The issue was approached by Dr. Ralph Scorza from the USDA Appalachian Fruit Research Station. I’ve known of Dr. Scorza’s outstanding work for almost two decades.  Years ago he sought a solution to the plum pox virus (PPV), the causative agent of a devastating disease called Sharka. The disease affects stone fruits (peaches, apricots, others) and can destroy whole orchards and decimate natural populations.  While breeding solutions are being pursued with timelines measured in decades, PPV can now be mitigated with Scorza’s solution by grafting a stonefruit scion to the transgenic rootstock.  Works like a charm, and the fruit are not transgenic.

The solution was introduction of a gene encoding the coat protein of PPV.  When overexpressed in plums (because they are routinely transformed in the Scorza Lab), the plant became immune to the disease, almost like a vaccination.  While this was interesting science it was not viewed as an application, that is until PPV was identified in the United States.  While the disease was successfully controlled with quarantine, the development of PPV-resistant plums (a cultivar known as “Honeysweet”) was initiated as a solution in future outbreaks.

Years later in 2010, the Honeysweet cultivar has found approval.  It is a true minority, as very few horticultural crops are ever approved, reserving much of the focus for major agronomical crops like soy and corn.  To date, only 6% of de-regulated crops are horticultural and only 1% had viable commercial potential.  Of that, 0.2 were crops other than tomato and potato. Therein lies the question, why are transgenic technologies not approved (or even pursued) in fruits and vegetables?

A mere 127 horticultural crop lines have sought deregulation, but the vast majority of these did not complete the process to commercialization.  Dr. Scorza indicates that the costs of pursuing deregulation and testing are incredibly expensive, leading companies or universities to abandon the process in mid-stream, even if promising.

He goes on to describe other potential reasons for the waning desire to deregulate.  First, there is a relatively small market for any given horticultural crop, so the likelihood of  substantial profit is low, an important consideration when the costs of R&D and deregulation are concerned.  Universities and small companies do not have the funds, infrastructure or intellectual property resources required to hustle the process along.  Horticultural companies and universities may understand the potentially negative perception that the public has on safe transgenic technology, so they stay away from attempting to commercializing transgenic plant lines that while scientifically proven, may not be tremendously profitable.

The other key reason while these crops do not navigate the maze to deregulation is because there is no incentive for the scientist.  Inventing a solution to a horticultural problem does not bring in grant money, does not generate publications, and requires a tremendous investment of time in meetings and paperwork that may never be rewarded.  Ask anyone working in the public science sector– we didn’t get into it for the love of beaurocracy.  Additionally, there are steep consequences of not following the approval process to the letter, with substantial fines and/or regulatory action. Together these barriers frame a formidable disincentive. To date the effect shows, as private concerns have deregulated many achievements in tomato, potato, squash and tobacco, whereas public entities have only released (the amazingly successful) papaya and now plum.

The other problem is the aforementioned maze of regulatory hassle.  There are three major levels of approval for a GM food crop.  The first is through USDA-APHIS, an agency that regulates the growing of GM foods.  “Honeysweet” cleared this barrier quickly.  Next the FDA has to approve safety.  For ‘Honeysweet’ that took 2.5 years.  Finally, the EPA must approve the new organism, a process that took almost 3 years in the case of ‘Honeysweet’.

After all of the regulatory hurdles the product still may not be commercialized, mostly based on public perception. For instance, it cost nearly half a million dollars to build raspberry plants resistant to the Raspberry Bushy Dwarf Virus, a devastating disease.  While the plants work brilliantly, the industry suggested they not be commercialized due to public fears.

The other problems are from coordinated attacks by anti-GE groups.  In 2007, while ‘Honeysweet’ was in the process of deregulation, instructions on gmofreetrees.com provided details to cut-and-paste complaints into websites of federal agencies. Of the 1725 notes provided, 1708 were negative to ‘Honeysweet’ deregulation, but all followed the cut-and-paste format.

Dr. Scorza completed his discussion by noting that transgenic plant acceptance will be disaster driven.  When farmers and consumers have no choice, then the new technologies will be accepted.  Problems such as PPV in stonefruits, Pierce’s disease in grapes, and citrus greening may all soon benefit from transgenic technology with existing tools that may save an industry.  Even crusty old Europe is considering ‘Honeysweet’ and weighing real risks in the face of losing tremendous stonefruit populations to a viral outbreak.  Just as a major outbreak of polio will send anti-vaccination parents scurrying for a jab, the adoption of GE technology will be found quite acceptable when scenarios dictate no other choice.

I agree with Dr. Scorza’s assessment.  Anti-GE interests don’t trust big, private agribusiness, but then simultaneously support a regulatory system where only it can thrive.  Public scientists that have a mission of societal contribution lack the funds and infrastructure to obtain approval have trouble competing in the disincentivized process.

Dr. Scorza concluded that he remains optimistic.  Consumers have accepted GM soy and corn.  The acceptance of horticultural crops will happen eventually, but the barriers to application will make the process slow, impeding potential benefits to the consumer, the farmer and the environment.

Kevin Folta is an Associate Professor in the Horticultural Sciences Department at the University of Florida.  Armed with a fist-full of genome data and the molecular toolkit to put it to work, his goal is to exploit technology to its fullest to feed more people, more nutritious food, with less environmental impact.  Unfortunately, well-meaning science deniers stand to obstruct this mission.  Wielding the steely sword of science and the velveteen fist of rhetoric, Kevin seeks to win their hearts and change their minds so that we can advance the cause of using biotechnology to feed more people with less harm to our planet.

During a workshop on August 25 I had the opportunity to listen to several experts in the field of biotechnology and public perception.  The workshop was centered on making the technology more palatable for the general public- allowing these valuable, safe and environmentally friendly technologies to flirt with commercialization.

Unfortunately, one central theme was that science is letting the tail wag the dog.  Because much of the public refuses to accept the hard science of transgenic plant safety and efficacy, scientists find themselves concocting unique and clever ways to circumvent the traditional use of transgenic technologies.  In a sad way it is kind of like scientists inventing a new way to recondition melting glaciers because so many people vehemently oppose the science of climate change.

The conference was filled with beautiful science– new solutions to many problems in food growth, production and post-harvest treatment.  Technology is poised to help feed the world with better and more nutritious products. On the other hand, the disconnect between hard science and public perception, driven to the outright lies of the vocal biotech opponents, stands as a palpable barrier to implementation of even the most sound and promising technologies.

Over the next several postings I will summarize the discussion of the panel and the presentations of its constituents.  All provide excellent insight into the state of transgenic plant science and its multitude of applications to real world problems.

Kevin Folta is an Associate Professor in the Horticultural Sciences Department at the University of Florida.  Armed with a fist-full of genome data and the molecular toolkit to put it to work, his goal is to exploit technology to its fullest to feed more people, more nutritious food, with less environmental impact.  Unfortunately, well-meaning science deniers stand to obstruct this mission.  Wielding the steely sword of science and the velveteen fist of rhetoric, Kevin seeks to win their hearts and change their minds so that we can advance the cause of using biotechnology to feed more people with less harm to our planet.

