Developing green biofuels for Australia
In times of global concern about food security, there is a serious ethical debate about using food crops and arable land for biofuel production.
The Conversation: 14 May 2012
Field trial of late blight resistant potatoes Q&A
The UK’s Sainbury’s laboratory has posted a Q&A on their research on late blight resistant potatoes
Sainsbury Laboratory
TechNyou
Obviously it is written in a positive light and there is only so much detail one can put in, but I am curious as to what, if any, influence this would have on people’s perceptions about GM crops, and this spud in particular. Doubtless it will have zero influence on those dead against GM crops anywhere, anyhow. But there are many out there others concerned and avoiding GM crops with a range of values, others with misinformed concepts (or not, but still with concerns), etc. Will they have a different opinion of this potato? If so why? Or why not?
What questions would they need answered before they could make a decision? Do they trust Sainsbury – why or why not… never ending list of questions really?
Time for action on global phosphorus security
We need phosphate to grow food. The mined stuff we use now is finite and going to run out. There is a call to find a solution.
The Conversation: 1 March 2012
TechNyou
The Conversation story above is a bit different from what we might normally post and blog about, especially since its point is to improve governance of the resource and governing is not something we usually talk about. But because food security has been a big issue and many of our blogs, news stories and outreach activities involve this topic I reckon it is worth a few lines. Largely, however, I am seeking your thoughts.
As Conversation authors emphatically point out, without phosphate we are unable to grow sufficient food. So how do we ensure we don’t reach this point. Certainly we can improve the recycling of nutrients such as manures. But if we were to rely on animal manure, how many animals do we need to grow feed for (which requires nutrients) and provide space for to produce sufficient manure. I would be interested to know if anyone has worked out the numbers for this. Laziness and time constraints impede me at the moment. Human manures could work in some places, but as pointed out by one comment there are problems with this . The biosolids can often be contaminated with heavy metals (Melbourne is one example) and at the moment removing them is prohibitively expensive, though further research may change this.
One contribution to the solution being investigated is breeding plants that are better at either extracting the nutrients from the soil or being able to grow efficiently with less nutrients. One of these potential breeding methods is transgenics. Such transgenic versions of these plants are part of active research programs worldwide. Are transgenic plants with these traits acceptable given the situation we are facing? If not, why not? Are there any conditions where such a transgenic plant would be acceptable?
I remember an organic farmer and GM opponent actually saying that an example of nitrogen-use efficient crops was a great idea, if we could prove that it was safe. Is safety a concern? How safe is safe? What evidence would you need to accept such a crop?
Enough rambling on my part. I am interested in peoples’ thoughts on what are the acceptable ways of confronting this issue of nutrient constraint in food production.
Jason
TechNyou
Can Algae Feed the World and Fuel the Planet? A Q&A with Craig Venter
The geneticist and entrepreneur hopes to use synthetic biology to transform microscopic algae into cells that eat up carbon dioxide, spit out oil and provide meals.
Scientific American: 15 November 2011
Image: Image: suavehouse113 on Flickr
Would you eat synthetic meat?
So would you. Our new video explores this question
Would it change the way you feel about animals? Would it change our relationship with animals. If you are a vegetarian would you consider this acceptable to eat?
It can also be found on our YouTube channel
Is patenting crops really about feeding the hungry? A response
Last week Michael Gilbert from the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics wrote a story for The Conversation about the role of patents in plant breeding. It is a contentious area, the whole patenting of genes thing, and I for one am uncomfortable with the concept of being able to patent a gene. Understandably, there was a response to Michael Gilbert’s article – link below.
The Conversation 29 September 2011 Luigi Palombi
TechNyou
Michael Gilbert had a convincing argument although unlike Luigi Palombi I wasn’t confused by article nor did I find it incomprehensible, but that doesn’t mean I necessarily agree with the use of patents applied in this context. I can see how used judiciously they might be useful to society, but I remain to be convinced about their overall worth in the context of this discussion. But I am the first to admit that I am outside my area of expertise here. Patent law, law full stop, is not something I stay up late at night reading about.
A few more points
I am unsure about Luigi’s following comment: ” First, Gilbert says this rice is “patented technology”, which begs a question about what the patentable part of it is since rice as such exists in nature.“ It is not the rice itself that is being patented, but the technology that is in it – ie the gene construct or technology used to generate that novel trait. That patentable “bit” is then bred/introduced into other relevant cultivars.
Also I am unsure what loss of biodiversity has to do with patents and GM crops. As mentioned it is the gene construct or technology that creates the novel trait that is patented not the actual crop. That trait is transferred into the relevant cultivars of the numerous seed breeding companies. Sure monoculture and loss of biodiversity are a problem, but they are irrelevant to the GM argument.
