Farmers' Market in Jackson, Mississippi by NatalieMaynor via Flickr.

Visitors to Biofortified may notice some seemingly conflicting messages in our posts. The authors of this blog are generally proponents* of biotechnology. We are also often proponents of low-input high-genetic diversity farming, and proponents of local or regional food systems. How can that be? Well, we don’t think these ideas are conflicting at all. We think biotech** goes hand in hand with sustainability. We’d like to someday see vendors at farmer’s markets proudly displaying the traits they use in their produce to benefit the environment and consumers.

There are many ways that biotech traits can help farmers reduce inputs and have more biodiversity on their farms, and ways to help food be more local. Two great examples are apples and tomatoes. Both of these are extremely popular fruits, are a healthy addition to any diet, and are eaten fresh as well as processed. Both can be grown in a variety of climates, but have a short growing season in most places, meaning that they are often shipped long distances before they get to consumers. There are a lot of specific traits that could be put into locally adapted varieties of apples and tomatoes to help make it easier to grow in a wider variety of places for a longer season, decrease pesticide use, and increase profit margins.

A recent example of an apple trait that could help small local farmers is scab resistance (learn more in A Vf gene a day keeps the fungus away). If more traits like this were developed, they could be bred into many different varieties of apples and those apples could then be grown profitably in areas with sub-optimal growing conditions. This would allow for more local production of apples and encourage more genetic diversity of apples, based on what varieties best meet the needs of the farmers and consumers in each area.

Tomatoes have been in the news recently too, with a new biotech trait that keeps cell wall modifying enzymes from making the tomatoes all squishy (see I say tomato… and You say tomato! for more). At first glance, you might think this trait would only encourage shipping tomatoes long distances. While the trait could be used that way, it could also be used to keep tasty local tomatoes fresh long after the growing season is over, and might just give busy people time to clear their schedules for canning those tomatoes before they go bad.

How do we get there?

Breeding by small seed companies that specialize in locally adapted varieties as well as by farmers themselves is essential to keeping high amounts of crop genetic diversity on farms in developed and developing countries alike. Giving these breeders access to traits that will help enhance or protect their yields as well as traits that allow them to add value to their crops is essential to helping them compete with big seed companies that specialize in one-size-fits-all seed. That one-size-fits-all seed has been selected to do well in a variety of environments, and that does very well for most farmers, but it doesn’t give farmers or consumers many choices.

In order to allow for breeding, traits need to be licensed or released. Since corporations are legally bound to turn a profit, they can’t afford to give their research away, except in certain cases (as in Monsanto’s pledge to provide drought tolerant maize royalty free, but this still doesn’t allow for breeding). The big companies do license their traits to smaller breeding companies, but leads to some questions about monopolies and such. What we need to balance private research is public research, such as what used to be done by the USDA and what is currently being done by the Indian Ministry of Science and Technology.

Unfortunately, negative public opinion about biotechnology has been a factor in shutting down public research in the US, as well as a willingness to let the private sector take over research. Based on the uproar of activists in India against Bt brinjal, and the subsequent caving of Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh to fear mongering despite approval by all of the relevant Indian authorities, India may be on the way to reducing or eliminating public funding for research as well. That would leave India depending on only private companies for biotechnology, just as the US already left the grand majority of plant breeding and biotechnology to private companies. The best way to guarantee that traits will be developed that benefit the environment and the consumer (not just shareholders’ portfolios) is to encourage public research.

*We don’t have any guest bloggers or regular bloggers who are opposed to biotechnology so far, but that doesn’t mean we wouldn’t welcome authors who are critical of biotech as long as they base their criticisms on evidence.

**Not every biotech trait, mind you. There certainly could be some traits that wouldn’t contribute to my vision of an ideal farming system, and some traits that wouldn’t be appropriate in any farming system. Traits must be taken individually, but as a whole, the technology is sound.

