by Sophien Kamoun and Eric Ward

Bacterial blight caused by Xanthomonas can result in up to 50% yield reduction in severe epidemics. Image from the International Rice Research Institute.

In 2007, Sebastian Schornack, then a freshly minted Ph.D. student from the laboratories of Thomas Lahaye and Ulla Bonas at the Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, was fastidiously carrying out follow-up experiments to his thesis work. For the past few years he had been studying how the bacterium Xanthomonas infects its plant hosts. Specifically, he was interested in a class of “effector” proteins, called transcription activator-like (TAL) effectors, that the bacterium delivers to the nuclei of host cells to alter plant gene expression.

Ever since their discovery in the late 1980s, the unusual structure of these effector proteins has intrigued plant microbiologists. TAL effectors contain many near-perfect repeats 34 amino acids in length with two hypervariable residues, but the biological meaning of this peculiar modular structure was unknown. At the time Schornack was finishing his thesis, TAL effectors had just been discovered to bind specific DNA sequences in the genomes of their host plants, where they activated expression of host genes thought to favour colonization by the pathogen. While comparing the identity of the hypervariable amino acids in the repeats of particular TAL effectors with the corresponding DNA sequence of their binding sites, Schornack experienced a flash of insight, and noticed a defining pattern [Schornack].

Following discussions with Jens Boch and experimental work with their colleagues at Halle University, it became evident that, indeed, a “code” built into the TAL effector proteins determines their DNA binding specificity [Boch]. Not long after that, across the Atlantic, another Ph.D. student Matt Moscou, working with Adam Bogdanove at Iowa State University, independently reached a similar conclusion using clever computational analyses of TAL effector-induced expression changes in rice plants [Moscou].

Both teams immediately grasped the impact of their discoveries – synthetic TAL effectors could be custom designed to bind any target DNA sequence. Such a technological breakthrough would have far reaching implications in biotechnology.

Fast forward to 2012: the reach of TAL effectors has gone beyond the study of plant-microbe interactions. TAL effectors are now ubiquitously used in biotechnology and the emerging field of synthetic biology [Bogdanove]. Scientists have also shown that by hooking TAL effectors to nucleases, enzymes that nick DNA, they can target an exact site in a genome to produce variations. For instance, one study revealed that injection of mouse embryos with TAL-nucleases yields adult mice that vary at specific, predicted positions in their genomes [Tesson]. The possibilities are immense for using TAL technology to induce targeted variations in the genomes of mammals, flies, worms and plants. Laboratories worldwide are putting the technology to creative use with numerous exciting applications certain to emerge.

A game-changing application of TAL technology to crop breeding is described in a recent paper in Nature Biotechnology by Bing Yang and colleagues [Li]. In this landmark study, the authors used TAL-nucleases to remove a small stretch of DNA from the genome of rice that rendered it susceptible to bacterial blight, an important disease that affects millions of hectares throughout Asia.

This study ushers in a new era in crop breeding. Plant geneticists will now be able to use TAL-nucleases to introduce precise, favorable modifications in any region of the genome. Remarkably, because Li and colleagues have bred out the TAL sequences, the resulting rice varieties lack any foreign DNA.

Figure 1e from Li. The top row is a DNA sequence in the gene that makes wild type rice susceptible to blight. Each of the other rows have deletions (marked by dashed) or additions (red letters) induced by the TAL-nuclease.

Instead of adding a sentence or two to the genome book, as is done by standard genetic modification (GM) approaches, they removed a few letters; the rice varieties they generated lack anywhere from 3 to 57 bases in their genomes (as in the Figure to the right from the Li paper). Thus, the rice plants generated by Li et al. do not contain extraneous DNA and cannot by any reasonable definition be considered “GMOs.”

Specific removal or replacement of a few letters of DNA can already be achieved by much more laborious, less directed methods, using chemical mutagens or treatments with radioactivity. So in principle Li et al. could have generated an identical result by blasting rice seed with a fast neutron beam or soaking them in diepoxybutane and screening a massive population (10s of thousands to millions) of their progeny for the exact deletion they achieved in one go using the TAL nuclease. Curiously, the random mutagenesis method, which requires highly toxic radiation or chemical treatment, is perfectly acceptable in the production of crop varieties that can be sold as “organic”!

Frank marvels at the possibility of rice fields that are no longer susceptible to blight. "Can they do that to corn, too?"

One intriguing aspect of the methodology used in this study is that the rice variants can in fact be considered the exact opposite of transgenic plants given that DNA has been removed from their genomes. One could even use this logic to turn some of the arguments raised against GM crops on their heads. For instance, GM opponents often argue that insertion of extraneous DNA can cause new, unknown allergenicity. Should one then argue that crops with genome deletions could be unpredictably hypoallergenic? GM opponents argue that foreign DNA raises the specter of contamination of other plants and the environment. Do these new rice reduce the risk of DNA pollution? And so on, ad absurdum.

One hopes that groups traditionally opposed to GMO crops will understand and appreciate that the outputs generated by TAL-induced variations, are indistinguishable from mutations that arise by other, more “acceptable” means and that already pervade the genomes of the crops we eat.

Let’s work together to bring to fruition “next-generation plant breeding” and use novel technologies to help secure an adequate, sustainable food supply for our growing population. The quality of our lives and the future of our planet are at stake.

Links

• Boch J, Scholze H, Schornack S, Landgraf A, Hahn S, Kay S, Lahaye T, Nickstadt A, & Bonas U (2009). Breaking the code of DNA binding specificity of TAL-type III effectors. Science (New York, N.Y.), 326 (5959), 1509-12 PMID: 19933107
• Bogdanove AJ, & Voytas DF (2011). TAL effectors: customizable proteins for DNA targeting. Science (New York, N.Y.), 333(6051), 1843-6 PMID: 21960622
• Moscou MJ, & Bogdanove AJ (2009). A simple cipher governs DNA recognition by TAL effectors. Science (New York, N.Y.), 326 (5959) PMID: 19933106
• Li T, Liu B, Spalding MH, Weeks DP, & Yang B (2012). High-efficiency TALEN-based gene editing produces disease-resistant rice. Nature biotechnology, 30 (5), 390-2 PMID: 22565958
• Schornack, S & Boch, J (2010). Unraveling a 20-Year Enigma. MPMI Reporter.
• Tesson L, Usal C, Ménoret S, Leung E, Niles BJ, Remy S, Santiago Y, Vincent AI, Meng X, Zhang L, Gregory PD, Anegon I, & Cost GJ (2011). Knockout rats generated by embryo microinjection of TALENs. Nature biotechnology, 29 (8), 695-6 PMID: 21822240

Bios

Sophien is a senior scientist and Head of The Sainsbury Laboratory. He received his B.S. degree from Pierre and Marie Curie University, Paris, France, and his Ph.D. in Genetics from the University of California, Davis, USA. He held a faculty position at Ohio State University, USA, in the Department of Plant Pathology, Wooster campus, before joining The Sainsbury Laboratory in 2007. His recent research focuses on plant pathogenomics, filamentous pathogen effector biology and devising new approaches to breeding disease-resistant crops. Follow him on twitter @KamounLab

.