Science Cabaret airs on WICB 91.7 fm, a community radio station in Ithaca NY, every Sunday evening from 7-7:30 pm Eastern time. That means that the interview we recorded on Friday will be broadcast tonight for those who are in the Ithaca area. Tune your old radio wave receiving devices to 91.7 fm, or if you are not in the area or are a grad student buried deep underground in the lab (as is common on Sunday evenings), you can listen to a live stream of the show here.

If you miss the show, we’ll let you know when the podcast version is online.

We also talked about a new super-secret project that we haven’t yet announced here on the blog, as we’re finishing up some accompanying materials that will go along with it. Actually it shouldn’t be that secret as you can find it just by navigating. Maybe you have found it already? If you listen to the show you’ll know where to look. Our discussion also got me thinking about a couple issues which might make it into some blog posts soon. And I’m finally going to get some audio edited and put online to satiate everyone while you wait for the podcast of Science Cabaret on Air.

Also, Jenny works for the Durable Rust Resistance in Wheat project at Cornell, so maybe we’ll see a guest post about their work on stopping Ug99 here at Biofortified?

Genetically modified foods or crops are plants created using the latest technology in microbiology and agricultural science. Much in the same way that certain animals are bred to carry on specific characteristics, genetically modified foods and crops are created to enhance certain traits that make them modified to certain areas, constructs, and situations. For example, many advantages of genetically modified food is that they can be made to be pest resistant, herbicide tolerant, disease resistant, extra nutritious, and most importantly can stand up to effects caused from climate change. This is pertinent to the global warming discussion because by creating crops that can protect Mother Nature from Mother Nature we can operate, produce, and consume food that can outlast any change in climate.

Since 1996, there has been a rapid growth in genetically engineered crops in the United States (with some crops like soybeans growing going from under 10 percent of acres used to over 90 in a 12 year span). This growth can be connected to organizations and companies investing in genetically modified crops as the future of food production and consumption. For example, US biotech companies like Monsanto have begun testing water efficient and drought tolerant engineered crops that can survive and continue to be produced in case of drought or flood cause from climate change. Even humanitarian organizations like the Clinton Global Initiative, organized by close personal aide to Former President Clinton, Doug Band, are working with agricultural research centers like the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) to produce flood resistant rice crops that will help protect small rice producing villages that are effected by climate change produced flooding.

Sure, genetically modified foods do have their detractors who argue that the chemically altered food isn’t safe and hurts biodiversity, but the positives outweigh the negatives. Genetically modified foods are a clear solution to the effects of climate change and can help keep food production steady in an unsteady climate.

Jack Lundee is a follower of all things green and progressive. With a degree in creative writing, and a strong involvement in the green blogosphere, Jack has been producing and editing his own content concerning things like climate change, carbon emissions, green infrastructure, green space, eco-consciousness, and so on and so forth.

It looks like I am sleepy, but maybe that is because I was looking down toward my interviewer, so next time I shall imagine I am talking to someone much taller, like Shaq. I can understand why they edited out my diatribe about biotech companies plotting to take over the world,** but what about my plug for Biofortified?

* Note: no exchange of currency was involved in this interview. But I think there was a blood oath or a pinky swear in there somewhere.
**Tongue firmly planted in cheek.

The first thing that occurs to me in this discussion about the hybrid seed is that there still is a lot of misinformation flying around about it. Beverly Bell, who ‘sounded the alarm’ about farmers supposedly planning to buy and then burn the donated hybrid seed, continues to make stuff up about the situation. While Monsanto never offered to donate GE seeds, Bell claims that the Haitian Agricultural Ministry rejected such an offer. Ronnie Cummins from the Organic Consumers Association assumes it to be true and expands upon the tall tale:

“Monsanto wanted initially to dump GMO seeds on Haiti, but even the corrupt Haitian government knew that this would spark a rebellion, so Monsanto cleverly decided to dump hybrid seeds instead.”

However according to Monsanto, they never offered GE seeds, ever.

Bell and Cummins both repeat the claim that hybrid seed cannot be saved, or is worthless to save. Also not true. The traits of saved hybrid seed will have a distribution of combinations of their parents’ traits, but will still grow. I would like you to watch this short video which contains an interview with an “Agronomist” named Mark who is taking part in apparent protests against Monsanto in Haiti.

I put “Agronomist” in scare quotes because they profess to having expertise in agronomy and yet they make false statements that a responsible agronomist would not make. Again, he repeats the claim that hybrid seeds cannot be saved, but he also continues to drum up opposition to the seed donation on the idea that they could be GMOs! (Even though the interviewer points out that they are not.)

There is also a very troubling thread of paternalism going on here. After the dire food needs of developing countries, the most troublesome issue as I see it is when people in industrialized nations decide to tell people who are worse off what they can or cannot do. It seems that everyone’s got a vision for the ideal agricultural situation in Haiti – some would like to see them produce enough food to feed the country with hybrid seed, others would like to see them stick to traditional (low-yielding) open-pollinated varieties. Few have mentioned the possibility that Haiti could develop its own local high-producing hybrids down the road. So is everyone just telling the Haitians what to do? No, there is an asymmetry.

The seeds are donated to the nation of Haiti, and will be distributed within the country at a low price to those that wish to buy and plant them. The seeds are not being given out for free, which keeps local seed producers from being driven out of business by having to compete against free seed. No one is forced to grow these seeds if they don’t want to (unless of course you agree that Haiti has a shortage of  seed). And farm inputs to help the seeds grow are also being donated.

The above protest was organized by Mouvman Peyizan Papay (MPP), the organization that Mark the “agronomist” works for. I find it troubling that someone who is conveying false information about hybrids is intimately connected with the initiation of this protest, which means that they could have misled all these protesters with the justification for the protest. (The protest was also apparently against the Haitian president, which is why I called it an ‘apparent protest against Monsanto.’) If they have led the farmers to believe that the seeds cannot be saved, then they have treated these people as mere means to some political or social end, which is wrong.

Indeed, what is the reason for the protest? Is it just to convey the message that ‘We think money would be more help to us than seed and we would like our government to understand that,’ that would be one thing. But I don’t think so. The purpose of this protest may be to stop the hybrid seed donation, which is where the paternalistic asymmetry comes in.

Monsanto is not limiting the choices available to the Haitian farmers by making this donation, however, several well-meaning people and organizations are trying to limit their ability to choose this seed. By continuing to falsely claim that the seeds are genetically engineered, or covering up the fact that the seeds can be saved but just do not breed true, they are also trying to mislead the farmers into rejecting the seed on prejudice.

Developing countries have many different kinds of food and farming systems, and they should be able to choose how they want to do it. I mentioned before that maybe there could be a local hybrid seed economy, with a few breeders specializing in hybrid versions of Haitian crops. (I’m sure that Monsanto would like to open up a Haitian breeding station and sales office  someday as well.) Part of the reaction to this seed donation is the fear of change – that small subsistence farmers in Haiti will be unable to adapt to a changing agricultural system and will be left behind to continue into poverty. At the same time, preventing them from having the option of moving beyond mere subsistence is also leaving them behind in a different way. Haiti imports at least 50 percent of its food, continually leaving them dependent upon foreign aid in both food and money (which the agronomist above preferred). Tariffs and subsidies play a role, but do does local production capacity.

