Z2015-05-01T09:30:52ZManifesto Check: pro-GM but anti-EU, UKIP could cost UK farming<p>UKIP’s proposals on food and agriculture are, unsurprisingly, framed as requiring exit from the EU and its <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/index_en.htm">Common Agricultural Policy</a> (CAP). The CAP covers payments to farmers, and <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rural-development-2014-2020/index_en.htm">Rural Development</a> – locally implemented activities promoting farm efficiency, environmental protection and wider rural economic development. Yet much of what is proposed does not require an EU exit to be implemented. In fact, some elements are already in operation.</p>
<p>To help consumers make food choices, UKIP would replace current food labelling rules, in particular requiring additional information on animal welfare. UKIP states that EU exit is required to “regain control” on the matter of animal health and welfare. This is misleading, because most of the measures it lists to improve animal welfare can be delivered from <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/index_en.htm">inside the EU</a>.</p>
<p>UKIP supports scientific research into genetic modification (GM), and a free vote in parliament on its adoption. The <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/index_en.htm">EU is the main region</a> globally opposing GM. So, if a post-exit EU-UK trade agreement included agriculture (which is not a given), and parliament voted to adopt GM, this could have a significant impact on agricultural exports to EU countries. </p>
<h2>Saving or spending?</h2>
<p>UKIP’s manifesto supports smaller farms, in several ways. They would strengthen the role of the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/groceries-code-adjudicator">Grocery Adjudicator</a>, who oversees relationships between farmers and supermarkets. Although it is unfortunate that UKIP also refers to the Competition Commission: this body closed last year. </p>
<p>UKIP’s support for hill farmers continues current EU rural development policy, as does its support for agri-environmental farming via the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/environmental-stewardship">Entry Level Stewardship</a> Scheme. Removal of payments for land near wind turbines is consistent with their broader <a href="https://theconversation.com/manifesto-check-ukip-policies-would-make-climate-change-worse-40263">climate change scepticism</a>.</p>
<p>UKIP wants to redistribute direct payments from large farms towards small farms. This will target payments towards farmers more in need of support, although <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1746-692X.2008.00094.x/abstract">history shows how difficult</a> this would be to deliver. UKIP will also abolish some of the <a href="http://capreform.eu/tag/greening/">unpopular conditions</a> currently placed on EU direct payments, such as cropping and rotation restrictions.</p>
<p>The big question is cost. The opening paragraph implies that it can be afforded, but there is no direct costing of the payment proposals. UKIP states that EU exit would deliver a £9 billion saving: the amount we pay into the EU budget each year. But this ignores the money we receive from the CAP. In the context of the manifesto as a whole, it is simply not clear how this money would be re-spent, on agriculture or elsewhere.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40333/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robert Ackrill 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>It’s easy to poke holes in UKIP’s plans for agriculture.Robert Ackrill, Professor of European Economics and Policy, Nottingham Trent UniversityLicensed 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/289892014-09-16T14:15:25Z2014-09-16T14:15:25ZCreating 480 varieties of wheat is deserving of the World Food Prize<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/59154/original/9p9bhyxq-1410862921.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">There is never enough of this golden beauty.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/bradhigham/14579793939">bradhigham</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Improving wheat is a major challenge for agricultural scientists. The world’s population continues to grow – and so does its appetite. Sanjaya Rajaram, winner of the <a href="http://www.worldfoodprize.org/index.cfm?nodeID=74183&audienceID=1">2014 World Food Prize</a>, used an innovative breeding technique to develop 480 new wheat varieties. Rajaram’s varieties are high-yielding yet resistant to diseases and stresses, which allows them to thrive in a range of environments. Across the world, scientists are currently exploring a range of strategies to increase wheat yield.</p>
<p>At a global level, we get 20% of our calories and protein from wheat. Growing demand and limited agricultural land means that the only way to increase the amount of food we can produce is more crops per unit area of land.</p>
<p>Increasing the yield of all our major cereal crops – maize, rice and wheat, in that order – is vital, but wheat poses a special challenge. Bread wheat, which accounts for <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aab.12108/pdf">95% of the wheat we grow</a>, is hexaploid. This means that it contains three genomes, each with two sets of chromosomes. Each of these three genomes comes from a different wild grass. These grasses combined to give the bread wheat we know today.</p>