Eric has worked in ag biotech (Ciba-Geigy, Novartis, Cropsolution) since his PhD at Washington University in St. Louis.  He is President of Two Blades Foundation and in that capacity is responsible for a research group at The Sainsbury Laboratory.  His group focuses on identifying novel resistances to major crop diseases.

.

.

KJHvM: Can you tell us a bit about yourself and how you came to work at Rothamsted and on this project? What is your role in the project?

GA: I’m the newest member of the GM wheat team, I joined the E-β-farnesene project a year and a half ago. I did my PhD jointly at Rothamsted Research and Imperial College London where my work focused on the giant willow aphid (Tuberolachnus salignus), chemical ecology and population genetics. My PhD project was partly supervised by the chemical ecology group and when I had the opportunity to join, I jumped at the chance. We have a fantastic team of people working together, and a lot of interdisciplinary possibilities with the different departments within Rothamsted and the wider scientific community. We work on a number of projects, and my contribution to this particular project has been insect behavioural studies and analysis of the volatile profiles of the GM wheat.

KJHvM: Can you explain the experiment for our readers? What is the nature of the trait, how it works, and how it could change wheat production if it is successful? How important is this research?

GA: I like to say that we are helping plants to protect themselves against insects. The trait engineered into the wheat plant is the volatile emission of the aphid alarm pheromone (E)-β-farnesene (EBF). Semiochemicals such as EBF are chemical messages which are used generally by insects and in this case by aphids, both in gathering information about their environment and in signalling to each other. When an aphid is attacked by a predator it emits EBF from its cornicles, which is recognised by the other aphids as an alarm pheromone, so they can escape. (E)-β-farnesene is present in many plant species, but is normally emitted in combination with other plant volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Research by our group has shown the importance of blends and ratios of plant VOCs to insect responses, and the fact that wheat emits almost no other volatiles means that we can fool the aphids into thinking the wheat emitted EBF comes from a fellow aphid. The second line of defence comes from aphid predators that have come to recognise EBF as a cue that there are aphids in the area, and are attracted in by the aphid alarm signal. We have tested insect responses to two GM events in the lab, where we observed very good responses to the traits by both aphids and predators. If this works equally well in the field, this wheat would be protected against the diseases and yield losses caused by aphids. This would reduce the need for chemical input by the farmer, avoid collateral damage of beneficial insects caused by use of insecticides, and contribute to sustainable agriculture.

KJHvM: How is this strategy different from the kinds of GE traits that people may be more familiar with? Can traits like this be employed in a large number of crops?

GA: This method would affect the behaviour of the insect by changing the way the plant smells, making it avoid its host-plant, and is therefore a non-toxic method of pest management. The reason this could work well in the aphid-wheat system is because wheat doesn’t emit many other VOCs, so the aphid perceives it as a pure alarm pheromone. It might be possible to use similar traits in other insect-plant systems, but as pest insects often specialise on only one or few host-plants, and the volatile profile of each plant species is different, each system would need to be studied separately.

KJHvM: What kinds of other changes might happen to the wheat as a result of this new trait? Does it alter the flavor, texture, yield, or other properties of the plants? What do you know about this genetically engineered wheat already, and what are you hoping to achieve with the trial?

Wheat plants, credit: KJHvM

GA: There are no phenotypic changes in the GM wheat plants compared with the control plants. Over 400 plants already produce EBF. Three new proteins are made by the GM plants which are all widely occurring in nature, non-toxic and non-allergenic, posing no safety concerns that we know of. The proteins are (E)-β-farnesene synthase, farnesyl pyrophosphate synthase and phosphinothricin acetyltransferase. The first two are common proteins found in many organisms (some that are part of the food and feed chains). The third is a bacterial protein used as a selectable marker but is not needed for aphid resistance and could be removed before commercialisation. We will do further measurements on the quality, yield etc at the harvest of the field trial. We have had very positive results in laboratory experiments and by doing this trial in field conditions we want to establish whether the EBF emission by the wheat plants significantly alters aphid behaviour, repelling them away from the plants, as well as attracting aphid predators into the crop in an open air situation. This has the potential to become a non-toxic method of pest control.

KJHvM: What kinds of changes might be expected to happen with aphid populations? What do we know about the ability of aphids to adapt to constant exposure to this pheromone?

GA: Our field trial is only being conducted at a very small scale. There are only eight 6x6m plots of GM wheat planted, so this will not have any effect on aphid populations. At present aphids are controlled using pesticides, which do collateral damage to other beneficial insects, such as ladybirds and parasitic wasps. Any pest management system will eventually experience a level of resistance. However, in this case the level of defence is twofold, if the aphids become habituated to their own alarm pheromone they would not be able to warn each other of danger. Because adapted aphids would be more vulnerable to predators, there will be a selective pressure on the aphids to keep responding to the alarm pheromone.

(Editor’s Note: This paper describes how one aphid species experiences fitness costs after becoming habituated to E-β-farnesene. Fearless aphids get eaten by Ladybugs. Also see this video that shows how aphids react to this pheromone.)

KJHvM: There has been some confusion about the nature of the genetic change. I understand that one gene came from peppermint, but some people have been talking about its similarity to a gene from cows. Can you unravel this confusion? Is the sequence publicly available for making comparisons?

Rhopalosiphum padi is afraid, very afraid.

GA: Our plants contain two functional, codon-optimised, synthetic genes but the ACRE (UK Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment) consent process specifically requires the applicant to name the ‘source organism’ of the genes being transferred. We questioned this exact point with ACRE and, although the DNA added to wheat was chemically-synthesised and not actually taken from any organism, we were required to name the closest match in our application. The EBF synthase gene is based on the peppermint gene and that is the closest match. We purposefully chose an animal form of the FPP synthase gene because there was evidence that the enzyme would function more efficiently and that it was less likely to be down-regulated by the plant. We happen to base our synthetic FPP gene on a sequence that encodes the cow form of the enzyme, although FPP synthase is found in many animals and plants and we are currently looking to see whether plant versions would work just as effectively. Thus, there is a tiny piece of genetic material in one of our GM lines that has some sequence similarity with a cow gene. But it is not from a cow and was synthesised in the lab. The field trial will compare the performance of that line with another line that only has the peppermint based gene. It may not be necessary to continue development of that line if the peppermint based gene is shown to perform well on its own. We also need to keep in minds that this is an experimental system, to test a concept. It is not a plant that is being grown for food. Synthetic genes as this is common practice in molecular biology experiments now (quicker, cheaper and easier to use in an experimental system). The wheat from this experiment will be cultivated, measured and destroyed in accordance with stipulations made by ACRE. It is not designed for human consumption. Even if the experiment does repel aphids under field conditions as well as it has done under our extensive laboratory experiments (we will not know this until after the experiment), then many more years of continued carefully controlled experimentation will be required, including looking at the precise DNA sequences used. The actual sequence used in the GM plants has not been published yet, but will be included in a future publication.