In response to the dependence argument, Ewan commented,

The norms of farming have changed over time – with the advent of hybrids seed saving has become less the norm and more an oddity – this is a trend you’ll often see when a manufacturing process becomes so highly specialized as to require experts to do it – breeders create new hybrids, farmers farm – breeders probably wouldn’t make the best farmers (they’re trained as breeders) farmers probably not the best breeders etc – that’s how any discipline advances, higher specialization leading to a better end product.

Along with the misinformation about hybrids, there has been an upwelling of opposition to the very idea of hybrids themselves. Ronnie Cummins doesn’t like them, people on blogs don’t like em, there are even companies trying to literally bank off of a recent opposition to hybrid seed. But what these people are missing is that although you have to pay someone to produce your hybrid seed (or take special measures to produce them yourselves), the yield or other trait benefits you get outweigh the cost of producing them. Otherwise farmers wouldn’t buy them. Helene who recently stopped by Biofortified said

you want to create “hybrids” (though from what I’ve read Monsanto’s version of hybrids could never occur on their own in nature), fine

In Givin’ props to Hybrids, blogger DeLene writes about a recent paper about hybridization and its demonization as being unnatural. While DeLene is talking about hybrids between species (and animals at that), these perceptions are connected. Hybrids happen in nature, more often than genetic ‘purists’ would like to think.

Finally, the shape of the discussion about the Haitian hybrid seed donation reveals what it is really about. First, when the claim was flying around that the seeds were genetically engineered, that was the reason why the seed donation was bad. Then when that wasn’t even true it was because the seeds are hybrids and that is why they are bad. Now, the discussion is shifting away from hybrids to how the seeds have been treated with common “toxic” fungicides to prevent them from rotting in the soil. The real reason, which will come as no surprise to those who read this blog regularly has little to do with any of those reasons – it is mostly because the donating organization is Monsanto. Look at all the people cheering the symbolic destruction of these seeds on the Non-GMO Project facebook page. You’d think that they would be happy that the seeds aren’t genetically engineered. Nope – it’s entirely about Monsanto.

I for one, think that the seeds should be treated with fungicide. Besides my personal experience with the difficulty of getting non-treated seeds to germinate well in my lab’s nursery field each year, there is a real biosafety reason why seeds donated to Haiti must be treated for fungi: To protect the farms of Haiti from contamination with new strains of crop-eating fungal pathogens that are not native to the island. If any organization is sending seeds grown from crops elsewhere in the world and they are not treating the seeds to kill hitchhiking bugs, they are putting Haitian agriculture at risk. Whenever my lab sends seeds to be grown in our Winter Nursery in Puerto Rico or Mexico, we have to not only treat the seeds, but also include one seed from each packet in a big batch to test for pathogens before importation.

Imagine an alternate situation where Monsanto did not treat the seeds with fungicide – I could easily imagine the opposition claiming that Monsanto is trying to infect Haiti with exotic fungi so that they will become dependent upon them in some other fashion. Does Monsanto have to anticipate every bio-political move and misunderstanding before making a humanitarian gesture? Damned if you do…

I would like to end on one important point. Some people are saying that Monsanto is only doing this for PR purposes. You’ll have to ask them about that because I’m not privy to any motivations other than what they have already said publicly. They sound like they are genuinely trying to help, although people suspect otherwise. And you know what? It doesn’t matter. Monsanto’s intentions do not affect whether or not these seeds will help Haitian farmers. Buy the seeds. Plant them. Grow enough food to feed your family and your neighbors’ too. Thumb your nose at Monsanto and don’t buy hybrids after this again. What matters most is that the people in Haiti have the power to grow what they want and rebuild the food security of their country however they see fit. And if Haitian farmers decide that they like or don’t like these seeds, and choose to grow or not to grow them in the years ahead, that is their choice, not yours or ours. That’s what it comes down to.

I’ll leave the last phrase to Helene:

I think it’s wrong to prevent anyone from having a choice

Previously, I showed how Jim Riddle’s 10 reasons why genetic engineering is incompatible with organic agriculture apply equally well to plant breeding. But many plant breeding techniques are allowed in organic agriculture. So how can these characteristics apply to both breeding and genetic engineering while one is compatible and the other is not? The answer lies in a tangled web of invalid logic and unsound argumentation. It requires not only misrepresenting genetic engineering, it also misrepresents organic agriculture. Let’s go through point by point. (You might need a cup of coffee or a stiff drink)

1. Basic science. Humans have a complex digestive system, populated with flora, fauna, and enzymes that have evolved over millennia to recognize and break down foods found in nature to make nutrients available to feed the human body. GMO crops and foods are comprised of novel genetic constructs which have never before been part of the human diet and may not be recognized by the intestinal system as digestible food, leading to the possible relationship between genetic engineering and a dramatic increase in food allergies, obesity, diabetes, and other food-related diseases, which have all dramatically increased correlated to the introduction of GMO crops and foods.

Riddle starts off with a convoluted argument here. I have seen this articulated elsewhere and each time I read it it raises the hair on my back where my prehensile tail should be. This is a mangling of evolutionary biology as well as a misrepresentation of organic agriculture. Most of the foods we eat have not ‘evolved with us’, some of them have only been widespread in the human diet for hundreds of years, some less. And thousands of years is still too short of a time span for us to have evolved resistance to everything harmful in what we eat, nor is there a cohesive way to define foods that are perfectly safe and digestible for us as a result of such evolution. Additionally, the only recent human dietary evolution I am aware of is lactose tolerance past childhood, and not everyone has it (I don’t). This came about when a recent mutation gave dairy-dependent populations a competitive advantage over their lactose-intolerant forebears. Even if we evolved tolerances to different foods, they would probably only be in specific populations, too.

So because genetic engineering can introduce a novel protein that we have not eaten before, so too can plant breeding. Case in point: Organic Kiwifruit. This is a recent introduction into our diet, and it has been known to cause allergic reactions. Yet, this is not cause to exclude it on the principle that it brings novel substances into the human diet. Therefore, the presence of novel substances is not a reason to differentiate between what is or is not compatible with organic agriculture. Finally, there is no evidence that GE crops are the cause of any rise in allergies. As for the claim about diabetes and obesity – this is simply grasping at straws.

2. Ecological impact. Organic agriculture is based on the fundamental principle of building and maintaining healthy soil, aquatic, and terrestrial ecosystems. Since the introduction of GMOs, there has been a dramatic decline in the populations of Monarch butterflies, black swallowtails, lacewings, and caddisflies, and there may be a relationship between genetic engineering and colony collapse in honeybees. GMO crops, including toxic Bt corn residues, have been shown to persist in soils and negatively impact soil ecosystems. Genetically modified rBST (recombinant bovine somatrotropin, injected to enhance a cow’s milk output) has documented negative impacts on the health and well being of dairy cattle, which is a direct contradiction to organic livestock requirements.

As with the allergy claim above, Riddle is confusing correlation with causation when talking about impacts on insects. Even so, the monarch butterfly claim is easily addressed by an authoritative resource published by the USDA. The caddisfly claim is probably based on a flawed paper (debunked here by Anastasia) that did not use proper controls. As for the lacewings, I have not heard this claim before so I had to look it up. It took all of one minute. But the one that I object to more personally as a beekeeper who follows the news is his claim that GE crops may be the cause of Colony Collapse Disorder. Here he has not been paying attention to the research that has come out about CCD and is repeating cultural mythology that even Wikipedia debunked years ago. These are the kinds of claims that distract researchers from the real problems that need investigating and delay their solutions.