Final point. Luigi suggests that if people aren’t getting enough iron and zinc in their diets there are other grains such as amaranth, which contains 14 times the amount of iron, and wheat which contains 12 times the amount of zinc, than white rice. ie Just make sure people eat a more balanced diet. Yes this is true and I am sure Michael Gilbert acknowledges this as I know nearly everyone else I know working in this field does including Alex Johnson who leads the team that created the iron-rich rice. But it is not as simple as telling people to eat a balanced diet because it is better for you, otherwise nutrient deficiencies would have ceased to be a problem long ago. Not everyone has access to or can afford a balanced diet, brown rice doesn’t store very well…and a host of other reasons prevent access to that proposed balanced diet. And none of these people are suggesting that their iron-rice rice (or other nutritionally-enhanced crop) is going to solve the problem either. It is simply one other tool that can be used to help the situation – along with trying to find ways of ensuring they get a varied diet, fortification of appropriate foods, improving education, eliminating poverty….and so on.
Will patenting crops help feed the hungry?
Opinion: How gene patents can help innovation in developed and developing nations.
The Conversation: Michael Gilbert 27 September 2011
Food security should be about feeding the hungry, not making a profit
Opinion: We need to stop thinking about food security as an economic problem.
The Conversation: Benjamin Shepherd 21 September 2011
TechNyou
The points made by Shepherd appear all valid ones, indeed, they are points TechNyou has emphasised in any public engagement activity on this topic, including our GM food: a dinner discussion. The only thing I should like to pick up on is Shepherd’s following comment:
The stories of farmer suicides in India due to debt over the costs of corporate seeds, pesticides and fertilisers are well known.
The paper he links to in this reports gives a far more broader list of reasons which makes his sentence seem simplistic. Also, a comprehensive report on available evidence from the International Food Policy Research Institute gives a similar finding, although it has found that overall farmer suicide rates in cotton cotton growing districts have actually declined since the introduction of Bt cotton
GM iron-rich rice: will it suffer the same fate as Golden rice?
By Jason Major
TechNyou
Genetically modified rice with sufficient iron levels to meet daily recommended requirements has been developed by Australian scientists.
The iron-rich rice team is based at the Universities of Adelaide, Melbourne and South Australia, and Flinders University, and funded by the Australian Research Council and HarvestPlus, genetically modified rice to increase the amount of iron that is transported to the endosperm of the grain (the part that people eat). This resulted in rice that has up to four times more iron than conventional rice. The rice also has doubled zinc levels. The research is published in the online peer reviewed journal PLoS ONE
The media release on the research from Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics is here
Iron versus Vitamin A
How will this rice fare in the public arena compared to the transgenic Golden Rice, the beta-carotene-rich rice, which is modified to have increased levels of beta carotene, the stuff your body uses to make Vitamin A? This rice has been in the research and testing pipeline for about 12 years and been plagued with controversy, and held from back from any commercial production by numerous regulatory hoops and hurdles. Will the iron-rich rice suffer the same problems? Should it?
Iron-rich rice
This research has only got to the glass house stage and still has field trials and regulatory requirements to get through before it reaches any sort of commercial production, if it does at all. This can all take years.
I have presented workshops and facilitated discussion involving the Golden Rice and iron-rich rice to more than 1000 members of the Australian public over the last 18 months. This public includes retired members of U3A groups, Rotary Clubs, students, teachers, and everyone from plumbers to accountants.
Concerns or not
There is a significant majority of people in favour of such crops being developed. Their reasons for being in favour are simply that if it can help people suffering hunger or malnutrition in the developing world then it is a good thing, though I can recall two people saying that it is acceptable to develop the crop for people in developing countries, so long as I don’t have to eat it. Visualise my raised eyebrow.
Many of these people, the adults anyway, are fully aware of the issues (real or perceived) surrounding GM crops.
Concerns
Where there are concerns they tend to be for the following reason:
We shouldn’t be growing rice in Australia – always comes up and always related to us not having sufficient water to do it. Obviously this isn’t an issue related to GM rice or GM anything. Nearly everyone drops this as a concern once they realise that both varieties are to be grown in the countries where the malnutrition problems are, not Australia. It is interesting, however, that for many it would remain a concern if such varieties would be grown in Australia, purely for the reasons that we shouldn’t grow rice, full stop.
Why do we need it, and what if it gives us too much iron – on the assumption that it will be grown and eaten by Australians. Again, assuming that the rice is targeted at us well-fed westerners, which it isn’t. If it does enter our food chain it would be marketed as such and according to Alex Johnson the small additions to our diet will have a negligible affect. See his commentary on this on the GM food: a dinner discussion video (it will be in part 2 or 3)
Will they make the seed sterile and force them to buy new seed each year. This is a rare concern, but it occasionally pops up. The short answer is no.