KJHvM: I understand that a group of protesters calling themselves “Take the Flour Back” are objecting to this trial, and are threatening to vandalize the wheat on or before May 27. I also understand that a significant part of the budget is being spent on security. Was this response expected? Are you confident that you would be able to protect the trial?

Is Take the Flour Back pro-aphid?

GA: When we heard about the protest we contacted the organisers to ask if we could be of assistance on the day of protest and establish a dialogue. It was only later that we heard they were planning to destroy the experiment. If someone is intent on destroying the trial at any cost, they will find a way to do so. However, we hope that by appealing to the protesters and explaining the work we do, they will see the real benefits this could provide to sustainable agriculture in the future. It is upsetting to think that the work may be compromised, but we cannot go into the future building bigger fences around our research. We need to be able to conduct experiments openly in a safe and responsible manner. The plot is surrounded by a perimeter fence that has been erected to prevent the entry of rabbits, other large mammals, and unauthorised people to the site. There is also a security guard on duty at all times. The value of the whole project is £732.000 and an additional £245.000 was provided for security measures.

KJHvM: What progress has been made starting a dialogue with the protesting group?

GA: We sent a letter and a video message to the protesters, asking them to reconsider their planned attack on our experiment. They have written back to us saying they would welcome the opportunity to engage in a public debate with us. We have contacted them twice since to arrange a public debate, but are still awaiting a reply.

Frank won't sleep until the wheat is safe!

KJHvM: What can scientists and other supporters do to show their support, or even help on May 27 (or after) if the protesters ultimately decide to try to destroy the experiment? Will there be a counter-protest?

GA: We are very grateful for all the support we have received from the public which has included people from all walks of life not just scientists. The best way for people to show their support is by signing petition that sense about science started upon seeing our video and letter http://www.senseaboutscience.org/pages/rothamsted-appeal.html. I do not think a counter protest on the day, however well-meaning, will actually help as it is likely to increase tensions and confuse issues. We recommend that anyone who wants to support us does not come down on the day, but instead show their support via other channels before the protest day. A handful of our scientists will be available on the day to engage in dialogue with the protesters and we will do what we can to facilitate a peaceful protest. We should leave it in the very capable hands of the police who will deal with anyone who breaks the law.

KJHvM: Where can people go to find out more information?

GA: General information about the trial can be found on the Rothamsted Research website: http://www.rothamsted.ac.uk/Content.php?Section=AphidWheat

Here are also links to the key publications on the project: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v302/n5909/abs/302608a0.html http://www.pnas.org/content/103/27/10509

http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/63/2/537

http://www.springerlink.com/content/j438j82621156271/?MUD=MP

And finally, here is a link to our petition where we ask people to support our right to conduct research without the threat of it being destroyed: http://www.senseaboutscience.org/pages/rothamsted-appeal.html

KJHvM: Some of these questions came from the Biofortified Blog community, and I have also asked Dr. Aradottir to stick around for the discussion and help address any other questions our readers might have. Her research group is very busy both with their experiments and also with the enormous amount of media attention that this experiment has attracted. (I signed their online petition when there were only 30 people on it, and now supporters number over 4,000.) We are very lucky to have this kind of detailed information during this developing story, and for that I am very thankful to Dr. Aradottir and everyone else who contributed.

We Americans love sweet corn – our uniquely national vegetable.   We consume ~9 lbs of sweet corn per person per year (see how that compares to other vegetables in the graph above).  The farmers that grow this crop for us do so on a much more local basis than for most fruit or vegetable crops.  There are significant sweet corn acres in 24 states and a total of >260,000 acres nation-wide for the fresh market and >300,000 for canned and frozen corn (see graph below). Sweet corn can be difficult to grow for many reasons, and is often sprayed with insecticides. A biotech solution to this problem exists, but it is under-utilized, in part, due to campaigns by anti-GMO activists. In the end, the people most hurt by this are the American sweet corn growers.

Why Sweet Corn Is Hard To Grow

As popular as sweet corn is, growing this crop is extremely challenging for the farmer.  There are lots of pests that love corn as much as we do – particularly the caterpillars (see picture below.)   Farmers must spray the crop over and over again in order to deliver undamaged ears.  At best a grower might need to make ~4 insecticide sprays/season.  In some areas it can require 20 or more! One reason why so many sprays may be necessary is that the spray only does any good while the caterpillars are still outside of the corn plant. Once they get inside, they have an easy meal.

This Isn’t Our Problem As Consumers

All this insecticide use isn’t a consumer issue.  Because the corn is husked, the USDA pesticide residue analysis of sweet corn almost never finds any detectable residues (even the misleading “dirty dozen list” says sweet corn is cool).  The environmental impact of the spraying is closely regulated, but a reduced spray program would further mitigate that risk.  For the farmer, however, the pesticide applications are a major headache, cost, and  source of soil compaction because of the tractor trips.  It is also hard for farmers to plant more than one or two staggered crops of sweet corn because the later crops are subjected to too much insect pressure.

The Biotech Solution That Has Been Little Used

Back in 1999, the ag technology company Syngenta began to offer a biotech, insect resistant option for sweet corn – corn that makes its own Bt protein. This protein is a natural, highly selective pesticide for the control of caterpillars (a protein that has been used on organic and conventional crops for >50 years.)  This attracted very little public attention.  Some of this Bt corn has been used in the Eastern US roadside market, but even though many growers would have loved to plant this corn, there were subtle messages from retailers discouraging them from doing so.

Late last year, another biotech sweet corn option from Monsanto was approved by regulators.  This unleashed a predictable firestorm of anti-GMO activity.  Even after 16 years of commercial biotechnology planting without health effects, and an impressive collection of independent safety data, the automatic opposition to the technology continued without a thought about how it affects the farmer.  Anti-GMO activists put pressure on retailers knowing that their need for brand protection will easily trump any concern for the farmers – in spite of pledges for local sourcing.  Certain chains immediately took the easy course and said they would not purchase biotech sweet corn.  Walmart has now become the main focus of the anti-GMO sweet corn effort.

Who Loses Here?

Of course the only real losers in this scenario are the farmers.  They could have had the option to grow the crop with far fewer sprays, but with all the flap, they will hesitate.  There will probably be very little GMO sweet corn again in 2012, and the anti-GMO camp will declare victory as they have done with potatoes and wheat in the past.  I’ve read dozens of missives on this subject from anti-GMO groups and not one has ever even broached the idea of how the technology could benefit exactly the sort of seasonal, small scale, local farmers they claim to support. (Read a farmer’s perspective here).

Why Were There Ever GMO Sweet Corn Options In The First Place?