<p>The trouble is that this giant genome makes bread wheat genetically very different to its wild relatives, so it cannot be easily breed with related grasses to create new varieties. This means that the genome of wheat is restricted to a small pool compared to many other cereal crops. This limits the potential for improving wheat yield by conventional breeding, in which different varieties are crossed together to give new combinations of traits.</p>
<p>Plant scientists at the <a href="http://www.niab.com/">National Institute of Agricultural Botany</a> in the UK, are trying to create “synthetic” wheat by breeding bread wheat with the ancient grasses it is related to. This doesn’t happen readily in the wild because of the different genome structures, but their work could increase the availability of novel genes and therefore generate new characteristics for selection by breeding.</p>
<p>The photosynthesis research team at <a href="http://www.rothamsted.ac.uk/">Rothamsted Research</a>, also in the UK, is trying a different tactic for increasing wheat yield. The Rothamsted group is part of an international wheat consortium which aims to improve various aspects of photosynthesis, such as leaf structure and enzyme characteristics, in order to boost yield.</p>
<p>Efficient photosynthesis is important for high yield: it is the process by which plants convert the sun’s energy into sugars for growth and storage. In wheat, like in other crops, this process results in more energy-rich grains. The Rothamsted group aims to select wheat varieties with high photosynthetic rates – in addition to traits which breeders conventionally look for, such as healthy grains – in order to increase plant yield. </p>
<p>In his award-winning work at the <a href="http://www.cimmyt.org/en/">International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre</a> in Mexico, Rajaram successfully developed 480 new wheat varieties by crossing winter and spring wheats. These two classes of wheat have distinct genepools, so crossing them created more genetic variation and therefore greater scope for breeding wheat with desirable characteristics.</p>
<p>It is not just the increasing world population that puts pressure on global food supply. Climate change continues to wreak havoc with weather systems. More than ever, we need crops that can resist fluctuating environmental conditions and maintain their yield. Rajaram’s work has generated wheat varieties which maintain their yield under environmental and biological stresses. This will be the key to safeguarding our wheat crop in the years ahead.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/28989/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Angela White 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>Improving wheat is a major challenge for agricultural scientists. The world’s population continues to grow – and so does its appetite. Sanjaya Rajaram, winner of the 2014 World Food Prize, used an innovative…Angela White, PhD student in Plant Biology, University of SheffieldLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/272872014-05-29T05:48:49Z2014-05-29T05:48:49ZWA’s court verdict on GM crops is a dose of common sense<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/49729/original/wsg97pk4-1401337047.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=52%2C73%2C2778%2C1820&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Canola fields: one of the battlegrounds of the debate over genetic modification.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Michael Jones/supplied</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In a landmark <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-28/landmark-gm-decision-wa-supreme-court/5482864">West Australian Supreme Court decision</a>, a farmer growing a genetically modified canola crop has been spared the blame after his neighbour accused him of contaminating his organic farm next door. </p>
<p>The case has prompted <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-29/greens-unhappy-with-gm-decision-affecting-organic-farmer/5485796">strong reactions</a>, but my view is that the verdict is a victory for common sense. It is regrettable that the case occurred in the first place, and has caused personal anguish to both farmers, their families and their community.</p>
<p>The case involved two farmers, Steve Marsh and Michael Baxter, who owned neighbouring farms near Kojonup, about 250 km southeast of Perth. Marsh’s farm was certified organic by the <a href="http://www.nasaa.com.au">National Association of Sustainable Agriculture Australia (NASAA)</a>. </p>
<p>Marsh alleged that after Baxter swathed his crop (a common practice in harvesting canola, in which the crop is cut and then laid in rows to dry), some of the GM canola was blown onto Marsh’s farm. As a result, Marsh lost his organic certification from the NASAA for part of his property. Marsh claimed that Baxter was negligent in planting and harvesting his GM canola and sought damages for loss of organic status, and to prevent Baxter from planting GM canola near his boundaries again.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://decisions.justice.wa.gov.au/supreme/supdcsn.nsf/judgment.xsp?documentId=5B9F82F42842877448257CE600216197&action=openDocument&SessionID=DSQ7OD47AF">Supreme Court found in Baxter’s favour</a>. Justice Kenneth Martin said that Baxter could not be held responsible just for growing a GM crop in a conventional way, that wind blowing some swathes of canola onto Marsh’s property was not intentional, and that Baxter was not to be held responsible as a broadacre farmer merely for growing a lawful GM crop and choosing an entirely orthodox harvesting method.</p>
