Want to stick it to Monsanto? March for public investment and open data

A while back, I interviewed a plant geneticist who expressed extreme frustration over the measly funds that were available for research into biotechnology.

The scientist’s own research was quite exciting in and of itself because of its potential to profoundly improve current agricultural problems across the world by improving yield, while reducing fertilizer overuse.

Intrigued, I asked the scientist about possibilities of commercializing the plant varieties soon. In response, I was told there were only a few companies motivated to invest in the research and there was little chance of raising public funds — given wide sentiment against genetic engineering.

The only hope, the plant researcher said, was that Monsanto would be interested and, then, the scientist suggested — off the record — to me that, “maybe Monsanto likes it that way.” Without competition from other companies or public funds, the company basically had cornered the market on opportunities regarding agricultural biotechnology.

What environmental groups don’t understand about biotech

On May 27, the “Take the Flour Back” environmentalist group plans to take “mass action” in efforts to remove more than $1 million worth of research in biotechnology. Their purpose, according to their website, is one of “mass decontamination” of what they see is a threat to farmers, the food supply, health of consumers, and biodiversity. What this protest group doesn’t understand is that it’s exactly this kind of research that they, as environmentalists, should be placing on a pedestal.

In an interview with Karl Haro von Mogel, Rothamsted’s biologist Dr. Gia Aradottir explains the details of the experiments the protest group wants to uproot at Rothamsted Research Station in Harpenden, England: The research is on a variety of wheat that is genetically engineered to emit aphid alarm pheromone (E)-β-farnesene (EBF); in other words, the scientists are testing plants that can produce their own non-toxic aphid repellent, using pheromones. An aphid-resistant wheat variety could lead to less use of pesticides overall, less pesticide runoff, less effects on beneficial plants and insects in the surrounding environment, less possibility of pesticide resistance.

This is precisely the kind of research that could help lead to the “marriage” of organic agriculture (the kind that is pesticide-free) and genetic engineering called for by plant geneticists such as Pamela Ronald (see her most recent blog post “Thinking Beyond Organic”). It’s also the kind of research that former AAAS president Nina Fedoroff has  said (see my prior post here) will help prevent an eventual Malthusian crisis in combination with severe loss of biodiversity.

Contrary to the beliefs of the “Take the Flour Back” group, the research could mean a better crop for farmers, more dependable wheat production for the food supply, and an ultimately greater protection of biodiversity. EBF and similar pheromones are also already emitted by several other plant species, so there should be no indication of it being a potential health hazard.

However, despite pleas of reason from Rothamsted for the group to not destroy years of expensive research, the anti-GM group insists that the aphid-resistant wheat is still a danger. They point to findings from another environmental group, Friends of Earth International, that GM crops have led to increased amounts of herbicides and pesticides, not less. They also harp on the idea that the synthesized gene bears more resemblance to one found in a “cow” versus a “plant” — an obvious scare tactic — and they question Rothamsted’s assertion that their publicly funded results won’t be sold off to a agrochemical companies.

Without a doubt, in the last few weeks, biotechnology-proponents have been following this story (along with the Kashi “controversy“) with disbelief. The distrust the general public has toward genetically engineered foods has reached new levels. That is unfortunate, because biotechnology is the most promising technology we have for protecting the environment in our ever-changing, ever-more-populated, world. With real threats of arable land and water scarcity, loss of biodiversity, disease-resistance, and global warming all looming over us, environmentalists should welcome biotechnology as one of our most important technologies for countering the forces of change.

Perhaps what these protesters and the general public need is a serious understanding of the history of agriculture and why biotechnology is critical for the future. For instance, genetic manipulation has gone on for thousands of years in plant breeding. And, in the last 50 years or so, mutations have been induced through technologies such as thermal neutron radiation. New methods of genetic modification and gene transfer should be considered simply as extensions of previous technologies.

Rothamsted has the right idea, calling for an open discussion, in hopes of educating the public about the potential benefits of biotechnology. Let’s hope it’s enough to save their research from destruction! Learn more at Sense about Science.

Update Oct 3, 2012: Good news – The GM wheat trial has been successfully harvested! That’s despite  the protest group and significant damage following a break-in. I received the following message today via email because I signed the “don’t destroy research” petition at Sense about Science:

Dear Petition Signatories

The GM wheat trial crop at Rothamsted Research has been harvested. It is far too early to talk about results yet, but the team at Rothamsted wanted to let you know about the harvest and to pass on their thanks. The protest group who said they were going to destroy the crop earlier in the summer did not have enough support to carry out their threat; this was because of you.

