Skip to main content

What environmental groups don't understand about biotech

It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.
- Charles Darwin
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” 
We have gathered some of the comments of support for the researchers from petition signatories, politicians and high profile supporters here (PDF) 
The questions researchers worked hard to answer are here 
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: 
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:   
If you would like to get general news from Sense About Science you can sign up for our newsletter here and keep up to date with the fantastic work of the researchers at Rothamsted on their website
Thank you again for your support. 


Popular posts from this blog

Which Photographer Are You?

To apply Plato's recommendation: If you know where you fit, in the immense range of the universe of photography, you'll have simple sledding with regards to promoting your photos.

Why? Above all else, there's nobody very like you. You have a fortune of encounters: information, know-how, and interests. In addition, you are a gifted picture taker. At the point when you know your own qualities and select your business sectors as needs be, you'll see that photobuyers like to work with picture takers whose documents of stock photographs coordinate their format needs. As it were, you communicate in their language.

Know thyself. You are a significant asset to photograph editors, in the event that you get your work done and discover the photobuyers whose photograph needs coordinate the photographs you like to take.

'Administration' PHOTOGRAPHY:

Numerous newcomers to the field of stock photography at first set their objectives toward publicizing, PR, modern, design, an…

The Impact of Single Parent Families

There is a rising pattern in families the country over. The quantity of separation procedures started is mounting and it is auspicious to discuss the effect of families on the youngsters and the organization of the family itself. As a matter of course, the nonappearance of one parent in the family structure negatively affects the connection between the parent and the kid just as their individual associations with society in general. They need to manage partiality busy working or in the network. The lower financial persona that is credited to them to make them an objective of misuse and hardships which ought not be available at all in any case.

The image doesn't become more clear concerning the youngsters. A few investigations have called attention to both present moment and long haul impacts of child rearing. Kids who come up short on the supervision of a male parent for the most part are inclined to wrongdoing, illicit drug use and resistance. A little girl in the family is boun…

What Could Be

With the beginning of each new year, it seems like everyone on the planet is either talking about or embarking on some type of resolution. I will be the first one to say that this used to be me each and every year. In almost every case, I tried to commit to something health-related like getting to the gym more or eating better. However, as time has passed, I have reflected on this annual tradition and deemed it to be quite silly in the greater scheme of things. Why should it take the passing of each new year to commit to change on both a professional and personal level? As such, I have not made nor pursued any resolution in many years.

An article by Mary Ellen Tribby in the Huffington Post sums up quite nicely why New Year’s resolutions don’t work:
As a matter of fact according to a study by The University of Scranton’s Journal of Clinical Psychology, only 39% of people in their twenties achieve their resolution goals each year.
And the number keeps decreasing with age. By the time you a…