tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3590966175110441391.post1792476798824802273..comments2023-06-26T03:08:40.549-07:00Comments on Tomorrow's Table: Now some comments from Raoul, the organic farmerPamela Ronaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08905736049638342587noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3590966175110441391.post-21200839497841834742008-06-07T08:14:00.000-07:002008-06-07T08:14:00.000-07:00Hello DougThanks for your questions. 1. We develop...Hello Doug<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your questions. <BR/><BR/>1. We developed submergence tolerance rice lines using genetic engineering and marker assisted breeding (sort of a hybrid between GE and conventional GM). I did explain this to the interviewer but the editor cut it. To many people there is not a great distinction between the two advanced genetic techniques. This is explained in detail in the book (Really, you should read it, as it provides many answers to your questions). <BR/><BR/>2. The point we were trying to make about hybrids is that farmers choose to buy hybrid seed because they are higher yielding. This includes most organic farmers. Again, many people tend to forget that organic farmers are commercial farmers and use the best seed available, often produced by small or large companies. Few organic farmers in California produce their own seed. Furthermore, although you are right, farmers can legally take the low yielding segregants from the hybrids and carry out their own crosses to create their own lines, virtually noone does this. They are to busy producing food to carry out years of breeding experiments. <BR/><BR/>Just as you could take apart your microsoft computer and likely find pieces that are not patent protected that you could legally use to create a new computer, you would not do this now would you? If you did, you would not have time to write to me.<BR/><BR/>3. In India a huge proportion of the farming expenses are going to pesticides. Although GE seed are more expensive, the yields are 80% higher and the farmer saves the pesticide costs (see article about this in science).<BR/><BR/>4. I am glad that you agree that reducing pesticides is a good thing. And also glad that you said in a previous post that you are not against genetic engineering. It is important to keep the focus on the broader goals of ecologically responsible farming. Clearly Bt can contribute here- it is one of the favorite tools of organic farmers.<BR/><BR/>5. Regarding regulation, we have an entire chapter in our book on risk. Hundreds of thousands of children are dying each year because of vitamin A deficiency, thousands more are poisoned with pesticides, more land is being put into production every year, which negatively affects global warming. In contrast their has not been a single case of harm from GE crops to human health or the environment, even after over 1 billion acres grown. Their is broad scientific consensus that the GE crops currently on the market are safe to eat. <BR/><BR/>Instead of getting bogged down as to whose "side" you are on, we need to direct attention to where it matters - the need to support the use of seed and farming methods that are good for the environment and for the consumers. Agriculture needs our collective help and all appropriate tools if we are to feed the growing population in an <BR/>ecological manner.Pamela Ronaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08905736049638342587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3590966175110441391.post-6589769479964204942008-06-06T19:42:00.000-07:002008-06-06T19:42:00.000-07:00Pam, Interesting article, and as you might expect,...Pam, <BR/><BR/>Interesting article, and as you might expect, I have a few comments and questions . First, I remember that when you first published on submergence tolerance genes you had more practical success with marker assisted backcrossing (MAB) than GE in bringing this trait into other rice varieties. I feel it is a little disingenuous (based on what I know - which is probably not the whole picture) to tout this as a particular success of GE, when MAB worked at least as well. Has the picture with this dramatically changed? And even if GE is working, it seems that MAB works well also. And as to speed to commercialization, we have already discussed this in earlier posts. With GE, safety assessments aside, there must be field trials to test the agronomy of the GE varieties in case there are tissue culture related or pleiotropic adverse changes.<BR/><BR/>Second, I was initially encouraged by your response about intellectual property rights for the genes you have isolated, but dismayed by your and Raoul’s later response equating hybrids with patents. Although there is some overlap, these are two very different problems. Although hybrids loose heterosis advantages after the F1 generation, there are no intellectual property issues that prevent farmers or scientists (under plant variety protection) from improving those varieties, while the ownership issues around genes forbids this. Also, as you are aware, for most crops, hybrids are not commonly used (maize being a prominent exception), and/or line varieties are also common.<BR/><BR/>In many less developed countries there are few if any improved seed sources of any kind. But in other countries, the situation is changing in disturbing ways. For example, in India, Monsanto and its subsidiary Mahyco, are making big inroads in the cotton market with Bt seed. Because this cotton is considerably more expensive, but only protects against a few of many threats, when crops fail there farmers are farther into debt than if they used non-GE seed. Although GE has not caused the thousands of debt-related farmer suicides there, it may be contributing.<BR/><BR/>And while I was glad that Raoul brought up the problems with the China’s Bt cotton situation, I believe he was wrong about farmers there initially not using chemical insecticides on Bt cotton. Farmers did not stop using chemical insecticide, they only (initially) reduced its use (a good thing nonetheless). Eliminating use of chemicals has never (or rarely) been possible because cotton is attacked by many other insects that are not affected by Bt Lepidoptera-specific toxins (especially sucking insects such as Homopterans). Now, farmers there are reportedly using as much chemicals as before, but making less because Bt seed costs more. And although I agree that if better agroecology was used, the increase of secondary insects may not have been a problem, another question is, if those methods were used, would Bt be necessary, or its higher cost worth it for marginal gains? <BR/><BR/>Finally, you always seem to avoid one of the main issues (in addition to the corporate control issues) that seems to separate scientists that have concerns about GE from those that strongly are pushing them - what is the adequate level of regulation for humans and environmental safety? This is a huge practical issue worldwide, and right now, like it or not, you are basically on the same side as the big industry players. People like me who are not opposed to intelligent applications of GE, if they can be made to work (still an open question with complex traits like meaningful drought tolerance) are unlikely to be won over until an adequate regulatory regime is in place.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3590966175110441391.post-23517165613789243082008-06-06T09:34:00.000-07:002008-06-06T09:34:00.000-07:00Hi AnastasiaThanks for your comments. Both rice ge...Hi Anastasia<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your comments. <BR/><BR/>Both rice genes we cloned in my lab (conferring disease resistance and submergence tolerance) and the varieties we developed were released to non-profit institutions in developing countries without any strings attached. We did it this way because we wanted to be sure the varieties reached those people that needed them them the most.<BR/><BR/>If a company in the US or elsewhere wanted to commercialize these varieties or other varieties, there might be some license fees to patent holders for some of the promoters or selectable markers we used. I have not needed to investigate that because for now, I am working almost entirely in the non-profit sector.<BR/><BR/>We discuss this in more detail in chapters 10 and in the book. One from the point of view of an organic farmer (Raoul) and one from the point of view of a scientists working on rice (me).<BR/><BR/>I hope this helps.Pamela Ronaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08905736049638342587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3590966175110441391.post-38865015408337790672008-06-06T09:07:00.000-07:002008-06-06T09:07:00.000-07:00Thanks for posting the link. I'm so happy that you...Thanks for posting the link. I'm so happy that your book has gotten some big media attention - I hope that consumers follow through and read it. <BR/><BR/>A commenter at US News has a good question - when, where, how much? <BR/><BR/>Specifically, I'd like to learn more about the regulatory processes you're going through (if any), if you'll have to pay royalties to any patent holders for tools you used to develop the rice. I'm particularly curious because I'll have to do something similar if I ever want to release the enhanced iron bioavailability maize that I'm working on.Anastasiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05792297656429037845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3590966175110441391.post-82551514168777890352008-06-06T08:32:00.000-07:002008-06-06T08:32:00.000-07:00Fine interview. Should get some response.Fine interview. Should get some response.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com