Professor John Pickett said: “The team and I were overwhelmed by all the messages of support we received from the petition signatories. You all have a significant role to play in ensuring this important, independent scientific study continues to progress so we can better understand whether this technology could help us deliver more environmentally sustainable food production in the future. We are only half way through our experiment and to ensure we get robust scientific results we need to continue the experiment next year and then get the data thoroughly analysed and independently peer reviewed for all to see. After all the great work done by Sense about Science this year, we hope next year’s phase will pass without the threat to damage it.”

Síle Lane, Sense About Science said: “We were thrilled by the support for the researchers. We are still reading through the comments 6060 people left on the petition. This is ongoing research so it’s good for the scientists to know there’s so much support for them from so many people. The questions you sent us have been a great way to clarify the research and Frances Downey is going to continue this. If you have further questions get in touch with her at fdowney@senseaboutscience.org.”

We have gathered some of the comments of support for the researchers from petition signatories, politicians and high profile supporters here (PDF)http://www.senseaboutscience.org/data/files/Dont_destroy_research/Dont_destroy_research_public_support_June_2012.pdf

The questions researchers worked hard to answer are herehttp://www.senseaboutscience.org/pages/plant-science-qa.html

There’s a time line of the summer’s events, including Rothamsted’s offer to debate with Take the Flour Back before the protest, here:http://www.rothamsted.ac.uk/Content.php?Section=AphidWheat&Page=Protest

Protestor Hector Christie was ordered to pay £3,850 in compensation to Rothamsted Research in August after breaking onto the site and causing property damage. He failed to disrupt the experiment: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19373852

If you would like to get general news from Sense About Science you can sign up for our newsletter here http://www.senseaboutscience.org/pages/support-us.html and keep up to date with the fantastic work of the researchers at Rothamsted on their websitehttp://www.rothamsted.ac.uk/

Thank you again for your support.

 

One Tomato at a Time: Feeding the World with Controlled Environment Agriculture

Tomatoes grown with controlled environment agriculture

A simple insalata caprese served to bring about a possible, worldwide agricultural revolution in Tucson, Ariz.

Each tomato in the Capri-style dish was a product of gardening perfection, grown within a precise range of “Goldilocks” (not too hot, not too cold) temperatures with a steady supply of light, carbon dioxide, water, and nutrients. Each bite and burst of fresh-off-the-vine tang only reminds, “Yes, food can and should taste this good.”

The lucky few who enjoyed the salad—along with grilled eggplant, squash, fruit, and watermelon juice—were University of Arizona scientists attending the Research and Reports Retreat on Aug. 19 hosted by the Controlled Environment Agriculture Center (CEAC). Nina Fedoroff, professor of biology at Penn State and AAAS president, gave the keynote address.

By 2050, Fedoroff warned, world population would reach nine billion. Scientists must figure out how to squeeze every ounce of agricultural productivity to double the food supply. All this, she said, while simultaneously facing climate change, new biofuel demands, and pressure to reduce agriculture’s ecological footprint if the planet is to preserve what’s left of its biodiversity.

“The amount of arable land hasn’t changed in more than half a century. This means that the amount of arable land per person will decrease by half,” she said. “I think we need to think of new ways. We need to think of the entire system. We have to think about the water, the energy, and the land.” Shaping up to be one of those “new ways”is controlled environment agriculture, said Gene Giacomelli, a horticultural engineer. As director of CEAC, he’s seen the center grow from its roots as a project to improve the living standards of communities in the Arizona desert to changing the way scientists view the future of farming.

Already, however, CEAC-designed high-tech greenhouses are producing nearly 10 times more produce—tomatoes, for example—as conventional farms with only a tenth or less of the resources. What’s more, it’s a feat that can be accomplished anywhere.

“It’s providing food in places when and where we want it,” Giacomelli said. “It’s Biology 101: Everything is based on the plant. The plant provides you oxygen, purifies the water, and gives you the food.”

Consider the work of soon-finished agricultural graduate student Lane Patterson on the South Pole Food Growth Chamber, a CEAC-designed greenhouse that has operated for six years providing fresh produce including cucumbers, melons, and a variety of tomatoes to researchers at the South Pole research station. Patterson maintains control of the chamber from a computer station in Tucson. Based on hydroponics, the chamber is a closed system that recycles a high percentage of its materials. Sensors tightly control air temperature, humidity, and carbon dioxide. Special water-cooled lights provide the energy for plant growth.