<h2>Where now?</h2>
<p>At first sight this case might look straightforward, but it has many ramifications. It was a <em>cause célèbre</em> for the anti-GM movement, not just in Australia but overseas too. If the judgement had favoured Marsh it would have pitted many other farmers against their neighbours and set back the progress towards co-existence in the farming system between organic and GM growers. </p>
<p>The reasons for activists’ anti-GM stance are almost always political and ideological, rather than scientific. This is reflected in the NASAA’s <a href="http://www.nasaa.com.au/data/pdfs/AAAA%20NASAA%20Organic%20Standard%2006-02-2012.pdf">organic certification standard</a>, which says (emphasis added):</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Even where evidence of GMOs is <strong>not detected in finished organic product</strong>, the deliberate or negligent exposure of organic production systems or finished products to GMOs is outside organic production principles. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>By seeking to impose such stringent standards, the activists’ aim is clearly to prevent farmers from growing GM crops at all. But with only about <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/1301.0Main+Features2582012">1% of the food in the Australian retail market being organic</a>, this rather seems like the tail trying to wag the dog.</p>
<h2>Sources of GM opposition</h2>
<p>The strong opposition to GM crops stems from a range of factors, including misinformation, lack of understanding of plant breeding processes (and of science in general), and in some cases a deep distrust of multinational life science companies. Is the fear of multinational companies justified, or do they have adequate regulatory processes? </p>
<p>Actually it is ironic that the cost of meeting the very strict regulations for developing GM crops mean that such companies are just about the only ones that can afford to develop them. These companies take their responsibilities very seriously, and it is worth noting that this case was not about food safety. In fact there has been no authenticated example of any harm to people caused by eating GM crops; in contrast, there are many examples of harm resulting from people eating organic produce.</p>
<h2>Farming is a messy business</h2>
<p>Nothing in agriculture is ever 100% pure – winds blow, floods occur, insects can fly across fences. (This is reflected in international food contamination standards – for example, the US Food and Drug Administration’s <a href="http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/ComplianceManuals/CompliancePolicyGuidanceManual/ucm074642.htm">standard for 100 grams of tomato paste</a> rules that it must not contain more than 29 fly eggs, or more than 14 fly eggs plus 1 maggot, or more than one maggot.) </p>
<p>Zero tolerance to GM material (or other materials) is impossible to achieve, and as such the organic standards create an unrealistic situation that was bound to lead to the sort of dispute that occurred between Marsh and Baxter. </p>
<p>That is why Justice Martin’s decision was a victory for common sense. The case was really a test of the organic certification standards, rather than of Baxter’s farming practices. </p>
<p>The best outcome would be that the NASAA and similar organic certification organisations in Australia reassess their standards, and come into line with those already in existence overseas. The United States, for example, has a 5% tolerance threshold before organic decertification. Even Europe, where anti-GM sentiment is stronger, has a 0.9% tolerance. Such a threshold would be readily achievable in Australia, and would allow organic, conventional and GM crops to co-exist amicably in the farming systems, as is the case in the United States and elsewhere.</p>
<p>In a world in which 12% of the world’s crops are now GM, and where up to 70% of foods in our supermarkets have some GM content (virtually any product derived from soybean, maize or cotton), it is important that we can progress past issues like that raised in the Marsh v Baxter case, and use the best science and technology to ensure sustainable and nutritious food production. </p>
<p>This is not to say that there is no place for organic and conventional crops. Genetic modification is just a tool that plant breeders can choose to use, to help crops produce higher yields, or resist disease and drought, hopefully becoming more sustainable in the process.</p>
<p>In a world where we will have to feed 9 billion people by 2050, it is important to make sure that the various ways in which we grow this food can exist harmoniously alongside one another.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/27287/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Jones receives funding from Murdoch University, the Australian Research Council, Ausindustry and Nemgenix. He is affiliated with Nemgenix, a University spin-out company.</span></em></p>In a landmark West Australian Supreme Court decision, a farmer growing a genetically modified canola crop has been spared the blame after his neighbour accused him of contaminating his organic farm next…Michael Jones, Professor, Agricultural Biotechnology, Murdoch UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/246782014-03-27T15:04:34Z2014-03-27T15:04:34ZGM crops: time to counter the scare stories and relax barriers<p>Many people, including me, are pretty fed up with the continuing fuss about GM food and crops. Are they too dangerous to eat? Are they a hazard to the environment? Despite a “debate” stretching back to 1998, why has no consensus been reached? </p>