The fact is, you can use genetic engineering to improve the ecological impact of farming, just as you can with breeding. Some alterations may make the ecological impact worse, while some may make them better. But throwing a blanket of misinformation over the entire technology and generalizing in that fashion does not do anyone justice. Even if the only example of a GE crop was one that harmed the environment, it would not mean that all GE applications will do so. Moreover, organic agriculture is not a guarantee that the ecological impact is superior. Excessive tillage and erosion can and does occur. There are cases where organic farms are worse than their conventional counterparts. Should tractors be banned from organics?

Finally, if rBST would not mesh with organic livestock requirements, then don’t allow rBST. But because something like herbicide tolerant soybeans would obviously not work with organics, that doesn’t mean that Bt corn or cotton can’t.

3. Control vs harmony. Organic agriculture is based on the establishment of a harmonious relationship with the agricultural ecosystem by farming in harmony with nature. Genetic engineering is based on the exact opposite — an attempt to control nature at its most intimate level – the genetic code, creating organisms that have never previously existed in nature.

Let’s not beat around the bush beans. Organic agriculture is an attempt to control nature through trying to set up a more harmonious relationship with the agricultural ecosystem. Since when is plowing the soil with a tractor, spreading composted manure, and spraying crops with Bt-toxin producing bacteria not trying to control nature? Organic agriculture is best described as a more biological approach to farming as opposed to the more “chemical” approach that it was a response to. In that sense, genetic engineering can fit in perfectly. And it can be used to foster a more harmonious relationship with the natural world. Traits such as drought tolerance, nitrogen use efficiency, and disease and pest resistance are examples where genetic engineering can (and in some cases has already) benefit farming through reducing their ecological impact. Spreading less manure (or getting more out of it, watering less, and having to employ fewer inputs to control pests and diseases can help organic agriculture do just what it has set out to do. If you say, “well, you can work on those traits with breeding,” then you have already admitted that trying to control the genetics of a plant is compatible with organic agriculture.

Every time a breeder makes a cross between two plants he or she is creating an organism that has never before existed. And every time a breeder crosses two plants, the genetic combination represented by the offspring has never before existed. And that’s how nature, how evolution works – by creating new combinations. If the absence of new combinations was a criterion for organic, then there would be no plant on this planet or breeding method compatible with organic systems.

4. Unpredictable consequences. Organic ag is based on a precautionary approach – know the ecological and human health consequences, as best possible, before allowing the use of a practice or input in organic production. Since introduction, genetic modification of agricultural crops has been shown to have numerous unpredicted consequences, at the macro level, and at the genetic level. Altered genetic sequences have now been shown to be unstable, producing unpredicted and unknown outcomes.

It is very interesting that Riddle includes unpredictable consequences in his list of things that organic agriculture does not have. In some respects such as requiring manure to be composted if it is to be spread on crops that are anywhere near harvesting, there is a measure of precaution in organic agriculture. But in the area of the genetics of plants, the organic rules are in fact contradictory on this note. Let me start by asking you, what is the most disruptive thing you can do to modify the genetics of a plant – the one that has the highest risk of unintended consequences? And is it allowed in organic agriculture?

The answer is not “genetic engineering, and no” – it is “mutagenesis, and yes.” Using radiation or chemicals, you can create random mutations all over the genome of a plant. Then you look at thousands of plants that have gone through this process and pick out some that have interesting traits that you can use. Finally, this trait is bred into the crop that you grow. But along with your desired trait there are many other unknown changes that have occurred in the genome and there is no way of knowing where they are except by sequencing the whole thing. Several studies have compared mutagenesis to genetic engineering in its potential to cause unintended consequences, and GE has always come out looking good. In 2001, the National Academy of Sciences compared the risks of unintended consequences between different methods, and concluded that yes, mutagenesis is the worst offender. Mind you, the risks of all the methods they surveyed are low, but if you are going to start drawing lines about acceptable risks, clearly the reason why mutagenesis was ‘grandfathered’ into organic ag and genetic engineering was excluded has nothing to do with relative risks.

We have eaten many foods made from crops that have been modified by mutagenesis, and to no ill effect. The same with genetic engineering. What is interesting is that regular old plant breeding has had its fair share of unintended consequences. That’s why I brought up the potatoes and celery because the old traditional way has caused more harm than the newer methods.

5. Transparency. Organic is based on full disclosure, traceability, information sharing, seed saving and public engagement. Commercial genetic engineering is based on secrecy, absence of labeling, and proprietary genetic patents for corporate profits. The “substantial equivalence” regulatory framework has allowed the GMO industry to move forward without the benefit of rigorous, transparent scientific inquiry. The absence of labels has allowed genetically modified products into the U.S. food supply without the public’s knowledge or engagement., and without the ability to track public health benefits.

While there is nothing in the Organic rules that mandates transparency at every level, Riddle is making a philosophical point here. And that is that ideally, organic agriculture involves making it easy for consumers (producers, farmers, etc) to know everything about the food that they are eating. Currently in the U.S., labels are not required for foods produced involving genetic engineering when it does not change the nutritional or culinary aspects of the food. It is also not prohibited, either. The FDA even has suggestions for how producers can voluntarily label their products as being ‘produced through biotechnology’ and such. Therefore, you can have complete transparency of foods that are genetically engineered and grown in an organic system.

Let’s imagine that today, the Rodale Institute came into a bunch of money and decided that they wanted to start up a genetic engineering project. They could do it completely open-source, tell everyone what they are doing and how they are doing it, and send the resulting plants to independent labs for additional testing. Riddle is not separating the technology from his views of the current regulatory structure. Perhaps he means to say that the regulations that current crops have gone through does not meet his criteria for what would be necessary, but you could, if need be, add additional requirements for GE crops that will be allowed into the organic system. It is simply not true that there have been no independent tests of GE crops, nor that they are virtually unregulated, either. Just take a brief look at this list to get an idea how much scrutiny goes into these crops.

Plant breeding is almost completely unregulated, and harmful mistakes have been made through just rubbing flowers together and growing what came of those crosses. We have no idea what the breeding history is of any of the produce in the supermarket, whether conventional or organic, so where is the transparency on plant breeding here? Polls have shown that a sizable number of people, (40%) believe it or not, want to know if the plant they eat are hybrids!

I would like to know whether any of the organic produce that comes from California has been hand-weeded (by latin-American laborers) – a backbreaking practice banned from conventional ag – but the Organic sector fought for an exemption. No conventional or organic produce must be labeled with what pesticides it has been sprayed with (And there are organic pesticides.) I daresay full transparency is not a characteristic of any agricultural system we have today.

6. Accountability. Organic farmers must comply with NOP requirements and establish buffer zones to protect organic crops from contamination and from contact with prohibited substances, including genetically engineered seeds and pollen. Genetically engineered crops do not respect property lines and cause harm to organic and non-GMO producers through “genetic trespass,” with no required containment or accountability.

