Rational Agriculture

Despite the fact that new approvals (at least for import) are gradually coming through the convoluted European regulatory system, there are still a number of loose ends to tie up, including rationalisation of the decision-making process and introduction of an EU-wide coexistence framework.

According to a Reuters report, available via Checkbiotech (EU Commission plans GMO debate, end policy void) there are some moves towards resolving these issues. But don't hold your breath: no date has been set yet.

One of the (many) criticisms made of agricultural biotechnology (at least as it pertains to GM crops) is that it is a technology under the control of the private sector. This is largely a result of the withdrawal from crop breeding by many governments in the developed world a few decades ago: private industry moved in to fill the vacuum and surely can't be blamed for that.

However, a consequence of this is that projects for developing world crops are often not high on the agenda. This is a pity: countries which have real food security problems should at least have the option of using potentially useful technologies. A step in the right direction may well be the Public Research and Recognition initiative, which is holding its first forum at the beginning of March in the USA. Chaired by Professor Phil Dale of the UK John Innes Centre, this has attracted the support of many other researchers from a wide range of countries. More information at the link.

One of the criticisms levelled at crop biotechnology by opponents is that it is controlled by foreign multinationals (although the golden rice example shows that any intellectual property issues are surmountable). Now, however, comes a development analogous to open-source software: a freely-available, public domain transformation technique. Researchers at CAMBIA in Australia have developed the use of bacteria other than the classic Agrobacterium to introduce genes into plant cells. Although the method is patented, open-source licences will be available for researchers in developing countries. As for the Linux operating system, results will be shared, with no-one having monopoly control of inventions, thus building up a bank of freely-available improved crop plants. The original work was published in Nature on February 10th, but the link is to a summary on the SciDev website.

Making such tools available to countries with food security problems, particularly those by-passed by the green revolution, is another positive step in lifting people out of poverty.

The Canadian-based ETC group (Erosion, Technology and Concentration) is among the more radical of the environmental NGOs, being suspicious of all new technologies, at least when coming from the private sector. Their latest press release (see link) really takes the biscuit. According to this, the Canadian government is secretly trying to foist so-called "Terminator" technology on an unsuspecting world.

This technology, more accurately called GURT (Genetic Use Restriction Technology) was first developed as a concept by the USDA as a theoretical way to avoid the spread of GM traits by making seed unviable without special treatment. This approach can, of course, also be used to protect proprietary technology, by ensuring that farmers have to buy seed of the protected varieties each year. This is nothing new: hybrid seed doesn't breed true, and nearly all the maize grown in the developed world is from seed purchased from the breeder each year.

All the Canadian government seems to be suggesting is that, at the UN meeting being held now in Bangkok, its delegation push for a reversal of the current activist-inspired moratorium on GURT use to allow for trials of a technology which has not yet even been proven to work. The moral seems to be that sensible, open-minded approaches will not be allowed unless they happen to suit the agenda of unaccountable NGOs, claiming (usually falsely) to represent a much wider constituency. Such is life...

Gordon Conway, ex-head of the Rockefeller Foundation, is now the Chief Scientist at the UK Department for International Development. He is the first appointee to this new position, and it's difficult to think of someone better equipped to do the job. He is refreshingly clear-sighted and non-doctrinare, focussing on the needs of the poor rather than fashionable views on development. The useful SciDev website carries a report of a speech he made a few days ago, which gives a good illustration of his style (see link).

Another story which is not new, but nicely illustrates the problem with entrenched views and closed minds. Earlier this year, a team from the Brooms Barn research station (a division of Rothamsted Research, specialising in research on beet) published results of trials which showed that flexible management of GM herbicide tolerant sugar beet could provide a good food supply for farmland birds without compromising yield. There seems little wrong with that: surely most people would at least say this was interesting and worth doing more work on. Not so the zealots of the "Five Year Freeze" campaign, who are dead set against GM seeds.

The story was reported by the Independent on 19th January (see link) under the headline "GM sugar beet could aid wildlife, say researchers". Despite this, the first sentence reads "Campaigners battling genetically-modified crops today attacked a new study which claimed GM sugar beet could be beneficial to wildlife." It looks like the Indie couldn't quite bring itself to print a balanced article: it remains true to its prejudices.

By the way, the "Five Year Freeze" has had its way for more than five years now: time to call it a day?

Although this is not new, I thought I would bring to your attention an article in January's food monthly supplement in the Observer (see link). This compares the treatment of "organic" and "non-organic" fruit and vegetables, in a way guaranteed to increase the yuk factor and reinforce Guardian and Ob readers' prejudicies about the way their food is being "poisoned". The distance food is shipped, often from abroad, is also subject to criticism.

This tells us nothing about the nutritional value or eating quality of the produce. It tells us nothing about the many toxins and carcinogens naturally present in foods at much higher levels than any residues of synthetic pesticides. It tells us nothing about the harmful effect that local sourcing of all our food would have on the economies of developing countries, whose main competitive advantage lies in the supply of out-of-season fresh produce to the industrialised world.

In my view, unbalanced and partially-informed comment of the worst kind. Implicit in this is that "natural" = good and anything else is bad. Recent figures show that organic produce sales are levelling off (at least in the UK) and experience in supermarkets certainly shows this is still a niche market. Nevertheless, this sort of food snobbishness reinforces the public view that "organic" is better, despite the singular lack of evidence to support this view. Fruit and vegetable quality is determined by a whole range of factors, including variety, degree of ripeness and freshness, and the cultivation method is but one of these.

Now I've got that off my chest, I'll go back to enjoying my weekend!