<p>It’s pretty clear to everyone that we will need to grow more food – and grow it sustainably – so why can’t we make up our minds? There have been innumerable reviews and many open debates. How does the recently published <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/288823/cst-14-634-gm-technologies.pdf">letter from the Council for Science and Technology</a> to the government help?</p>
<p>Initially the focus of the debate was on the meal from GM soya beans, which the regulatory committee (which I chaired) had recommended to ministers to be safe. This was challenged by a claim, in press releases and on a TV programme in August 1998, from Dr A Pusztai that GM potatoes caused cancer when fed to rats. A claim that this was true of all GM foods was then made, but never sustained – the claims were disputed and could not be reproduced. </p>
<p>But it became the rallying cry for a well-run media campaign which took all GM products out of UK supermarkets and stopped the European approval process dead in its tracks. But not in the US. Despite these fears, the fact that US consumers have been eating GM products for over a decade and that no-one in the most litigious nation in the world, has been harmed, is the reason why even the pressure groups have dropped their claims.</p>
<p>What about the environment? This is a contentious area and claims have been made too about the adverse effects of GM crops on the environment – including damage to insects. They are often generalised to all GM crops, often from a single report. I have read the evidence carefully and my conclusion is that there is no evidence that genetic modification per se causes harm. GM crops do spread but just like normal crops and plant breeders have known how to handle those problems for years.</p>
<p>So what went wrong? The genetic modification of the soya bean was modest – no more than the introduction of two genes from a common soil bacterium. But this product, although deemed safe by the regulatory committee, was rejected by consumers. Why was this? There were a number of reasons.</p>
<p>There was a strong reaction against what was perceived as the economic hegemony of a large US multinational company and their unwillingness to label or to separate the new product from non-GM versions, so that consumers had no choice. Thus, decisions that might possibly affect the health of British consumers, and certainly affected their ability to choose, were being taken by Monsanto in Missouri. Consumers objected to this perceived loss of control.</p>
<p>Plus, GM soya offered the consumer no advantage. The advantage went to the farmer and seed producer – there was little incentive for them to buy it.</p>
<p>Underlying all this was a suspicion of the regulatory process, which stemmed from the BSE (or mad cow disease) outbreak in the UK in the 1990s. The media played their role too in enabling the anti-GM campaign to flourish, despite the poor scientific basis to many of their claims. </p>
<p>All these issues are addressed in the letter to the prime minister from the Council for Science and Technology. It suggests a sensible way forward and what follows are some of their main points that speak to how we should proceed with GM.</p>
<h2>Scientists’ advice to the government</h2>
<p>There is a consensus on the scientific evidence that, when properly controlled, GM products are as safe as their conventional counterparts. We should have confidence in this and the EU regulatory process needs to be rebalanced to reflect the evidence. The European Academies Science Advisory Council are in agreement too that the regulatory framework should switch its focus on to products rather than on technologies.</p>
<p>We need a regulatory framework that can allow for a variety of solutions to the current and future problems facing UK agriculture. In some instances, GM may be the only solution to a particular problem or one of several. We need a framework that is flexible enough to accommodate this.</p>
<p>To move forward, government, industry, NGOs and the research community should tackle the barriers that prevent properly sanctioned field trials from taking place. Plus, most consumers are unaware of the challenges of food production and distribution. It would help if food producers and retailers were more open about these challenges, as the benefits citizens will have from GM technologies will be more apparent.</p>
<p>Government, industry and the scientific community all have a role to play in explaining the technology, its benefits and how it is regulated. Others, including retailers, NGOs and the media, all have a duty to ensure that the debate reflects the evidence accurately. Wider concerns, which go beyond the scientific evidence, need to be acknowledged and addressed.</p>