Organic food is a premium market. Before genetic engineering came along, it set itself against conventional agriculture that was largely dependent upon artificial inputs such as pesticides and fertilizers. Organic did not want to to have anything to do with that. But like gene flow through pollen, pesticides and fertilizers also have “spillover” effects. Organic agriculture promises its customers that they will make an extra effort to keep these substances from coming in contact with their crops. It would make no sense for a small percentage of organic farming operations to demand that the other 98-99% of farms stop using anything that could ‘contaminate’ their crops and lower their value in a premium market. But that’s not exactly what Riddle is arguing here. Actually, he is arguing something quite bizarre.

This is the formal argument:

A. Organic standards do not permit GE crops

B. GE crops can ‘contaminate’ organic farms through pollen drift, potentially causing harm because they are not permitted.

C. Therefore, GE crops will not work if allowed into the organic standards.

Do you see what the argument is? It is a circular argument. GE crops shouldn’t be allowed in organics because… GE crops aren’t allowed in organics. Note that his objection to gene flow only works while GE is prohibited from organic agriculture. If the standards were changed today, it would no longer be an objection. And as a circular argument, it is also invalid.

Finally, although Riddle does not state that GE is a “prohibited substance,” his wording implies that GE is a prohibited substance in the organic standards – whereas it is actually an “excluded method.” Testing is required only for prohibited substances, too. While there are no maximum thresholds for GE traits in organic fields, without any requirement to keep all genes out or test for them it doesn’t follow that organic farmers are being harmed economically by a low-level presence (LLP) of transgenes. Since Riddle is the Organic Outreach Coordinator for UM, it would be important not to gloss over the distinctions in the NOP requirements, and instead ensure that everyone understands exactly what the NOP requirements are. For an excellent discussion of these distinctions, I suggest reading If your Farm is Organic, must it be GMO Free?

7. Unnecessary. It is well established that healthy soils produce healthy crops, healthy animals, and healthy people. Research and development should focus on agricultural methods, including organic, which recycle nutrients to build soil health, producing abundant yields of nutrient dense foods, while protecting environmental resources. To date, recombinant genetic modification has contributed to the development of herbicide-resistant weeds and an increase in the application of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, with associated increases in soil erosion and water contamination, while producing foods with lower nutritional content. Technologies, such as genetic engineering, which foster moncropping are not compatible with organic systems, where soil-building crop rotations are required.

Healthy crops involve an interplay between the soil, the weather, the genetic potential of plants, pathogens and pests, and the human health aspect involves a further interaction with human physiology, food preferences and how much time you leave yourself to cook. So while organic agriculture often criticizes conventional agriculture for being too “reductionistic,” here Riddle is reducing our health to merely the health of the soil. While some nutrients are elevated (and a few depressed) in some organically grown crops, largely there is little difference between conventional and organic foods. While research should continue on how growing methods can affect nutrient levels (particularly a plant’s response to stress), there is a huge amount that can be gained through altering the genetic potential of the foods that we grow. This can be accomplished through breeding for nutrient content and bioavailability, and where there is little genetic variation for such traits (or pressing need such as beta-carotene and iron-enriched staples in developing countries) this can also be done with genetic engineering. Take a look at my post about enhancing calcium content in carrots and lettuce for an example.

As for soil erosion, herbicide tolerance in GE crops has contributed positively to the adoption of “no-till” agriculture. While organic no-till research is ongoing (I have seen some such plots myself and they do not look pretty to the eyes or by the numbers), soil erosion has been lessened through reducing the need to plow up and disturb the soil. While many anti-GE people argue that it has not, even Charles Benbrook from the Organic Center has told me (in a recorded interview, not yet posted) that he accepts that it has. He also penned that Bt corn and Bt cotton have reduced insecticide applications considerably.

There is nothing about genetic engineering that says that you need to mono-crop on your farm. Furthermore, there is nothing about genetic engineering that prevents a farmer from planting a cover crop after harvest. This is a complete misunderstanding of what genetic engineering is – it is a tool for modifying the genetics of an organism – it is not an agricultural system or a philosophy on how things are to be grown. Just like you can breed a crop for a particular agricultural system (low input, for example) so, too, can you engineer a crop that is appropriate for such a system.

To come back to the issue of Riddle’s “Healthy Soil” reductionism, if it was all due to healthy soil then there would be no need for plant breeding just as he believes there is no need for genetic engineering. Finally, there is no evidence that genetic engineering has lowered the nutritional content of foods – another piece of cultural mythology espoused.

8. Genetic diversity. Organic farmers are required to maintain or improve the biological and genetic diversity of their operations. Genetic modification has the exact opposite effect by narrowing the gene pool and is focused on mono-cropping GMO varieties.

Technically, when you insert a transgene into a plant, you are increasing genetic diversity. To my knowledge, there are no prima facie requirements in organic agriculture to increase the genetic diversity of their crops within a species. Nevertheless, there is a tendency in organics toward open-pollinated (OP) varieties that contain a mixture of alleles for different genes. You can create OP varieties from a mixture of genetic stocks, and there is nothing about genetic engineering that dictates that you cannot include transgenes in an OP variety. If you were to do that with genes still covered by Monsanto patents you might run into a legal problem with breeding your own Bt sweet corn variety, however when those patents run out (first one will run out in 2014) there is nothing preventing you from doing that. But aside from GE traits that are currently commercialized, traits that benefit OP varieties could be developed through genetic engineering, or traits that benefit any variety can be incorporated into an OP variety.

Not all genetic variation is good. As I pointed out with breeding, the point of artificial selection is to eliminate bad traits. You do not want variability in important traits like how well the plant grows or whether it tolerates various stresses that impact the plant. You do want genetic variation in other genes that may give your population a degree of robustness. Imagine a bag of grass seed that you buy from the grocery store. Many of you may not know this, but these bags of grass seed may have a diverse mix of different species (usually 3) that thrive in different conditions (wet/dry, sun/shade) so that no matter how varied your yard is, you still get a full lawn. Sometimes they can have grass seeds from the same species that simply have genetic diversity for these traits. But some kinds of diversity you don’t want might be grass that grows to different heights or different shades of green. You definitely do not want genetic diversity of that kind.

Organic growers may want to go for this kind of robustness in OP varieties simply because they don’t have the insect, pest, and disease controls available to conventional growers, but there is no such requirement in organic rules. You can have a farm that grows a single genetically identical hybrid variety of corn and call it organic. Many probably do.

GE crops, as I learn more about how the system works, are not genetically uniform across the country or the world. GE traits are licensed out to different seed producing companies, and depending on the details of those license agreements they may be combining those GE traits with the genetics of corn, soybeans, or cotton that is adapted to different regions or contain other useful traits. It has been claimed that GE crops reduce genetic diversity – but to my knowledge there has been no peer reviewed scientific paper that supports this claim. So Jim Riddle’s description of genetic engineering’s effect on genetic diversity is at the least false on its face and at the most a mere hypothesis.

So on this argument we have seen that not only were the premises false, the logic was unsound. Because if increasing genetic diversity was required in organic agriculture, then any plant breeding that reduces that diversity would be incompatible with the system. (BTW, a recent paper examining the genetic diversity of 8 crop species over the last century has revealed that the regional genetic diversity has not gone down, so breeders, you’re doing it right!)