When operating at peak capacity, the chamber can provide each researcher three salads a day year-round, an incredible feat for a greenhouse at the bottom of the world (and that could one day feed astronauts on the moon). Unfortunately, Patterson said, the chamber only has its lights on a third of the time to save on electricity costs. These costs, however, may be a thing of the past with new advances in CEAC research coming from the labs of Mirat Kacira and Cheri Kabota.

Kacira’s greenhouse systems and plant sensory monitoring technology simulates any weather condition, computes airflow, and monitors growth of all the plants. Through use of thermal imaging, for example, his system can detect the onset of a nutrient deficiency well before the naked human eye. By improving efficiency of resources, he sees huge potential in savings.

CEAC Faculty, Students, Staff, Guests (me on the right)

Savings may also come from introduction of light-emitting diode (LED) lamps. Kabota studies just how much LED light and what kind—red light, blue light, or both—is needed to stimulate growth of plants. Working with other universities, the plan is to grow plants with the least amount of LED light possible.

Eventually, Giacomelli says, CEAC advances will be welcome news for investors who are bringing controlled environment agriculture to urbanized areas such as New York or Montreal, but whose operating costs are also hampered mainly by electricity usage.

One of these companies is owned and run by Fedoroff’s own daughter and her boyfriend. Lufa Farms of Montreal is covered in photovoltaic panels, re-circulates all its water, and is sealed to exclude insects and eliminate need for pesticides and herbicides.

“It’s a pretty high tech, high-intensity facility, and it grows lovely vegetables,” Fedoroff said. These urban farms, she said, could be the answer (along with genetic engineering) needed to feed the world of the future.  

She added, “What it does that I think is extremely important to be mindful of is it brings agriculture back to the city. We’ve separated it. It’s important psychologically and brings the value.”

As if the promise of fresh, flavorful, garden-variety tomatoes for available year-round for salads and sandwiches wasn’t enough!

Can We Prevent a Food Crisis while Preserving Biodiversity?

To feed a crowded planet and avoid further loss of species, Nina Fedoroff, professor of biology at Penn State University and president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), argues for more focus on biotechnology and controlled environment agriculture.

“Time is not on our side,” she said in a keynote address at a research reports and retreat in Tucson, Ariz., hosted Aug. 19 by The University of Arizona’s Controlled Environment Agriculture Center.

Thomas Malthus reasoned in 1798 that exponential population growth would eventually bring on worldwide famine and devastation, but he couldn’t have foreseen the advent of the most sophisticated agricultural production in human history. If he’d had a crystal ball, he would have witnessed plant science take hold—the introduction of post-Mendelian breeding practices, mechanization, intensive propagation and chemical fertilization.

These technologies among others and the expansion of agriculture making use of arable land across the globe, has permitted a tripling of the world’s population since Malthus’s time. However, this remarkable story of modern agriculture hasn’t been all good news.

Antibiotic resistance: "One of the Greatest Threats to Public Health"

Lance Price

In the United States, there are nine billion food animals produced annually including, 34 million cattle, 108 million hogs, 267 mililon turkeys, and 8.9 billion broilers. In contrast, there is only a human population of about 300 million people. Only a fraction of those people will be treated with antibiotics (for 10 days or so a year), but those nine billion animals will be treated all the time whether they’re sick or not.

Combined with overcrowded and unsanitary conditions, feeding healthy animals antibiotics to prevent disease and promote their growth are ideal grounds for evolution of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. These are bacteria that are no longer inhibited or killed by antibiotics at clinically relevant doses and evidence continues to grow that many of these resistant bacteria do eventually make their way to humans (some originated in humans and made their way back).

How do bacteria become resistant? Bacteria can pick up genes through viruses, other bacteria, or random mutation. Most of these mutated bacteria die unless there is a selective force. Antibiotic selection kills off most of the bacteria, but resistant ones flourish. Each application of antibiotics is potentially selecting for antibiotic resistant bacteria. Antibiotic resistance has already moved beyond the classic foodborne pathogens like Salmonella, Campylobacter and others that cause gastrointestinal illnesses. Resistance has expanded to several other types of bacteria including ones that cause urinary tract infections. It also moved beyond food, to types of bacteria we find everywhere such as in bathrooms, on phones, and on the computer keyboards.