<p>The UK should continue to call loudly for science and evidence-based decision making on this issue – it’s clear that scientific consensus in both Britain and Europe calls for a relaxation of the strict barriers to GM crops.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/24678/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Derek Burke received funding from the Medical Research Council and the Cancer Research Campaign from about 1962-1982.</span></em></p>Many people, including me, are pretty fed up with the continuing fuss about GM food and crops. Are they too dangerous to eat? Are they a hazard to the environment? Despite a “debate” stretching back to…Derek Burke, Honorary Fellow of St Edmunds College, Cambridge, University of CambridgeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/233902014-02-25T14:49:23Z2014-02-25T14:49:23ZThere may be plant DNA floating in your blood (but that’s OK)<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/42459/original/bswbd55y-1393326965.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">All is well with your blood.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/40964293@N07/5460928788/">biologycorner</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>If you believe <a href="http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/01/09/confirmed-dna-from-genetically-modified-crops-can-be-transfered-to-humans-who-eat-them-2/">this article</a> from Collective Evolution, a site that claims to be “one of the worlds most popular alternative media company”, there is currently DNA from genetically modified plants floating in your blood that must be causing some harm. The conclusion is a wild extrapolation and typical of the anti-GMO lobby, which makes it a good case study for how to treat scientific findings.</p>
<p>The truth is that there may or may not be plant DNA in your blood. The single research paper making this claim, on which the news article is based, is yet to be replicated. But it is more important to note that, even if there is plant DNA in your blood, there is no evidence that it poses a risk to you.</p>
<p>The paper, by Sandor Spisak of Harvard Medical School and colleagues, was published in the journal <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069805">PLOS ONE</a> in July 2013. The authors claimed to have found the evidence that pieces of plant DNA, large enough to harbour full genes, circulate in our blood. </p>
<p>Circulating DNA is called cell-free DNA (cf-DNA) and the reason for its presence in blood and its function, if any, remains a mystery. The science presented by Spisak is peer-reviewed – that is, it has been assessed by experts in the filed – and seems to have been done in an acceptable way. So I am ready to give their case a hearing. </p>
<p>But their study does not imply that consuming GM foods is dangerous or that GM scientists are doing “bad science”, which the news article claims. If foreign DNA from foods we consume circulates in our blood, it must have done so throughout evolutionary history. The fact that we have noticed it only now is interesting. </p>
<p>Before we draw any more conclusions, a lot needs to be done. If cf-DNA’s role hasn’t been clear, then we must investigate that before we can consider what plant DNA might be doing in the blood. </p>
<p>Spisak makes no mention of GM genes in the original paper. My mind is completely put at ease by the thought that DNA from food has always been circulating in our blood.</p>
<p>Here is why: DNA is found in everything you eat. Our body has evolved to breakdown and reuse consumed DNA and the proteins which it encodes. There is no inherent danger in consuming DNA. To label foreign DNA as sinister is wrong. All DNA you consume is foreign unless you’re a cannibal, and even then it’s still foreign unless you’re consuming your identical twin.</p>
<p>Foreign DNA can cause harm only if it is able to encode proteins that are harmful to the human body. For that to happen it would first need to be incorporated into your genome within the cell nucleus where all of your other genes reside. It would then need to be transcribed so that, ultimately, the foreign protein was produced. </p>
<p>So if there is plant DNA in your blood, it will need to jump through lots of hoops before it can produce a foreign protein. There is no evidence by the way that DNA in your blood can do this, because, if cf-DNA has always been in our blood, we would have noticed plant proteins in our cells.</p>
<p>What is really interesting from Spisak’s work is that plant DNA is represented in a relatively high proportion in the cf-DNA pool of human blood. That fact is interesting and worth investigating. Spisak also says that animal DNA was removed from the tested samples because it resembles human DNA too closely and is therefore not distinguishable as “foreign”.</p>
<h2>Good science</h2>
<p>Being “for” GM doesn’t mean that one is against the environment or health and in the pockets of agribusiness as many anti-GMO websites will make you believe. Bryan Walsh writing for <a href="http://science.time.com/2013/05/14/modifying-the-endless-genetically-modified-crop-debate/">Time</a> makes this point clearly. Most scientists are aware that along <a href="http://grist.org/series/panic-free-gmos/">with the promise of GM technology come potential problems</a>. </p>
<p>While GM technology may be able to produce rice that is more nutritious or plants that are resistant to a greener herbicide, there are legitimate problems such as weeds acquiring the GM herbicide resistance. The anti-GM lobby loses credibility by being against every aspect of the science. A better approach would be to act as a watchdog against legitimate, testable problems which science would then be accountable for.</p>
<p>For instance, within days of the publication of Spisak’s paper, Richard Lusk of the University of Michigan left <a href="http://www.plosone.org/annotation/listThread.action?root=69577">a comment</a> where he thought that there could be an alternate explanation for the findings reported. According to Lusk, the method used to analyse cf-DNA, called high-throughput sequencing, has a high-error rate. </p>
