Greenland greens up: arctic monkeys say “pah”.
A farmer speaks. And then another.
The first day of the Governing Body meeting of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture yesterday was enlivened by two speeches from farmers. Sunda Ram Verma is from Sikar in Rajasthan, while Guy Kastler is French. Neither, of course, is a typical farmer. Typical farmers don’t come to Rome to address the Governing Body of the ITPGRFA. But each had interesting things to day.
Sunda Ram Verma has devised new techniques for saving water and was recognized for his work with cumin, guar bean and pearl millet diversity. According to the quasi-official meeting report, “Verma described his lifetime of developing and sharing improved crop varieties, said farmers would benefit from access to resources for screening new varieties, and noted that he has received no benefits from commercialization of his own improved varieties.” One might wonder why not. Because India does not permit such a thing? Or because he never sought cash benefits? I think we should be told. And in passing, one might further wonder why an NGO blog didn’t even record Sunda Ram Verma’s name. Too much respect?
Guy Kastler is no stranger to international agro-politics, having tussled to keep GMOs out of Europe and more generally for some relaxation of Europe’s draconian seed laws. Again, the quasi-official report says that Kastler “distinguished between small- and large-scale plant breeders, and called for a dynamic Treaty that supports farmers’ rights, such as the right to sell their seeds, an inventory system to support their breeding approaches and plant descriptions, and a fund to support farmers’ consultations worldwide. He said the ITPGR subjects farmers to national laws, some of which undermine their rights.” His speech, however, is available at the Via Campesina web site, so you can see for yourself whether that’s a fair summary.
I wasn’t there, but I’m told that there was some light head nodding among the delegates; I wasn’t told whether this represented gentle agreement or incipient sleep. Reading Kastler’s words, I somehow wonder whether the nodding was affirmative. He’s drawing attention to the fact that farmers (and gardeners) in Europe are the least free in the world, and that the Treaty, while guaranteeing them certain rights, does absolutely nothing to deliver those rights. Nor does it apparently admonish the governments — parties to the Treaty — who deny farmers the rights they signed up to in the Treaty. Could it be that those governments aren’t actually serious about farmers’ rights?
For all the fun of the fair, tune in to Earth Negotiations Bulletin’s daily reports.
Hot or not? A SNP provides the answer
Time was when you tested how hot a chilli pepper was by tasting a teeny bit with your tongue, at least if you were brave. The hotter it tasted, the more capsaicin it contained, and the hotter it was. Then came Wilbur Scoville and his eponymous scale. ((An extract of the pepper is diluted with sugar water until a panel of testers can no longer detect any heat. Thus a mild little pepperoncino scores around 500 SHU (Scoville Heat Units), meaning that the extract has to be diluted 500 times to lose all heat, while a decent African birdseye starts at around 100,000 SHU. And Luigi’s little hottie Naga Jolokia is ten times hotter still, at 1,040,000 SHU.)) Now, all you need is a well-equipped molecular biology laboratory.
Maria Arnedo-Andrés and her crew have identified a single nucleotide polymorphism, or SNP, associated with pungency in chillies. ((Ana Garcés-Claver, Shanna Moore Fellman, Ramiro Gil-Ortega, Molly Jahn and María S. Arnedo-Andrés (2007) Identification, validation and survey of a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) associated with pungency in Capsicum spp. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 115: 907-916. DOI 10.1007/s00122-007-0617-y.)) A snip is a single letter difference between the DNA of two different organisms. Sometimes a SNP makes a visible and important difference to the organism. The genetic difference that causes sickle cell anemia is one such SNP. More often, the SNP is just a marker. It is associated with some other difference, but does not actually cause it. Breeders like markers because they allow them to quickly see whether some desired gene has been inherited after a breeding experiment. If the marker is there, chances are the nearby gene is there too. There are gazillions of known SNPs out there, mapped to squillions of differences. But, until now, no SNP that could tell you whether a chilli pepper was hot.
There have been markers before, but they were either unreliable, failing to distinguish hot from sweet. Or they were physically a long way away from the actual genes for hotness, meaning that they were not very useful to breeders.
The researchers grew a wide range of peppers, different species and different varieties. Two people tasted five ripe fruits from each type of plant. If all five were not pungent, the plant was considered non-pungent. But if just one fruit (or more) tasted hot, the plant was considered pungent. Then comes the magic, actually detecting the sequence differences among the different samples.
They found one; in all pungent varieties, and only pungent varieties, there is a letter G at position 253 of an identifiable bit of DNA. In all non-pungent varieties, that space is taken by a T.
This result is just a beginning. Breeders will use the SNP to determine very early on, long before ripe fruits have been produced, whether those fruits will be hot or not. Researchers still don’t fully understand how plants make capsaicin. The SNP will help them home in on the genes responsible. And this blog will have taken the opportunity to use that nifty little icon up there on the right to indicate that we are serious and responsible members of the scientific blogosphere, dealing with peer-reviewed research in a serious and responsible manner.
Indian government to invest in herbs
The Government of India is apparently about to invest Rs 1,000 crore (which i think is Rs 10,000,000,000, something in excess of US$ 250 million, if I’ve got my decimal points right) in herbal medicines over the next five years. The article notes that:
It is a great irony in a country where households pass herbal remedies from one generation to another, and one village to the next, that India accounts for just about 2% of the global herbal drugs market, which is valued at about $63 billion (about Rs2.5 billion). More than 8,000 indigenous medicinal plant species can be found here, but just about 1,000 are commonly traded.
But there’s more. The scheme suggests that collecting medicinal plants will earn poor people more money than cultivating food. Will it earn them enough to buy the food they would have grown? There are plans to train people how best to harvest plants sustainably, and the article talks about a genebank, which sounds more like a database to me.
I have my doubts about the wisdom of massively centralised schemes such as this one, especially when, according to the article, the plan is to convert crop-lands to medicinal plants. Does India really have so much food available that it can afford to divert land from edible crops to medicinal plants, no matter how valuable those plants are? One cannot eat money, or medicinal plants.
Boiling increases nutritional value of peanuts
Boiled peanuts better for you: williamsii unavailable for comment.