It is actually quite unusual for a crop as small as sweet corn to be genetically engineered.  The cost of going through the development and regulatory process makes that too expensive for all but a few crops.  The only reason that biotech sweet corn was ever even offered as an option is its history.  Corn was, of course, a crop that began in the Americas.  It was domesticated by the inhabitants of Mexico 14 thousand years ago from a wild species called Teosinte that doesn’t even look like modern corn.  Later American corn farmers found that if you picked this “field corn” when it was immature, it was a sweet, tasty treat.  The problem was, as my grandfather always said, you had to have the water boiling to cook it before you picked it, because the sugar was quickly converted to starch.

Useful Mutations

In the 1980s, two mutations of corn were found that allowed it to become more than a farmer’s or gardener’s option.  One stopped the conversion to starch so the corn would stay sweet long enough to get it to stores.  The other made the kernels more tender.  Once these had been bred into the, now “heirloom” varieties like “Illini Extrasweet,”  the commercial sweet corn business grew significantly (see graph below).

Sweet Corn is Still Corn

People worry unnecessarily about “genetic contamination,” from GMO crops, but the truth is that plants (like animals) can only make genetic crosses with extremely closely related organisms.  Sweet corn is still the same species as field corn, so the companies that went through all the expense to generate and register GMO field corn lines were able to “back-cross” those traits into sweet corn at a practical cost.  That is really the only reason that such a relatively minor crop ever became a candidate for biotechnology improvements.

That artifact should have been a great boon to sweet corn farmers, but the most likely scenario is that “food movement activists” who think they are battling with corporations are actually just denying mostly small-scale, local farmers a way to make their job easier.  They are trying to enlist you, the consumer in that effort.  Whose side will you choose?  The farmers or the activists?  Will you even get the option to “vote” or will activists simply prevail again?

Graphs by me based on USDA-NASS Data.  Corn Earworm Image from Texas A&M. You are welcome to comment here and/or to email me a savage.sd@gmail.com

Frank gets a smooch from a carrot at SciFest, 2012

Happy May, everyone! Frank N. Foode™ here to announce the start of a new community contest here on the Biofortified Blog!

Spring is an exciting time for a plant such as myself. Farmers and gardeners everywhere are planning and planting, tilling and drilling, and hoping for a good summer grilling! Around the hemisphere, plants are popping up from the soil – aided by our human friends. Being a domesticated plant has its benefits, but we depend on people to plant us, weed our beds, protect us from pests, and make sure we have the moisture and nutrients we need. I try to help when I can, digging my roots deep in the soil, and jousting with caterpillars ad beetle larvae, but my tassel’s off to the hard work of people who love plants.

If you read this blog, you probably love plants. You might be growing plants right now, or have tried to. If so, this contest is for you. We want to hear about your gardens! Those labors of love between you and your plants and all the successes and failures that come with it. And we’ve got some special prizes just in time to make your gardening even more awesome this year (or to help heal the wounds of past attempts)!

The Rules:

• This contest is open to everyone – you need not have ever commented on the blog before the day you enter in the contest. But, you will need to be registered for the blog to enter. Even editors and contributors can get in on the action!
• Go to the Forum and start a new topic in our new Gardening section.
• Write about your garden. What did you grow, and what are you growing this year? What kinds of plants do you grow, and why? Are there certain genetic considerations that you make when you garden, such as varieties, hybrids or OPs, Do you save your own seeds or do some of your own breeding? Do you garden organically, do you compost your vegetables, buy starts or sprout your own seeds? Are there plants you wish you could grow where you live, but can’t? Do you buy your seeds from certain companies, avoid certain seeds on principle, or wish that some seeds were available for you to grow at home? Why do you garden, or garden the way you do? The list goes on.
• If you do not have a garden, you can still enter. Have you wanted to garden but could not? Have you dreamed about row upon row of blackberries and raspberries, or every kind of tomato imaginable? Or, perhaps you have tried to garden and it didn’t work out. What kinds of challenges have you had to deal with? Tell us about your dreams, and your successes and failures.
• If you can, upload a picture of your garden to your profile and display it in your Forum post so we can see what your garden looks like. Don’t be afraid!
• Drop a comment here to show off your entry, and if you are on twitter, if you send a tweet my way I will tell my over 750 followers about it!
• Stick around for the comments, give helpful suggestions, and see what everyone else is growing.
• The contest is open until the 31st of May, 2012.
• Biofortified’s Editors will decide on a winner and announce the results the first week of June. (They will recuse themselves from voting on their own entries, of course.)

Prizes:

"I make my own wax, too, but not like this!"

The top ten entries will get a 2 oz tin of homemade hand salve made from beeswax, almond oil and coconut oil! The perfect thing to moisturize and protect those dry, cracked hands that have been working in the yard – or protect them before you do. I also hear it softens men’s beards. Just by entering in this contest, you stand a very high chance to get something that companies really charge a lot for. And guess whose bees the wax came from?

For our winner, we have an official Biofortified Blog tote bag, and your choice of a book from our prize page. If you are in the gardening book spirit, you might consider these titles worthy to shoot for:

• The Conscientious Gardener, Cultivating a Garden Ethic, by Dr. Sarah Hayden Reichard
• The $64 Tomato, How one Man nearly lost his Sanity, Spent a Fortune, and Endured an Existential Crisis in the Quest for the Perfect Garden, by William Alexander
• Growing a Garden City,  by Jeremy N. Smith.

If we get a lot of entries, we might add more prizes!

There you have it, so snap some shots, and tell us how you love your plants! Good luck with your gardens, and with winning the fame and glory of all your peers! Me? I think there’s a planter somewhere I’ve got to hop into. See you after the next rain!

"I'm goin' in!"

A paper in this week’s issue of Nature and a commentary on Revkin’s DotEarth blog reinforces the argument that a hybrid path in agriculture — incorporating both conventional and organic production practices — gives the best chance of feeding some 9 billion people by midcentury in an ecologically-based manner.

The thoughtful and comprehensive study compares yields in organic and conventional systems and addresses the criticisms of an earlier study by Badgley et al (for problems with the earlier study, see the supplementary discussion in Seufert et al).

The organic agriculture movement has been important because it has brought consumer attention to the overuse of some pesticides and fertilizers. It has also raised awareness of the need to foster soil fertility. But organic farming practices are just part of a future sustainable agriculture. Just like conventional farmers, organic farmers face pests that are difficult to control or environmental stresses that can affect yield. For example, strawberries are highly susceptible to soil born diseases. Currently both conventional and organic growers purchase clonally propagated seedlings that were fumigated with methyl bromide, an insecticide known to increase the risk of prostrate cancer. Unlike conventional growers, organic growers do not use methyl bromide in the field. To reduce infection, they rotate strawberries with another crop, such as broccoli (a less valuable crop). The trade off to the grower is that yields of organic strawberries are lower. And the consumer pays higher prices for organic strawberries. Clearly, we need better methods to control strawberry diseases that will benefit both conventional and organic production.