9. Not profitable. According to the 2008 Organic Production Survey conducted by the USDA National Ag Statistics Service, organic farmers netted more than $20,000 per farm over expenses, compared to conventional farmers. Use of GMO varieties has lowered the net profit per acre for conventional producers, forcing them to farm more land in order to stay in business.

This is often a claim made by opponents of genetic engineering, who suggest that farmers that grow them lose money. One or two studies may be cited in support of this claim, ignoring many other studies that say the opposite. The truth is, whether or not you make more or less money growing (current) GE crops will depend on the unique situations that your farm presents. If you have lots of weed pressure, herbicide tolerant crops will probably make you more money. If not, you won’t get anything for the higher price of the seed. If corn borers and rootworm beetles are running rampant in your area, “stacked” GE corn would help you reduce your pesticide costs and raise your yields (even The Organic Center and the UCS agree on that). But if you don’t have those problems you might be wasting your money.

You don’t need to know all these things to understand that farmers are making money planting GE crops – the mere fact that the adoption levels are so high and are stable means that farmers are benefiting from them and a large part of that is probably due to profit. For those who are unsatisfied with shooting from the hip like that (as I am), the National Academy of Sciences just release a huge report on the impacts of GE crops, and one of the areas they examined was profitability. What did they conclude?

Many adopters of genetically engineered crops have experienced either lower costs of production or higher yields, and sometimes both.

Read the report, it’s over 200 pages of science goodness. So it seems that farmers can make more money if they carefully choose GE crops that benefit them.

Finally, Riddle’s claim that GE crops has lowered the profitability of farms rests on poor logic. Because organic farms may make more money than conventional farm as a whole does not mean that the use of genetic engineering by conventional farms is the cause for that disparity. That is not even a valid claim.

10. No consumer demand. Consumers are not calling for organic foods to be genetically engineered. In fact, over 275,000 people said “no GMOs in organic,” in response to the first proposed organic rule in 1997. “Organic” is the only federally regulated food label, which prohibits the use of genetic engineering. By genetically engineering organic foods, consumer choice would be eliminated, in the absence of mandatory labeling of all GMO foods.

Given the fact that many leaders in the organic community use fear of genetic engineering to try to get more people to buy organic, it would come as no surprise that there isn’t much support for GE among organic consumers. But if you polled consumers about whether they wanted their produce to have their genetics altered through breeding and hybridization, how many would stand up and say ‘Yes!’? If you instead asked consumers whether they wanted their produce to taste better, be healthier, more colorful, cheaper, have fewer pesticide residues, etc, you might find more support.

Indeed, there are many things that consumers are looking for that genetic engineering can help provide. For instance, there are several examples of traits that enhance healthful aspects of lettuce, carrots, tomatoes, rice, and soybeans. The first health-oriented (and thus consumer-oriented) crop will soon be commercialized in the US, a soybean that produces Omega-3 fats in its oil. We may soon find a cultural collision occurring among the more health-oriented consumers.  As Organic agriculture continues to claim health benefits, a portion of their market is probably buying it because they think they will be getting more nutrients. There will be people forced to make a decision between a perception of health benefits from organic production and demonstrated health benefits from future GE crops. They may look at an Omega-3 soy product and wonder why it cannot also be organic?

When Anastasia and I met with Michael Pollan back in January, this is one of the things we talked about. And Michael said that he believes that such consumer-oriented traits are going to shift public opinion to accept GE crops. When consumers are more confident in the benefits of such traits, will organic agriculture begin allowing the certification of GE crops grown organically to meet that demand? Will Jim Riddle change his position based upon mere demand?

And does that mean that there must be demand for organic pesticides from consumers before they are approved?

Conclusion

Jim Riddle’s article for the Rodale Institute has gotten some attention, and put forward some arguments why he thinks that genetic engineering is not compatible with organic agriculture. I have demonstrated that not a single one of these ten arguments is adequate for justifying why some genetically engineered traits could not be included in an organic system, and indeed, that these reasons as given can also be used as reasons to exclude even basic plant breeding from organic agriculture. I have shown that most of these arguments are based upon misleading or factually incorrect premises, and/or invalid logic.

Debunking Jim Riddle’s arguments is one thing, but he could always decide to make different ones. Indeed, I invited him to be a part of the discussion in the first post, which he declined to do, but he did say this:

When I said “organisms that have never previously existed in nature” and “novel genetic constructs,” I was referring to corn with bacteria genes and all other transgenic organisms that could otherwise never exist, without listing every such example. I did discuss the unintended impacts of Bt corn, which are the result of inserting the gene for Bt toxicity into every cell of the corn plant, which is something that has not and could not occur through natural or traditional breeding.

My entire article focused on why transgenic organisms are not compatible with organic production, so I see no need to outline my concerns further.

So now we get to the real argument. I’m sure that you could detect it as an undercurrent in many of the ten arguments that he gave. Many of them depended entirely upon this argument, and by not bringing this objection to the forefront it is preventing us from actually getting to the real arguments, and we spend all our time talking about mere cursory arguments. Allow me to venture a guess as to the real reason why the organic sector is against genetic engineering in agriculture, but it comes as no surprise why it did not ‘officially’ make Riddle’s list, because it is a silly argument. Are you ready? Here it is:

Genetic Engineering just isn’t “Natural!”

And of course, neither are tractors, plows, computers, refrigerators, or anything else that humans make that are perfectly fine to use on organic farms, or with organic food. Naturalness is not a property of matter, it is a description of the process by which is was generated, that exists only in degrees, not absolutes. As proponents of organic agriculture rightly argue that humans are a part of the natural world and should not consider ourselves independent of nature, to claim that what human beings do is unnatural depends on excluding human beings from nature. You could say that it is only natural that humans do genetic engineering, as we seek to improve our lives with science and technology. Indeed, gene transfer happens between species in nature as well – it is called Horizontal Gene Transfer – apparently Nature has no respect for the “natural” integrity of species boundaries.

Jim Riddle spent his entire article that was supposed to be about why transgenic organisms are incompatible with Organic Agriculture not even talking about why specifically transgenic organisms are incompatible. Why specifically are new proteins introduced by transformation not allowed, while introducing many unknown proteins through wide crosses are allowed? So we are left still without a rational reason why they shouldn’t be allowed. And it took evaluating ten bad reasons to get to it. I think Jim Riddle does need to outline his reasons further, don’t you?

We need your help, Jim

Granted, Jim Riddle’s article is written for the Rodale Institute, and does not represent the opinion of the University of Minnesota, but his position as the UM’s Organic Outreach Coordinator is important to bring up. He has chosen to educate the public about organic agriculture as a career, and while trying to defend this important agricultural system from a perceived threat, has made several misrepresentations of that very agricultural system. In the discussion over genetic engineering in agriculture and the potential of integrating it into organic growing systems, we desperately need the help of those who are knowledgeable about organic to faithfully represent this form of agriculture.

And we need people who have such know-how to freely admit that there are ways that genetic engineering and organic can work together to improve agriculture, even if it goes against current regulations or personal misgivings. If there is a rational justification for excluding genetic engineering from organic agriculture in principle, then we need to see the real arguments and not invalid post-hoc justifications.