Will the farmers in developing nations be able to afford it? That is, will there be equity of access for such crops? This is probably the biggest concern and also relates to the fear of corporate control of our food supply. This is also the most rationale concern from a personal viewpoint. For these two rice varieties at least, there will be no royalties attached to the product and in the case of the iron-rich rice, no patents – see below a response from Alex Johnson, the program leader for the iron-rich rice research.
A conversation from GM food: a dinner discussion
The following is most of a thread from the discussion board on the GM food: a dinner discussion website. It highlights that last concern about corporate control of our food and its affect on social equity.
Hi, Taiss here. To answer the first post response
If the governments say they won’t fund plant breeding, at least sufficiently to get it to a commercial stage, then how are new crops going to be generated if there is no profit to be made?
It is a very good question, and one that is difficult to answer. While great merit is made of the uptake of GM crops in impoverished countries, the reality is that it often takes a decade or more for those crops to be released in those locations as the said corporation is indeed clawing back those R&D and regulatory compliance costs.
So, if that is the case, then they are hardly in a position to claim that GM is playing a part in global food security. In fact, it is perpetrating what the last poster called the “food drought of commercial making” by keeping those stocks out of the hands of those it could benefit the most in favour of ensuring profits.
If we are to consider the 5 A Food Security Components, we have to ask how GM fits into these arenas …
Availability – will GM technologies increase the availability of food so that there is sufficient food for all people at all times?
Accessibility - will GM technologies increase the physical and economic access to food for all at all times?
Acceptability - will GM technologies ensure access to culturally acceptable food, which is produced and obtained in ways that do not compromise people’s dignity, self-respect, religious beliefs or human rights?
Adequacy - will GM technologies ensure access to food that is nutritious and safe, and produced in environmentally sustainable ways?
Agency Action- will the policies and processes that enable the achievement of GM ensure that they also enable the achievement of food security?
In almost all of these categories, I perceive conflicts of interest with the commercial aims of corporate entities. I admit, it may be a cynical view, but one that is far too often proven in action and rhetoric.
Let’s take one example from the night – “iron enriched rice” we are told will benefit those who have up to 60% of their dietary intake as rice and thus remove iron deficiency as a health issue in those regions. However, what good is this research if the research and subsequent development of the technology is produced in the western world to be sold to a corporate body who will require $30million to meet regulatory compliance to bring it to market – at which point only western farmers can afford to purchase the seed stock with the resulting “iron enriched” cereal being too expensive for the supposed target market? Must they wait ten years before the rice is affordable?
I do believe GM has a role to play … but I do not believe it is a saviour, nor that it meets the 5A criteria … perhaps, for now.
And the reply from Alex
From Alex Johnson, School of Botany, University of Melbourne
There are several non-profit organizations such as HarvestPlus that are working to develop more nutritious food staples for people in developing countries and these organizations (with financial backing from governments such as Canada and Sweden as well as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) have the means to not only develop more nutritious food but also, in the case of GM foods like iron-enriched rice, spend the required millions on regulatory testing to get the products to farmers. These nutritionally improved food staples cannot be patented, will not cost more than traditional food staples, and are being developed for the sole purpose of increasing food security for people in developing countries. Check out http://www.harvestplus.org for more information.
Cheers,
Alex
Dr Alexander Johnson
Lecturer, School of Botany
The University of Melbourne
And the conclusion – keep communicating
Based on my anecdotal evidence above, the iron-rich rice should be reasonably well accepted by the general public. Yes, there will be people that will find it unacceptable, and some unacceptable under any circumstances, but at the moment these people appear to be in a minority. I say for now, because public sentiment can swing and there are a few years yet before the iron-rich rice will be potentially ready for commercial production. So the researchers need to continue communicating to the public what they are doing, why and what the implications might be.
And my other question, should this rice suffer the same controversial scrutiny as Golden Rice? I will leave that one for you to ponder. But why should or shouldn’t it? Do you trust the scientists and the science – why or why not? Are you worried about large corporations taking control of it?
For an idea of how acceptable people find specific GM crops see voting results from recent TechNyou events:
Science Alive and Gold Coast Science Fair
Can our cities ever be self-sustaining?
The humble backyard vegie patch is back in vogue. But can growing spuds and greens in the cities really avert a coming food crisis?
ABC New Features: 30 August 2011
OK, so it isn’t a emerging tech story, but one of relevance to a lot of what we do discuss at TechNyou – food security