Although the Seufert et al study shows that yields on organic farms are generally lower than most conventional farms (with important exceptions that the authors discuss), this yield differential will change with time. On the one hand, as Seufert et al point out, improvements in management techniques that address factors limiting yields in organic systems will enhance the yield of organic systems. On the other hand, because organic farmers are prohibited from using genetically engineered crops, they will not be able to reap the benefits of new crop varieties that assimilate nitrogen more efficiently, that are resistant to disease or tolerant of drought. For example, genetically engineered papaya in Hawaii yields 20x more than organic papaya (note, it appears that papaya was not included in the Suefert et al study). This is because there is no organic method to control a devastating viral disease that has infected papaya. At the other extreme, Suefert et al show that yields of other organic fruit and oilseed crops show very little yield differences with conventional crops. Clearly it is impossible to say which farming system is “better”. Each crop and faming system must be evaluated on a case by case basis.

The study points to the need to drop the ideologically charged “organic vs. conventional” debate and instead focus on what matters: the need to reduce the use of the most toxic insecticides, produce food more efficiently using less land and water and to enhance food security in the poorest regions of the world.

This post was syndicated from Tomorrow's Table You may comment on the original entry.

Well you are in for a treat! We have arranged an interview with Gia Aradottir, who is a biologist involved in the project. Here is a story that focused on her work. Is there anything you want to know about this GE wheat experiment? Do you have any questions for Gia about how this wheat works, or what she will be doing to evaluate it in the field? What about the public response? What do YOU want to know about GE wheat?

Put your questions in the comments, and we may have an answer for you in the next week or two!

From GMO Pundit Blog

The French (and other Europeans) are currently exporting disease to the United States in the form of measles infections. This post attempts to put on the record where this problem comes from. It comes from beliefs in complementary and alternative therapies as a substitute for conventional medical treatment (CAM).

We start out documenting the large outbreaks of infectious disease in France, then provide an illustration of the forthright and opinionated expression of alternative medical ideas in that country, and finish with a compilation of the orthodox medical literature that dissects this sets of events.

The take home message is that there is real health damage generated by scaremongering about modern medicine, gruesomely illustrated by public failure to accept the use of disease-preventative vaccines, causing disease outbreaks, death, and permanent bodily damage such as encephalitis in the victims of disease.

These horrible and predictable consequences show up in European statistics demonstrating the resurgence of measles disease. These are available from surveillance reports published by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control.

One of the worst affected countries is France.

SURVEILLANCE REPORT European monthly measles monitoring (EMMO) (pdf file)

Issue 8: 21 February 2012

Measles is a highly infectious and potentially fatal disease which can be prevented by a safe and effective vaccine. When given in two doses, at least 98% of vaccine recipients develop life-long protective immunity against the disease. As the measles virus only infects humans, the disease could theoretically be eradicated. The countries in the European Region of the World Health Organization, which includes all EU and EEA/EFTA countries, have committed to eliminate measles transmission by 2015. Elimination of measles requires sustained vaccination coverage above 95% with two doses of a measles-containing vaccine.

In 2011, 30 567 cases of measles were reported by the 29 contributing EU and EEA/EFTA countries. This is effectively the same number of cases as was reported in 2010 (30 264 cases) but a four-fold increase compared with 2009 (7 175 cases) and 2008 (7 817).

• Five countries – France, Italy, Romania, Spain and Germany – accounted for more than 90% of all measles cases reported in 2011.

• Twenty-four of the 29 contributing countries reported more measles cases in 2011 than in 2010.

• Only two countries remained measles-free in 2011: Iceland and Cyprus.

• There is an ongoing measles outbreak in Ukraine with focus in the western part of the country bordering Hungary, Poland and Slovakia. More than 3 000 cases have been reported so far in 2012. Ukraine will host the European Football Championship together with Poland in June 2012 and large numbers of visitors are expected. Unvaccinated participants and spectators will be at risk of measles infection.

It can be seen from the graphics taken from this measles surveillance report that it is the countries with high vaccination coverage that have the lowest rates of measles.

In France, there is an active social expression of opinions in which conventional medical treatment and vaccination are strongly questioned and disparaged among the educated and literate French people. An example is provided by following text,  which is a machine translation from a French booklet (pdf file)  advocating alternative ideas on medicine (whose cover shown at the beginning of this post).

Sacred territory

Take care of his health, respect of others and the environment. Understand the process of immunization to choose from well vaccinated, with all the guarantees of success. Reap the benefits and assume the risks. Apply the precautionary principle. Knowing the contra-indications for each. In short, take responsibility for immunization to self, family, society, here and now, but everywhere and for future generations. The earth and human beings are sacred territories. No one has the right to enter uninvited.

This alternative guide immunization was carried out from these ideas and with the authors that are familiar. You meet in your associations, their consulting practices, conventions, conferences and alternative gatherings. They represent the other medicine, respectful of your integrity. They are the actors in this modern medicine focusing on…  individual, without toxic drugs.

Vaccination is a medical custom. The mass vaccinations are dangerous. But, vaccinate the entire population against all diseases is a huge market, virtually inexhaustible source of considerable financial benefits for shareholders of multinational pharmaceutical companies. Nowadays, stock markets rule the world. The hype merchants and the official propaganda vaccines are struggling to make us believe that vaccination is the silver bullet to stay healthy.

Faced with this unilateral advertising, it is essential that everyone has access to different information. This alternative guide to vaccinations is made so that you are informed to make an informed decision. Pierre JEAN

Vaccines, viruses and microbes

It is now recognized that Pasteur was a forger. Bechamp, Tissot and others had denounced in their time. Compelling experiences have shown that the approach of Pasteur on germs was false, having himself acknowledged on his death bed!

Why is not criticism last hundred years? The scientific community, once again, was satisfied with short-termism: the disappearance of germ or virus and the apparent eradication of the disease.

If we can show that microbe or virus as a function of the composition of culture medium, we must admit that it was present in cells and that only the terrain allowed it to occur or not. Louis Pasteur had also proved itself in a communication to the Academy of Science. He demonstrated the role of stress on the result of inoculation of anthrax by presenting two chickens inoculated. Only those who died had been subjected to cold exposure prior to injection.

Why has it taken so long to access this information? Why the viewpoint of a scholar like Antoine Bechamp is it not taught in schools? This would allow researchers to test the veracity of his work. And the scandal of vaccinations – medical error if any – would not be perpetuated. Yet it continues because of media hype, manipulation and abusive advertising, to preserve the huge financial interests related to mass vaccination. They contribute to the major deficit of Social Security.

Today, it’s time to stop these lies. The new medicine, that of information, we can approach a totally different disease. It makes us consider vaccinations as one of the biggest mistakes of our time, the remains of a medieval anti-scientific approach, which refuses to take into account the “ground”. Yet what have we rehashed: “The microbe is nothing, the terrain is everything!”

The terrain is characterized, among other characteristics, by the vibratory rate of our cells and organs.