Having a CSA share is such a good experience in so many ways, but the most important one for me is that I know the farmers who grow the food I put on my table are getting honest pay for their labor, that they can afford to take care of their land and to take care of their employees. I also like the idea of keeping my food dollars in the local economy and of giving the money straight to the producer instead of through a string of middlemen and packagers. Another benefit that small vegetable farms provide is high biodiversity due to the many species of plants (and often animals too!) on the farms. They are often certified organic, but due to the high cost of certification,some farms forgo the label and just list their practices on signs or websites. Customers can actually meet the people who grow the food, ask questions, and make friends.

CSA’s are just one of many ways that farmers can receive fair pay for their produce; others include farmers markets and direct sales to restaurants. The one common factor across these is that they need to convince their customers that an increased cost is worth it. While there are certainly times when a certain fruit or vegetable is so locally abundant that it can be cheaper than the same fruit or vegetable from a large farm, there is no doubt that the economy of scale is lost on smaller farms. In order to break even, small farms have to charge a realistic amount for their produce. I’m ok with that. Are you?

You can look for CSAs (and farmers markets, etc) near you at Local Harvest.

Eating locally is great, but since apples only ripen once per year, and they spoil relatively fast, that means we only have fresh apples for a short time each year. That’s too bad, since apples are a wonderful crunchy snack loved by kids and adults that provide health benefits from their fiber and antioxidants.

Shipping the apples from another place (like New Zealand) extends the time that apples are available, but shipping in refrigerated containers is expensive and results in greenhouse gas emissions, and we all know that those apples from far away just don’t taste as good as local ones.

Scab Resistant Selection RS103-130. Image from "Organic Production of a New Australian-bred Scab Resistant Apple in Queensland, Australia" by Middleton, et. al

There might be a way to have local apples available for a much longer time, as well as to have apples shipped in that use less energy and less pesticides!

After more than 20 years of work, researchers in Australia have developed apples that are resistant to black spot aka apple scab, a fungus that destroys fruit and leaves. The scab resistant line, called RS103-130, also stays fresh and crunchy much longer than typical apple lines. They achieved this through some initial crosses with a crabapple species followed by years of selective breeding. The crabapple provided RS103-130 with the Vf gene complex, which has been previously used to produce transgenic scab-resistant apples, which I’ll describe in more detail shortly. You can find the Australian patent for RS103-130 at FreePatentsOnline.

In 2005 and 2006, comparison experiments showed RS103-130 to have many benefits over Galaxy, a typical non-resistant cultivar (see chart below). According to Middleton, et. al, RS103-130 has off white flesh and medium texture, is crisp, sweet, low-acid, and juicy, with a mild flavor.

Chart from "Organic Production of a New Australian-bred Scab Resistant Apple in Queensland, Australia" by Middleton, et. al.

Because of all of these benefits and the reduced pesticides needed, organic apple growers in Australia are very interested in RS103-130. I wasn’t able to find any information on whether RS103-130 has been commercialized yet, or on how long it might be before I can try them. Apparently something happened with RS103-130 lately, because stories appeared in The Independent and in the New York Daily News last week. Neither of the stories say what prompted the coverage, nor does Treehugger, which picked up on the 1st two. If you know what’s new with these apples, please comment!

My first question upon reading these articles was: why has it taken twenty years?! Selective breeding can be painstaking, especially when you’re talking trees. There is a faster way…

The HcrVf2 gene from a wild apple confers scab resistance to a transgenic cultivated variety showed that the Vf gene can be inserted with biotechnology into apple varieties (in this case, the gene was inserted by Agrobacterium tumefaciens into the Gala apple cultivar). In the introduction of this paper from 2003, Belfanti et. al point out that:

the transfer of these genes by classical breeding to cultivated apples is difficult because of the long juvenile phase, self-incompatibility, and the impossibility of exactly reproducing the heterozygous state of cultivated varieties. Starting from the wild species Malus floribunda 821 carrying the Vf gene, breeders have developed several scab-resistant apple cvs. (2), but not one has met with commercial success. Indeed, when compared with such commercially popular cvs. as Golden Delicious and Gala, the main horticultural and fruit-quality traits of these scab-resistant cvs. are notably different and undoubtedly less acceptable.