Stay tuned for part III in which I will discuss the enormous error that every response to the idea of GE/Organic has made and what critics need to respond to… or ultimately agree.

Also, thanks to Anastasia Bodnar for taking a look at this post before I hit “publish!”

When I read the news a few weeks ago I was at first puzzled, and then inspired. Jim Riddle, Organic Outreach Coordinator for the University of Minnesota, wrote an article for the Rodale Institute outlining 10 reasons why genetic engineering is incompatible with organic agriculture. This is one of the issues that we tackle quite often here at Biofortified. So here are his ten reasons:

1. Basic science. Humans have a complex digestive system, populated with flora, fauna, and enzymes that have evolved over millennia to recognize and break down foods found in nature to make nutrients available to feed the human body. GMO crops and foods are comprised of novel genetic constructs which have never before been part of the human diet and may not be recognized by the intestinal system as digestible food, leading to the possible relationship between genetic engineering and a dramatic increase in food allergies, obesity, diabetes, and other food-related diseases, which have all dramatically increased correlated to the introduction of GMO crops and foods.
2. Ecological impact. Organic agriculture is based on the fundamental principle of building and maintaining healthy soil, aquatic, and terrestrial ecosystems. Since the introduction of GMOs, there has been a dramatic decline in the populations of Monarch butterflies, black swallowtails, lacewings, and caddisflies, and there may be a relationship between genetic engineering and colony collapse in honeybees. GMO crops, including toxic Bt corn residues, have been shown to persist in soils and negatively impact soil ecosystems. Genetically modified rBST (recombinant bovine somatrotropin, injected to enhance a cow’s milk output) has documented negative impacts on the health and well being of dairy cattle, which is a direct contradiction to organic livestock requirements.

3. Control vs harmony. Organic agriculture is based on the establishment of a harmonious relationship with the agricultural ecosystem by farming in harmony with nature. Genetic engineering is based on the exact opposite — an attempt to control nature at its most intimate level – the genetic code, creating organisms that have never previously existed in nature.

4. Unpredictable consequences. Organic ag is based on a precautionary approach – know the ecological and human health consequences, as best possible, before allowing the use of a practice or input in organic production. Since introduction, genetic modification of agricultural crops has been shown to have numerous unpredicted consequences, at the macro level, and at the genetic level. Altered genetic sequences have now been shown to be unstable, producing unpredicted and unknown outcomes.

5. Transparency. Organic is based on full disclosure, traceability, information sharing, seed saving and public engagement. Commercial genetic engineering is based on secrecy, absence of labeling, and proprietary genetic patents for corporate profits. The “substantial equivalence” regulatory framework has allowed the GMO industry to move forward without the benefit of rigorous, transparent scientific inquiry. The absence of labels has allowed genetically modified products into the U.S. food supply without the public’s knowledge or engagement., and without the ability to track public health benefits.

6. Accountability. Organic farmers must comply with NOP requirements and establish buffer zones to protect organic crops from contamination and from contact with prohibited substances, including genetically engineered seeds and pollen. Genetically engineered crops do not respect property lines and cause harm to organic and non-GMO producers through “genetic trespass,” with no required containment or accountability.

7. Unnecessary. It is well established that healthy soils produce healthy crops, healthy animals, and healthy people. Research and development should focus on agricultural methods, including organic, which recycle nutrients to build soil health, producing abundant yields of nutrient dense foods, while protecting environmental resources. To date, recombinant genetic modification has contributed to the development of herbicide-resistant weeds and an increase in the application of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, with associated increases in soil erosion and water contamination, while producing foods with lower nutritional content. Technologies, such as genetic engineering, which foster moncropping are not compatible with organic systems, where soil-building crop rotations are required.

8. Genetic diversity. Organic farmers are required to maintain or improve the biological and genetic diversity of their operations. Genetic modification has the exact opposite effect by narrowing the gene pool and is focused on mono-cropping GMO varieties.

9. Not profitable. According to the 2008 Organic Production Survey conducted by the USDA National Ag Statistics Service, organic farmers netted more than $20,000 per farm over expenses, compared to conventional farmers. Use of GMO varieties has lowered the net profit per acre for conventional producers, forcing them to farm more land in order to stay in business.

10. No consumer demand. Consumers are not calling for organic foods to be genetically engineered. In fact, over 275,000 people said “no GMOs in organic,” in response to the first proposed organic rule in 1997. “Organic” is the only federally regulated food label, which prohibits the use of genetic engineering. By genetically engineering organic foods, consumer choice would be eliminated, in the absence of mandatory labeling of all GMO foods.

Convinced? I considered that maybe he is right. Furthermore, as I continued to think about it, I could only conclude that plant breeding itself is incompatible with Organics as well. You know, rubbing two flowers together. I will now outline 10 good reasons why plant breeding is incompatible with Organic Agriculture. You might notice some similarities.

1. Basic science. Humans have a complex digestive system, populated with flora, fauna, and enzymes that have evolved over millennia to recognize and break down foods found in nature to make nutrients available to feed the human body. Bred crops and foods are comprised of novel mutations and combinations of genes which have never before been part of the human diet and may not be recognized by the intestinal system as digestible food.

2. Ecological impact. Organic agriculture is based on the fundamental principle of building and maintaining healthy soil, aquatic, and terrestrial ecosystems. Since the introduction of genetics-based plant breeding, there has been a dramatic decline in the populations of Monarch butterflies, black swallowtails, lacewings, and caddisflies, and there may be a relationship between monocultures and colony collapse in honeybees. Crop residues have been shown to persist in soils and negatively impact soil ecosystems.

3. Control vs harmony. Organic agriculture is based on the establishment of a harmonious relationship with the agricultural ecosystem by farming in harmony with nature. Plant breeding is based on the exact opposite — an attempt to control nature at its most intimate level – the genetic code, creating organisms that have never previously existed in nature. Every time a breeder makes a cross between two plants he or she is creating an organism that has never before existed.

4. Unpredictable consequences. Organic ag is based on a precautionary approach – know the ecological and human health consequences, as best possible, before allowing the use of a practice or input in organic production. Since introduction, breeding of agricultural crops has been shown to have numerous unpredicted consequences, at the macro level, and at the genetic level. Potatoes and celery touched by the hands of plant breeders have caused documented skin and health problems in consumers and farm workers.

5. Transparency. Organic is based on full disclosure, traceability, information sharing, seed saving and public engagement. Commercial breeding is based on secrecy, absence of labeling, and proprietary breeders rights for corporate profits. The almost complete absence of a regulatory framework has allowed the breeding industry to move forward without the benefit of rigorous, transparent scientific inquiry. The absence of “artificial selection” labels has allowed genetically modified products into the U.S. food supply without the public’s knowledge or engagement., and without the ability to track public health benefits.

6. Accountability. Organic farmers must comply with NOP requirements and establish buffer zones to protect organic crops from contamination and from contact with prohibited substances. When a plant breeder creates an organism that has not existed before and releases it into the environment, its genes know no boundaries and can contaminate organic crops. Novel or untested (and unknown) genes in wild relatives can infiltrate organic fields by “genetic trespass” and no one – absolutely no one is accountable for this genetic drift.