Physics tells us that a vibration is always a form, and vice versa. Thus a field weakened leaves emerge from constituents who normally do not occur. The alleged “abusers”: germs, viruses and prions are nothing but cellular constituents. So these are endogenous products and not “aggressors from elsewhere”. Then it is absurd to try to immunize an organization against its own constituents! By doing so, we change the terrain, so the vibration, and the virus or microbe is no longer manifested.

The consequence is that another pathology will likely make its appearance; person, or almost, one would think of linking it to this barbaric act against nature and that is to enter the body:

• A vile concoction made from immortal cells (cancer) of fetal calf serum (…prions).

• The famous Freund’s adjuvant, a potent oxidant, without which there would be no “immunization”, and for good reason!

…

It is necessary that the public has a rigorous approach to the problem of data to allow those who would bother to think about claiming the rightful freedom of choice for themselves not to undergo mandatory aggression, supported and perpetuated by the unspeakable behaviour of “experts” whose archaic sign of inadequate information on the evolution of science.

Motivation is more, far from it, people’s health, but the profitability and pharmaceutical fortune.

Vaccination remains one of the biggest scandals to come, the source of many lawsuits that would allow victims the recognition of their suffering, caused by those whose mission was to protect them and among them, hopefully, it n ‘ there will be more “responsible but not guilty!” Jacqueline Bousquet

Jacqueline Bousquet, Dr ès-sciences-biology biophysics, honorary research fellow at CNRS, is the author with Sylvie Simon of Revival of Consciousness.

Several recent authoritative medical publications discuss the rejection of vaccination in France, for  example

Bull Acad Natl Med. 2010 Apr-May;194(4-5):719-32; discussion 732.

[Consequences of opposition to vaccination in France and Europe. How to maintain

effective vaccine coverage in 2010?].[Article in French] Bégué P. pbegue@wanadoo.fr

Refusal of vaccination can result in inadequate vaccine coverage. The collective benefit of immunisation depends on a sufficient and sustained level of vaccine coverage. Low vaccine coverage can lead to the persistence of preventable diseases and, in some cases, to a dangerous shift in the age of pathogen encounter towards adulthood. This is the case of measles in Europe, where some countries, including France, have not reached the effective vaccine coverage rate of 95%. Outbreaks are occurring, leading to complications (encephalitis and pneumonia) in adolescents and adults, necessitating hospitalization in nearly one-third of cases. The French population is also under-vaccinated against hepatitis B, due to fears of a risk of demyelinating disorders: the coverage rate is currently only about 30% in infants and 10% in adolescents. These difficulties are due to negligence and to vaccine refusal by parents. Refusal of immunisation has a long history in Europe, and explains for example why pertussis remained endemic in many countries until 1995, and also the resurgence of diphtheria in the Russian federation during the 1990s. Sections of Western society are now questioning the need for some routine vaccines, overlooking the fact that they have eradicated some diseases (polio, diphtheria, etc.) and protect effectively against lesser-known pathogens such as hepatitis B virus and HPV. In France, it will be necessary to restructure healthcare professional training programs in vaccinology and to provide the public with more thorough information on the risk-benefit ratio of vaccination. The recent controversy surrounding pandemic H1N1 influenza vaccination demonstrates that the public and the media tend to focus more on the potential risks of vaccination than on its benefits. A vigorous ethical and political debate is needed to shape an effective and acceptable vaccine policy for the 21st century. PMID: 21568045  [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Postscript:

There is considerable discussion and substantial rejection of hepatitis B vaccination in France documented in the medical literature:

1. Arch Pediatr. 2012 Feb;19(2):111-7. Epub 2011 Dec 29. [Vaccination against hepatitis B in children: survey on knowledge, opinions, and  practices of general practitioners in Île-de-France in 2009].[Article in French] Partouche H, Scius M, Elie C, Rigal L.

Département de médecine générale, faculté de médecine, université

Paris-Descartes, Sorbonne Paris-Cité, 24, rue du Faubourg-Saint-Jacques, 75014

Paris, France. henri.part@wanadoo.fr

Vaccination against hepatitis B in infants has been recommended since 1994. However, the WHO target of eradicating the disease in Europe is compromised due to less than 50% coverage in France. A telephone survey conducted in the first quarter of 2009 on 300 general practitioners (GPs) randomly selected in 3 departments in eastern Île-de-France was used to study the knowledge, reported practices, and opinions on the vaccine in infants and the impact of the hexavalent vaccine’s reimbursement. Two hundred and nine GPs agreed to answer. Among those taking care of infants (180), 74.4% reported offering them the vaccine. The GPs who did not practice complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), who knew of the reimbursement of the hexavalent and the  ecommendations, and who practiced in the suburbs rather than in Paris offered to vaccinate infants more frequently. Among GPs taking care of infants, 40.5% reported they had changed their practice since the reimbursement of the hexavalent vaccine. More than a quarter of GPs (26.2%) were opposed to the vaccination against hepatitis B in infants. They were older, practiced CAM more frequently, and were less familiar with the recommendations. Among the respondents, 79% had encountered the fear of side effects from the parents and among them 17.7% did not insist or postponed the discussion. In conclusion, in 2009, over a quarter of GPs were refractory to the vaccination proposal in infants but the hexavalent vaccine seems to have a significant impact on practices.

2. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique. 2006 Jul;54 Spec No 1:1S95-1S101. [Perceptions of hepatitis B vaccination in France. Analysis of three surveys]. [Article in French] Balinska MA, Léon C.

Institut National de Prévention et d’Education pour la Santé, Direction des

affaires scientifiques. mbalinska@institutcancer.fr

BACKGROUND: The main target for hepatitis B vaccination has never been reached, since less than 30% of infants were immunized in 2000. We wished to examine what  might explain this situation by surveying attitudes within the general public and among vaccinators.

METHODS: We analyzed and compared the data on hepatitis B vaccination from three quantitative surveys conducted by the National Institute of Prevention and Health Education in 2003-2005.

RESULTS: Even those physicians (especially pediatricians) who are favorable to hepatitis B immunization do not always apply recommendations; 95% of physicians stated their patients are rather reticent to participate. Regarding the general public, less than half of French adults would be prepared to have their infant immunized against hepatitis B.

CONCLUSION: The usefulness of immunizing infants, rather than the absence of adverse events, should be put forth as the main argument in favour of hepatitis B immunization, both for physicians and the larger public. PMID: 17073136  [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

3. Rev Med Interne. 2006 Jan;27(1):40-5. Epub 2005 Jul 1. [Risk-benefit assessment of hepatitis B vaccination in France, 2006]. [Article in French] Hanslik T, Valleron AJ, Flahault A.

Inserm U707, épidémiologie, systèmes d’informations, modélisation, université

Pierre et Marie-Curie, Paris, France. thomas.hanslik@apr.aphp.fr

PURPOSE: Rare and unexpected adverse events following hepatitis B immunization have been reported. This article aims to illustrate the risk-benefit assessment of hepatitis B immunization strategies, using the available evidence in medical literature.