<p>Normally, when the DNA to be analysed is plenty and in big chunks, these errors can be minimised. But in Spisak’s case, the analysis involved tiny amounts of DNA, which made Lusk think that contamination, if any, might account for the results. In a follow up study, uploaded few weeks ago on <a href="http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1401/1401.7975.pdf">arXiv</a>, he concludes that Spisak must consider contamination as the source of plant DNA. Even thoroughly washed plastic equipment can store remnants of DNA that can contaminate results.</p>
<p>It took Lusk six months to thoroughly check Spisak’s work. Now Spisak and his colleagues should respond to Lusk’s criticism, which may take another six months. Scientific progress is slow, but at least at the end of it we may be more certain than we are today. Poor commentary and cherry-picking data helps no one.</p>
<p>Spisak’s study tells us about a significant biological finding that needs to be carefully analysed. The cautionary tale is that one must not extrapolate wildly from good science to create horrific scenarios that are not based on any scientific observations whatsoever.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/23390/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Runions 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>If you believe this article from Collective Evolution, a site that claims to be “one of the worlds most popular alternative media company”, there is currently DNA from genetically modified plants floating…John Runions, Reader in Cell and Molecular Biology, Oxford Brookes UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/156932013-07-09T20:35:50Z2013-07-09T20:35:50ZFeeding the world with a mix of science and tradition<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/26998/original/r6yrzbdz-1373161504.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">If we are going to reduce hunger in the world's smallholder agricultural communities we need to look past genetically-engineered crops.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Flickr/davidsilver</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The biotech industry has long sought legitimacy by claiming that its genetically modified crop technologies are “feeding the world”. However this relentless focus on increasing food production ignores the fact that mass hunger exists alongside a huge food surplus. </p>
<p>To really reduce world hunger on a permanent basis, we need to embrace the ideas of food sovereignty, which highlights the politics of food, in terms of resource ownership, market control and decision-making power; and the concept of agroecology, which blends traditional farming knowledge with modern understandings of on-farm ecosystem services. </p>
<p>Last month, <a href="http://www.worldfoodprize.org/index.cfm?nodeID=25293">the World Food Prize</a> was awarded to <a href="http://www.worldfoodprize.org/index.cfm/24667/24410/three_biotechnology_scientists_awarded_2013_world_food_prize">scientists from Monsanto, Syngenta and other bioengineering companies</a>. </p>
<p>Sponsors of the prize (including Monsanto, Syngenta, Cargill, Archer Daniels Midlands, Walmart, and Pepsi) claim that it is “the foremost international award recognising individuals whose achievements have advanced human development by increasing the quantity, quality and availability of food in the world”.</p>
<p>The winners spoke glowingly on how biotechnology held “the promise of benefiting all mankind” by producing increased yields through improving resistance to insects and disease, and increasing the capacity to withstand climate extremes.</p>
<p>But well-known food movement scholar and activist <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-holt-gimenez/the-2013-world-food-prize_b_3469222.html">Eric Holt Gimenez criticised the prize outcome </a> saying it has “become a corporate celebration of self”.</p>
<p>The further development of biotechnologies has been openly endorsed by agricultural exporting countries, <a href="http://www.daff.gov.au/agriculture-food/biotechnology/joint-statement-innovative-agricultural-production-technologies">including Australia</a>. The newly-released <a href="http://www.daff.gov.au/nationalfoodplan/white-paper">National Food Plan</a> called for the expansion of genetically engineered crops in this country.</p>
<p>However, critics say that in over 20 years of commercially-planted, genetically-engineered crops, <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/failure-to-yield.html">yield gains have been minimal</a>. </p>
<p>In fact, the technology may be causing yields to fall by decreasing biodiversity and contributing to the evolution of superweeds. <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121002092839.htm">Herbicide volumes are now rising at 25% per year</a> to cope with these superweeds.</p>
<h2>Hunger amid abundance</h2>
<p>Enough food is being produced to <a href="http://www.smallfootprintfamily.com/can-organic-farming-feed-the-world#ixzz2X5qPF1op">feed 12 billion people globall</a>. But as Olivier De Schutter, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Right to Food [wrote when he visited Australia last year](http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4077824.html](http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4077824.html), “people are hungry because they are marginalised economically and powerless politically”.</p>
<p>The real progress towards reducing hunger has not been through the mass commercialisation of genetic-engineering technologies. Instead it has come through coordinated policy initiatives across health, education, gender, and housing, in a broad and inclusive process of reform driven forward by an engaged and mobilised civil society.</p>