“Antibiotic resistance is one of the greatest threats to public health that we face today,” said Lance Price, director of Transational Genomics Institute (TGEn) North’s Center for Microbiomics and Human Health and the Center for Food Microbiology and Environmental Health, on Oct. 16 at New Horizons in Science during the ScienceWriters2011 annual meeting in Flagstaff, Ariz.

Ten years ago, Price assisted in the use of genomic analysis to investigate anthrax attacks and determine their sources. Now, he’s using the same principles to other areas, specifically in antibiotic resistance — where it comes from and how it spreads.

Recently, his team has sequenced a new strain of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureas dubbed MRSA ST398. The strain was traced back to the Netherlands, where an infant had first been infected with it. The problem with ST398 is that it was indistinguishable from normal strains using the gold standard multi-locus sequence typing (MLST).

So, Price’s team had to use genome sequence typing (WGST) to get a high resolution fingerprint. They initiated a major survey on food animals and farmers and found that 40 percent of pigs were infected in 80 percent of the farms in the Netherlands. In the U.S., 49 percent of pigs were infected in 70 percent of the farms.

“We’re now starting to see people get ST398 that aren’t connected to livestock, probably from contaminated meat,” Price said, who also added that it has spread to chicken and beef.

The new existence of ST398, Price fears, could mean the beginning of new epidemic. Already, he said, it has become more deadly in the U.S. than HIV! This is why he is calling for greater efforts to educate the public about the harms of antibiotic treatment in animals.

“We must make sure that antibiotics are used only when necessary. There is still a lot of antibiotic overuse,” Price said. “Food animal producers are not on board. Most U.S. food animals are given antibiotics routinely.”

Food animals comprise of the single greatest use of antibiotics in the U.S. with more used for animal feed than the all of the U.S. population. A total of 29 million pounds of antibiotic are produced for feeding healthy animals annually, most of which are classes important to human medicine.

“This is the thing that drives public health people crazy,” Price said.

Read a similar account of Price’s talk found at Scientific American.

Living Food Walls for Disadvantaged Youth, Sustainable Communities

The first living wall as it’s constructed in South Africa.

My friend Warren Te Brugge has taken on a project that deserves the attention of all who are interested in the ideals of sustainable communities and food security in all parts of the world.

His new foundation My Arms Wide Open® is building the first-ever living food walls with the objective of providing fresh fruits and vegetables to disadvantaged youth in both Vancouver Downtown Eastside and in rural South Africa.

The sister walls will be constructed based on the design of South African artist, Dylan Lewis, who created the exhibition “Untamed” (pictured above) at Kirstenbosch National Botanical Gardens (see more pics of the living plant wall construction here). The exhibition was originally constructed in celebration of the country’s hosting of the 2010 World Cup.

The two identical vertical gardens — one in Vancouver and the second in Cradock, South Africa — will yield several harvests throughout the year and offer educational opportunities. The main goal: inspire youth to make their own “mini walls” contributing to their health and sustainable communities.

How are these walls being constructed? All the details are here (.pdf). In short, each will be designed as an “S” shaped arc that is 40 feet long and 6 feet high. The design is ideal for allowing the young children to tend the lower parts and older youth to tend the higher areas. A concrete footing will support individual slots for plastic 2-liter pop bottles cut to hold each plant.

“During the fall and winter, the garden’s bottles not being used for vegetables and fruits will be replaced with suitable plants to maintain the wall during the off-season and allow for preparation of new vegetable seedlings for the spring,” Warren writes on his blog. “In addition to the fruit plants grown in the bottles, we intend to plant several fruit trees around the wall to support the surrounding community’s need for fresh fruit.”

He also writes, “These food walls are about ‘more than just crops’. Projects like this can help create a sense of real community as families learn about how to grow and maintain the walls, volunteer to help and share the harvests.”

Sounds like a project that could make a big difference? A few think so, which is why Warren was recently nominated for an award from Katerva, a UK-based charity organization that recognizes publicly what they see as “the very best sustainability initiatives on the planet. 

I also think the food walls are a pretty cool plan, so I’m contributing to the cause at Global Giving here. Check it out: The project has only 10 more days to raise $4,000 from 50 donors and, as of the time of this writing, there are 42 donors and only $660 remaining.