CURRENT EVENTS: i) Hepatitis B vaccination efficacy is high in infants, children and adolescents. It may be lower in adults and at risk populations; ii) Hepatitis B descriptive epidemiological data in France are scarce, fragmental, unprecise and changing according to the studied population strata. The incidence of symptomatic cases in the general population is below 5 per 100,000 since the year 2000. In France, it is estimated that about 300,000 adults are carriers of HBs antigen, and thus able to transmit the disease; iii) The actual French pharmacovigilance signal and the epidemiological studies may suggest the hypothesis of an association between the occurrence of central nervous system demyelinating diseases and hepatitis B vaccination. If this association exists, the relative risk is probably of less than 3.

PERSPECTIVES:

The lack of accuracy of risks estimates complicates the risk-benefit assessment of hepatitis B vaccination. Its perception is then influenced and distorted by subjective factors, underlying the need for research in communication about benefits and risks of immunizations. Although still debated, the hypothesis of a putative role of hepatitis B vaccine in the pathophysiology of demyelinating diseases should prompt to pursue experimental and epidemiological research to better understand the links between infectious environment and inflammatory chronic diseases.

4. Med Mal Infect. 2004 Apr;34(4):149-58. [Evolution of strategy and coverage rates for hepatitis B vaccination in France, a country with low endemicity]. [Article in French] Denis F, Abitbol V, Aufrère A. Service de bactériologie-virologie-hygiène, CHU Dupuytren, 87042 Limoges, France.

fdenis@unilim.fr

Both HBV plasma derived vaccines and HBV recombinant vaccines have proved safe and highly immunogenic. In France, exhaustive population surveys have revealed a vaccine coverage rate of over 21.7% and very low three-dose vaccine coverage among infants (19.8%), children (23.3%), and adolescents. Among hospital staff, around 80 to 90% of physicians and health care personnel in public or private hospitals were vaccinated against hepatitis B and the level of coverage was higher among personnel accidentally exposed to blood (90 to 100%). Among risk groups, the specific prevention program against mother-infant transmission was unevenly applied, and between 25 to 45% of intravenous drug abusers, prisoners, or STD patients were vaccinated. These coverage rates are inadequate to obtain a  significant reduction and control of hepatitis B infections in France. The complete eradication of HBV transmission might take another 20 years to achieve unless great efforts are made to vaccinate the general population (infants especially) and high-risk groups.

5. Med Mal Infect. 2011 Oct;41(10):518-25. Epub 2011 Sep 13. Hepatitis B virus vaccination by French family physicians. François M, Alla F, Rabaud C, Raphaël F.

Département de médecine générale, faculté de médecine de Nancy, 9 avenue de la

Forêt-de-Haye, Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France. fra_marie@yahoo.fr

Vaccine coverage against hepatitis B virus (HBV) in France has decreased to one of the lowest levels among countries that recommend it, over the last decade. The probable cause was that the vaccine was suspected to induce demyelinating diseases. We studied the factors limiting the use of HBV vaccine amongst French family physicians (FPs), who play a significant role in the implementation of the vaccination policy.

METHOD: We conducted a national survey in 2008, using an interactive questionnaire sent by e-mail to 2175 private general practitioners in metropolitan France. This questionnaire provided us with demographic data and information on perception, opinions and practices of FPs regarding HBV vaccination. It also assessed practical barriers to vaccination FPs encountered.

The answer structure was analyzed by multiple correspondence analysis (MCA). An agglomerative hierarchical clustering (AHC) identified typical behaviors among FPs. We determined and tested specific links among answers. The representativeness of the final sample (341FPs) was tested. RESULTS: HBV vaccination for infants is increasingly recommended; children and teenage vaccine

catch-up is less routinely recommended; 25% of FPs are opposed to systematic vaccination; the main barrier to vaccination, according to FPs, remains public opinion on the vaccine’s potential adverse effects; barriers among physicians include excessive precaution principle in prescribing the vaccine and

misconceptions on hepatitis B and vaccination.

This giant chair at the Union South makes Frank seem very small.

A few weeks ago, the new student union at UW-Madison announced that they would be accepting contributions for a time capsule. To be assembled and sealed for the first birthday of the Union South’s grand opening, it would remain sealed until its 50th in 2061. I’ve been to the new Union many times with friends and fellow grad students for some R&R, so I was interested to make an entry. I thought, if I wanted to put something in a 49-year time capsule, what would it be?

Good time capsule contents are small, contain a lot of information, and represent the time period when they are sealed up. Naturally, as a plant geneticist, I thought that seeds would be perfect. Since I know a bunch of plant breeders, I decided to ask if any would be willing to contribute some seeds that they have bred?

The response was good, and before long I had three varieties each of beets and carrots, a new variety of oats, some mutant Medicago truncatula and rice, and also some special male-sterile onions. Finally, I included some sweet corn seeds that formed the basis of my thesis project. The contributing breeders were very willing and excited to participate – one packet of seeds was waiting for me by lunchtime on the first day, complete with answers to a list of questions I asked about the seeds, with a picture of the plants in the field!

So why put seeds in a time capsule? These seeds represent breeding efforts toward today’s goals. They also represented what each breeder thought was important about the breeding they do today, and for tomorrow.

The best available picture of these beets is a screenshot from one of my videos!

The beets were three new varieties – currently released for seed production and not yet available for farms or in stores. Called “Badger Torch,” “Badger Flame,” and “Badger Sunset,” they are red and yellow-striped, with an interesting pattern that makes them look like burning fire when you cut them open. These beets were bred to help meet the demand for brightly-colored vegetables, and beets are also lately gaining in popularity. One of the carrot varieties was also bred for purple color.

Some of the seeds also represented breeding for health. One carrot variety has extremely high levels of beta-carotene, and the oats were bred for high beta-glucan content. Beta-glucan has been shown to be good for your cholesterol levels. These oats will not be released until 2014, too!

Basic science was also represented. Besides my own seeds that have a unique genetic background that makes a difficult-to-phenotype gene easily identifiable, the mutant Medicago and Rice seeds were a great addition. They had defective copies of a gene called dmi3, which made them each unable to form associations with nitrogen-fixing soil bacteria and root-enhancing fungi, respectively. Understanding nitrogen fixation, and how to improve it, or even transfer it to new species will come from understanding mutants such as these. In 49 years, we may see fantastic applications of this research, and these seeds may harken back to a simpler time.

The seed packets in their jar, and a manilla folder with information about them

In some ways, however, sealing seeds in a time capsule for 50 years represents something that should not happen. The genes in these seeds will be frozen in time, unable to change as the world does around them. Breeders, however, thrive on change. Each new challenge of changing pest and disease patterns, weather and climate, and consumer and producer demands means new opportunities for recombining the genetics of plants. The sisters of these seeds will continue to be planted, bred, and improved. So in one sense the fact that these seeds will not change will make the future task of whomever opens the time capsule rather interesting. Included is some pedigree information about each variety, and they might be able to piece together the history of the breeding that has gone on since they were sealed in packets inside of a jar.