7. Unnecessary. It is well established that healthy soils produce healthy crops, healthy animals, and healthy people. Research and development should focus on agricultural methods, including organic, which recycle nutrients to build soil health, producing abundant yields of nutrient dense foods, while protecting environmental resources. To date, plant breeding has contributed to the development of herbicide-resistant weeds and an increase in the application of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, with associated increases in soil erosion and water contamination, while producing foods with lower nutritional content. Technologies, such as breeding, which foster moncropping are not compatible with organic systems, where soil-building crop rotations are required.

8. Genetic diversity. Organic farmers are required to maintain or improve the biological and genetic diversity of their operations. Plant breeding has the exact opposite effect by narrowing the gene pool and is focused on mono-cropping varieties. Although plant breeders may start with more diverse stock, the breeder purposefully selects only the genetics that they “want” to see in the field. By selecting beneficial traits they are reducing genetic diversity and thus plant breeding should not be allowed to happen in organic agriculture.

9. Not profitable. According to the 2008 Organic Production Survey conducted by the USDA National Ag Statistics Service, organic farmers netted more than $20,000 per farm over expenses, compared to conventional farmers. Use of conventionally bred varieties has lowered the net profit per acre for conventional producers, forcing them to farm more land in order to stay in business.

10. No consumer demand. Consumers are not calling for organic foods to be subjected to breeding. In fact, there is a growing demand for “wild” foods that have not had their genetics altered by fallible human beings. By incorporating conventionally bred crops into organic agriculture, we would be further eliminating the consumer’s ability to choose these more “natural” foods. There is no public poll which indicates that consumers of organic (or conventional for that matter) foods desire to have the genetics of their crops altered by plant breeding.

It is entirely clear that “conventional breeding” is just that – breeding for conventional agriculture and not for Organic systems. There can be no compromise on this issue, and this is not a drill.

Okay this is a drill.

Evaluating Jim’s Riddle

If you’ve made it this far, you will no doubt notice that it is virtually identical to mine. Yep, a lot of cutting and pasting was involved. Actually, no, not a lot. I added some more information to some of them, some more depth and historical examples in one case. What is accomplished by rewriting his arguments in this fashion is that if they make sense, then the logic transfers over and you must either accept the new conclusion – or – reject the first one.  But banning plant breeding from organic agriculture is absurd, and I’m sure that Jim Riddle would agree. Therefore, his article presents a riddle: how can these characteristics apply to both breeding and genetic engineering while one is compatible and the other is not?

Discuss, and stay tuned for part II – wherein I take a hard look at Riddle’s arguments.

*Orgenic (Or-gene-ick) refers to the idea of combining Organic agriculture with Genetic Engineering.

I will also be available for photo ops, too, so to make it easy for you to find me, here’s where I will be on Wednesday the 5th:

The Global Experience with the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety

Session Track: Food and Agriculture, Breakout Sessions

Session Location: Room N426C

Session Date: Wednesday May 5, 2010

Session Time: 10:00 AM – 11:30 AM

Session Speaker: Alexander Grobman, PhD – Chair | Company:Peru Biotec  [and other speakers]

Summary: The Cartagena Protocol of Biosafety, approved in February 2000, was implemented in September 2003. The Protocol applies to the transboundary movement, transit, handling and use of all living modified…

A white strawberry that tastes like pineapple – sounded fantastic. While people on Wikipedia were debating whether these press releases on March 31st were real or not, to me it didn’t matter. Time to pile on. I pulled a story from the Guardian (that was about the Large Hadron Collider) and rewrote the article. Then I had to edit the features of the html page to make it seem real. (Why would a story on strawberries have physics articles in the related article section of the sidebar?) Interestingly enough, the Guardian also put out a real article about tasting the Pineberry – perfect to include.

Finally, I had to upload it and promote it. It was late in the evening on April 1st in Thailand, but it was morning back in the states. I didn’t get to it until the next morning, hoping that some twitter posts would send the word around. The next morning, I tried to put together a post to promote it before the day was over, but the inconsistent wireless internet in my hotel wasn’t letting me get through. And I had a bus to catch!

Luckily, I managed to send a text message to Anastasia, who finished up the post for me and put it online! What was great about that was that I had intended to mention the allergic reactions to Kiwi fruit in the post, and she also brought that up. (Thanks!)

The point of the article, besides having a little fun, was to point out how strange it is that introducing new foods into the human diet in the form of ‘resurrected’ wild berry varieties is nothing to fear, with countless uncharacterized substances in them. But if you introduce just one well-characterized gene and can predict what it will do and send it through a regulatory regime before commercial release – then you’ve got an evil, suspect “Frankenfood” on your hands. One that some people will devote their entire lives to eliminating.

Take a look at this line in the article. Despite the fiction of people having reactions to this Pineberry, and the fake quotes and tongue-in-cheek commentary, there is a very truthful message contained within it that is both true of genetic engineering and crossing plants with wild relatives (or even landraces that are not eaten):

Crossing wild plants with cultivated varieties can have unpredictable consequences and introduce foreign proteins that have no history of being consumed safely.

Everyone who discusses the issue of genetic engineering in agriculture must know that this is a true statement. It is also used as an argument against genetic engineering. Therefore, those who use this argument honestly should conclude the same thing about wide crosses and any other process used in modifying the genetics of our food. Every time a breeder crosses two plants together, the plants that result from that cross have never existed before. Even plants that reproduce by making identical copies of themselves, such as potatoes and strawberries (and fruit trees with grafting) still accumulate mutations (and epimutations) down the line and are not 100.000% identical. Every new combination carries a risk of unintended consequences – the point is how big is the risk and how can we compare it to other risks that we take every day?

There is a danger with the anti-GE arguments being made that goes beyond preventing beneficial applications of the technology. Since GE is in many ways like breeding, and carries all the same categories of risk, the arguments used against GE also work (or don’t work) against breeding, and polyploidy. Don’t like moving one gene between species, try combining tens of thousands of genes from two or three species together! That’s called Wheat. Or Sugar Cane. Or Rutabaga. Or if you go back far enough… it’s called soybeans. Assuming that these kinds of processes aren’t already at work in our food, and then setting up a social and legal and political structure that assumes this can run the risk of harming breeding as well. There’s a bill being crafted in New Hampshire that defines GMOs in such a way that wide crosses count as being genetically engineered:

a. “Genetically modified seed or organism” means any living organism that possesses a novel combination of genetic material obtained through the use of modern biotechnology including the application of in vitro nucleic acid techniques, including recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and direct injection of nucleic acid into cells or organelles, or fusion of cells beyond the taxonomic family, that overcome natural physiological reproductive or recombination barriers and that are not techniques used in traditional breeding and selection. (emphasis added)

Notice how in this definition they do not limit the definition to only those things that use recombinant DNA techniques. The definition includes recombinant DNA and cell fusion, but the key phrase is that it overcomes natural reproductive barriers. Crossing plants with distant wild relatives falls under that definition. Maybe it is just a poorly worded phrase, but nevertheless the umbrella widens.

Now who’s up for some nasty tasting wild strawberries?! Who was fooled and who was playing along? Some of the folks at Wikipedia couldn’t decide one way or the other.