Using biotechnology, the researchers were able to confer scab resistance in one generation. In this paper, the authors don’t mention any increase in lifespan for the fresh apples – I’ll look on Web of Science for more info tomorrow. I do appreciate that the authors are hopeful for the future of apple biotech.

The cloning of an apple scab resistance gene represents the basis for further investigation of the resistance mechanism. It also represents a step toward a gene therapy (restoring resistance where lost) of the scab-susceptible cvs. that currently dominate the apple industry. This strategy will allow the transfer of resistance from a wild apple species to any commercial apple genotype while maintaining the horticultural and fruit-quality traits growers and consumers prize most. It may also be possible to achieve greater resistance durability by the simultaneous transfer of several resistance genes from wild apple species. Going one step further, it may be possible to use apple promoters and novel techniques that, by eliminating selective marker genes (38, 39), generate transgenic varieties without any foreign genes and, hence, may make genetically modified plants more acceptable to growers and consumers alike.

I’m particularly interested that Balfanti et. al mentioned cisgenics, although they didn’t use the term. There is potential to insert genes like Vf into many varieties of apples, meaning that cultivars developed for specific microclimates may be quickly made resistant to scab (and potentially given a longer shelf life) without any loss of their other traits. This is a good example of how biotechnology and breeding can have the same results – get a gene into a cultivar – although one takes much longer than the other.

I am a label reader. If there is an excess of added sugar or too many ingredients with names that I don’t recognize then I don’t buy the product. Not all information, however, is useful.

A few months ago our local food coop began posting red “consumer alert” signs that say, “Conventional foods that contain corn, soy, or canola may be genetically engineered.” I find these signs more annoying than helpful. It is a little bit like the warnings posted on science textbooks in some states that say, “This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory which some scientists present as scientific explanation for the origin of living things, such as plants and humans. No one was present when life first appeared on Earth. Therefore, any statement about life’s origins should be considered as theory, not fact”.

Neither statement says anything informative about the state of our food nor the creation of our universe. With no specific hazards associated with GE foods or evolution, how can a consumer use these statements to make a more informed choice about the risk to their health or to their faith in God?

The National Research Council Committee states that attempts to assess food safety based solely on the process are scientifically unjustified. Rather than adding a general label about the process with which a plant variety was developed, it would make more sense to label food so that consumers are informed about what is actually in or on the food. But this, too, is not necessarily helpful. For some people it may be informative to read a label that says, “may contain traces of carbamate pesticides, which at high concentrations are known to cause death of animals” or “may contain trace amounts of purified Bacillus thuringiensis protein, which kill Leptidoptera (a class of insects).” But is it helpful to most consumers who are not familiar with the science?

Here is another example. If we carry forward with labeling the product, then organic produce treated with rotenone, a “natural” pesticide favored by some organic farmers, would need to be labeled with the following, “may contain trace amounts of rotenone–chronic exposure can cause damage to liver and kidney” (Occupational Safety and Health Administration 1998). Organic super sweet corn would require this label: “Carries a genetic mutation induced by radiation mutagenesis, resulting in the presence of a mutant protein.” Organically grown papaya would need to be marked: “may contain vast amounts of papaya ringspot viral RNA and protein”.

These labels are so ominous that it is not likely that many people would feel comfortable eating these organic fruits and vegetables. Still, there is no evidence that any of these food products are hazardous. After all, we have been eating sweet corn and organic papaya safely for years.

It seems to me that if the labeling statement does not help with safety interventions or inform consumer choice, it does not serve the purpose. It only confuses and unnecessarily alarms people.

This is a repost from Tomorrow’s Table.