Finally, I included a cover letter to tell the story of this part of the time capsule, and why I thought it was important. On Monday, the brief ceremony took place and the capsule contents were gathered together to be sealed up until 2061. I was the first person called up to add my capsule entry, and I was asked to give an off-the-cuff description of the seeds with a bunch of cameras pointed at my face. When and if this becomes available online, I’ll be sure to post it here. For now, here is my cover letter, which will be the first thing someone sees when they open the packet in 2061:

2012 Wisconsin Seeds

Plant breeding is one of the pillars that holds up strong agricultural production and quality here in Wisconsin, and beyond. For my entry, I have put together a collection of packets of vegetable, grain, and forage seeds bred here at UW-Madison by plant breeders and graduate students. I want to give people 49 years from now a glimpse of what plant breeders at this university were studying and developing. Over time, these varieties will change as farmers and breeders continue to improve upon them, and 50 years from now it may be neat to look back on what we had in 2012.

Included among the packets of seeds are:

Newly released “Badger Torch,” “Badger Flame,” and “Badger Sunset” beets,

“Betagene” High Beta-Glucan oats – soon to be released,

3 Carrot varieties from a colorful carrot breeding program,

Medicago (similar to alfalfa) and rice seeds mutant for a gene involved in symbiosis with soil bacteria and fungi,

Special male-sterile onions,

And sweet corn seeds used to understand what makes the corn so sweet!

Each packet of seeds comes with information about the varieties for whoever opens the time capsule in 2061. Contributors were asked to answer the following questions:

1. What is the name of the variety/accession?
2. Who developed it (and when)?
3. How was it developed?
4. What is special, important, or interesting about these seeds?
5. What else should someone 50 years from now know about these seeds?
6. A picture of what the plants should look like if someone wants to grow them (and if they still grow)!

This was followed by a brief personal note to whomever should be lucky to open the time capsule and be presented with these seeds. I had a couple questions for them to think about, and guide them as they dig into this capsule. These words, however, will be sealed along with the seeds, not to be seen again for 49 years. Maybe our blog will still be around then, and they will find this post and tell us about what they found? I think there may be something in the envelope that might lead them here, too.

Frank slips a secret of his own into the seed information packet!

By Luis Apiolaza

Felled transgenic trees. Source: 3News NZ

The media in New Zealand briefly covered the destruction of a trial with genetically modified pines (Pinus radiata D. Don, vulgar name Radiata pine, Monterey pine) near Rotorua. This is not the first time that anti-GM groups destroyed a trial, ignoring that they have been established following regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency. Most people have discussed this vandalism either from the wasting resources (money, more importantly time, delays on publication for scientists, etc) or from the criminal activity points of view.

I will discuss something slightly different, when would we plant genetically modified trees?

Some background first

In New Zealand, plantations of forests trees are established by the private sector (mostly forest companies and small growers–usually farmers). Most of the stock planted in the country has some degree of (traditional) breeding, and it ranges from seed mixes with a large numbers of parents to the deployment of genetically identical clones. The higher the degree of improvement the most likely is that tree deployment involves a small number of highly selected genotypes. Overall, most tree plantations are based on open-pollinated seed with a modest degree of genetic improvement, which is much more genetically diverse than most agricultural crops. In contrast, agricultural crops tend to deploy named clonal varieties which is what we buy in supermarkets: Gold kiwifruit, Gala apples, Nadine potatoes, etc.

Stating the obvious, tree and agricultural growers will pay more for genetic material if they have the expectation that the seeds, cuttings, tubers, etc are going to provide higher quantity and/or quality of products which will pay for the extra expense. Here we can see a big difference between people growing trees and annual/short rotation crops: there is a large lag between tree establishment and income coming from the trees, which means that when one runs a discounted cash flow analysis to estimate profitability:

1. Income is in the distant future (say 25-30 years) and are heavily discounted.
2. Establishment costs, which include buying the genetic material, are not discounted because they happen right now.

Unsurprisingly, growers want to reduce establishment costs as much as they can and remember that the cost of trees is an important component. This means that most people planting trees will go for cheaper, low level of genetic improvement trees (often seedlings), unless they are convinced that they can recover the extra expense with more improved trees (usually clones, which cost at least double than seedlings).

What’s the relationship with genetic modification?

Modification of any organism is an expensive process, which means that:

1. One would only modify individuals with an outstanding genetic background; i.e. start with a good genotype to end up with a great one.
2. Successful modifications will be clonally propagated to scale up the modification, driving down unit cost.

Thus, we have a combination of very good genotypes plus clonal propagation plus no discounting, which would make establishment costs very high (although no impossible). There is a second element that, at least for now, would delay adoption. Most large forest growers will have some type of product certification, which establishes that the grower is using good forestry, environmental and social practices. Think of it as a sticker that says the producer of this piece of wood is a good guy, so please feel confident about buying this product; that is, this sticker is part of a marketing strategy. Currently some forest certification organizations do not accept the use of genetically modified organisms (e.g. Forest Certification Council, PDF of GMO policy).

This does not mean that it is not financially possible to plant genetically modified trees. For once, modification costs would reduce with economies of scale (as for most biotechnologies), and one of the reasons we don’t have these economies is the political pressure by almost-religious zealots against GMO, which make people scared about being first to plant GM trees/plants. Another option is to change the GMO policy for some certification agencies or, relying on other certification organizations that do accept GMOs. Each individual forest company would have to evaluate the trade-offs of the certification decision, as they do not work as a block.

A simple scenario

Radiata Pine forest, North New Zealand, Source: NZ Dept. of Conservation

Roughly 80% percent of the forest plantations in New Zealand correspond to radiata pine. Now imagine that we face a very destructive pest or disease that has the potential to severely damage the survival/growth of the trees. I know that it would take us a long time (decades?) to breed trees resistant to this problem. I also know that the GM crowd could insert several disease resistance genes and silence flowering, so we don’t have reproduction of modified trees. Would you support the use of genetic modification to save one of the largest industries of the country? I would.

However, before using the technology I would like to have access to data from trials growing in New Zealand conditions. The destruction of trials makes extremely difficult to make informed decisions and this is the worst crime. This people are not just destroying trees but damaging our ability to properly make decisions as a society, evaluating the pros and cons of our activities.

P.S. These are just my personal musings about the subject and do not represent the views of the forest companies, the university or anyone else. I do not work on genetic modification, but I am a quantitative geneticist & tree breeder.
P.S.2. While I do not work on genetic modification—so I’d struggle to call that crowd ‘colleagues’—I support researchers on that topic in their effort to properly evaluate the performance of genetically modified trees.

Depending on his mood, Luis Apiolaza is a forester, a quantitative forester, a quantitative geneticist or if he wants to sound suave and trendy – a statistical geneticist. Luis works at the School of Forestry, University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand (the land of the long white cloud, the Lord of the Rings and R). He blogs about statistics and science at Quantum Forest.