<p>Given that the majority of hungry people are smallholder farmers or landless rural workers, agroecology has been <a href="http://www.srfood.org/index.php/en/component/content/article/1174-report-agroecology-and-the-right-to-food">endorsed by De Schutter and others</a> as having the capacity to “double food production in entire regions within 10 years while mitigating climate change and alleviating rural poverty”.</p>
<h2>Agroecology and food sovereignty</h2>
<p>By combining the experiences of local farmers with scientific insight, agroecology aims to mimic natural ecosystems with a focus on crop diversity and the reuse of resources. Improved soil fertility and water management are just some of the environmental and agricultural benefits that have been <a href="https://theconversation.com/grafting-timeless-farming-skills-on-to-modern-techniques-14866">recently summarised on The Conversation</a>.</p>
<p>What we want to draw attention to here is how agroecology is being integrated into a broader social and political movement striving for major changes in world food systems.</p>
<p>Agroecology aims to share knowledge and resources among farmers to increase their independence and sustainability. This is why the self-described international peasants movement, <a href="http://viacampesina.org/en/">La Via Campesina</a>, incorporates agroecology as a central pillar of its vision for food sovereignty.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.nyeleni.org/?lang=en">Food sovereignty</a> calls for communities to have a much greater say over their food and agricultural systems by reducing excessive corporate control of food production and distribution.</p>
<p>These principles have been enshrined in the constitutions and laws of several countries including Ecuador, Nepal, Mali, Bolivia, Venezuela and Brazil; and at a local level in several counties in Maine and <a href="http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2011/03/22/interactive-food-sovereignty-map/">elsewhere in the US</a>.</p>
<p>La Via Campesina and its allies also have a strong presence in the new civil society mechanism of the reformed <a href="http://www.fao.org/cfs/en/">Committee on World Food Security of the Food and Agriculture Organisation</a>, which is emerging as an alternative to to the corporate-dominated G8 initiatives in global food governance.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/26997/original/dnttqr65-1373160807.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/26997/original/dnttqr65-1373160807.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/26997/original/dnttqr65-1373160807.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/26997/original/dnttqr65-1373160807.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/26997/original/dnttqr65-1373160807.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/26997/original/dnttqr65-1373160807.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/26997/original/dnttqr65-1373160807.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 concepts of agroecology are being used to promote food sovereignty within La Via Campesina the world’s largest social movement.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Flickr/desfilhesjm</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Emerging alternatives: the Jakarta Call</h2>
<p>Over 500 participants from 88 countries, including (for the first time) Australia, recently attended the sixth international La Via Campesina conference. The outcome was a new declaration, representing 183 peasant and family farmer organisations, the “<a href="http://viacampesina.org/en/index.php/our-conferences-mainmenu-28/6-jakarta-2013/resolutions-and-declarations/1428-the-jakarta-call">Jakarta Call</a>”.</p>
<p>This declaration called for the widespread embrace of agroecology as the way to “defend biodiversity, cool the planet and protect our soils”. This idea is <a href="http://www.agroeco.org/socla/pdfs/Altieri_Toledo_JPS_38_03_2011.pdf">increasingly supported</a> by [studies worldwide](http://www.globalagriculture.org/original-reports.html#c20769](http://www.globalagriculture.org/original-reports.html#c20769).</p>
<p>Food and agriculture are at a crossroads. In this country both major parties have thrown in their lot with the biotech industry and the warmed-up concept of the “<a href="https://theconversation.com/romancing-the-north-the-food-bowl-furphy-15469">northern food bowl</a>” which is both <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2013/06/27/3790269.htm">unrealistic and dangerous</a>. Meanwhile our horticultural and food manufacturing industries continue to bleed farmers and workers dry, pushed by our government’s blind faith in free trade ideology. It’s time for some fresh thinking in this critically-important area. The world’s poor may just have something to teach us.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/15693/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nicholas Rose is affiliated with the Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance and the Food Connect Foundation.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article. They also have no relevant affiliations.</span></em></p>The biotech industry has long sought legitimacy by claiming that its genetically modified crop technologies are “feeding the world”. However this relentless focus on increasing food production ignores…Nick Rose, Contract Research Assistant , The University of MelbourneFederico Davila, Research and Teaching Support, Human Ecology Program, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.