Information

September 9, 2009

GURT big mess

When are the knee-jerk opponents of genetically modified crops going to realize that genetic use restriction technologies (GURTs) are their friends? ¹

The latest gusher of drivel comes from the International Institute for Environment and Development, which really ought to know better. In a press release designed to ride the intense interest swirling aound the World Seed Conference, which opened at FAO yesterday, IIED “researchers” point out that:

in order to continue conserving and adapting their varieties, farmers also need to be allowed to freely save, use, exchange and sell farm-saved seeds. Technologies which restrict these customary rights — namely Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTS) — pose a very serious threat to genetic diversity, seed quality and the livelihoods of poor farmers.

New readers (and IIED researchers) should start here. GURTs (there are a couple of different kinds) are bits of DNA that are intended to prevent any seed that contains them from germinating and growing.

Why?

So that farmers cannot save their own seeds.

Which farmers?

Farmers who choose to buy the seeds that contained the GURTs because they think that those seeds offer them valuable advantages over other seeds.

Why?

Because a company invested a sackload of money in developing a variety. So the company is going to do two things to recoup its investment, and more. It must persuade farmers to buy the seed. And it must stop everyone else from making use of the investment without paying for it.

So far, note, this is nothing to do with GURTs, which in any case are not currently permitted in seed anywhere. It is one good reason why seed companies like to produce F1 hybrids. The seeds of an F1 hybrid are no good to the farmer who wants the same performance from the seeds she saved as from the seeds she paid for. In that sense, GURTs are a logical extension of the desire of seed breeding companies to protect their investment. You can save the seeds of an F1, but those F2 seeds are not a replica of the F1. The company wins, although canny breeders can easily dehybridize the hybrids, and even farmers can benefit from the flow of interesting genes into their crops.

Now, whereas F1 hybrids produce pollen that can indeed pollute the seeds of a neighbouring farmer exercising her right to freely save, use, exchange and sell farm-saved seed, GURTs actually prevent this kind of pollution. Any seed fertilized by pollen from a GURTed plant is effectively dead.

GURTs thus stop any characters bred into a GMO from being transferred into another variety of the same crop and into the crop’s wild relatives.

So, IIED, remind me, please: why is that a bad thing?

Does it stop the farmer saving seeds? On the contrary, it makes life easier, because the farmer does not have to worry about genetic pollution. She can, of course, still take advantage of good pollution, or introgression, if she wants to.

Does it stop her using farm-saved seed? No, how could it, when any polluted seeds are going to fail to grow. It makes using the farm-saved seed more secure.

Can she still exchange and sell farm-saved seed? You bet, and not only that, but her customers and swap-partners will be grateful that her seeds cannot possibly be polluted.

Opponents of GURTs seem to think that massive influxes of foreign pollen are the norm. They’re not. And I certainly wouldn’t want to accept, even as a gift, seed from someone who knew so little about farming and seed saving that they couldn’t even maintain their own varieties. Cross pollination from a different field is a fascinating and rare source of diversity in farmers’ fields, not the norm. GURTs pose absolutely no threat to farm-saved seed. In fact, I believe that they can enhance genetic diversity (by maintaining the separation between varieties), improve seed quality (for the same reasons) and have no impact at all on the livelihoods of poor farmers.

I hold no brief for or against GMOs, though I do think they have yet to prove themselves in the areas where they make the loudest claims. This is not about GMOs. It is about honesty. Any opponent of GMOs, however good the rest of their arguments might be, immediately loses my respect if they are also against GURTs.

September 9, 2009

Development and entrepreneurship in Africa

The company is just one part of Wade’s “comprehensive plan for Africa,” an anti-aid alternative to the Jeffrey Sachs vision.

A fascinating quote from a fascinating article on the Freakonomics blog, about three entrepreneurs in Africa. The woman whose quote I extracted above is Magatte Wade, and she’s the reason the story deserves a mention here. Her company — Adina for Life — came into being when she returned home to Senegal “and was disappointed to find that the traditional hibiscus drink of her childhood had been usurped by Western soft drinks”.

Hibiscus drinks are indeed a constant in many parts of sub-Saharan Africa, and hibiscus has been the focus of efforts to improve livelihoods by capitalizing on its popularity. Adina seems to be in a state of turmoil at the moment — with its US outlets suffering a crisis of identity and Wade apparently no longer associated with the company, at least in the US. But the larger point, that it is possible for Africans to make better use of their own natural resources remains valuable, and the other two stories in the Freakonomics story amplify that.

I wonder, though. Adina plunged into the cut-throat soft drinks market of the US. Why, when the stated goal was to replace sticky soft drinks in the home market? Wouldn’t that be enough?

September 7, 2009September 7, 2009

How would you PageRank genebank accessions?

Various friends have sent me, over the past few days, different takes on a recent paper which used the Google PageRank algorithm to identify the most “important” species in food webs, perhaps because they know I’m a sucker for examples of cross-pollination between disciplines. The BBC had its say, and also ScienceDaily, among others. I posted the ScienceDaily article on Facebook, as I am wont to do when I think something is interesting — maybe even have a gut feeling it might be relevant to agrobiodiversity conservation — but don’t know quite what to make of it. Sure enough, someone left a comment that he thought the algorithm was a secret, which was also my understanding: Google don’t want people to manipulate the rank of their web pages. But then someone else came in and said that the basics of how the thing works are in the public domain.

To prove it, he provided a link to an American Mathematical Society article entitled How Google Finds Your Needle in the Web’s Haystack. Which is why I love social networking, but that’s another story. Now, that article is definitely NSFW, unless you work at the American Mathematical Society, so think twice before clicking, but here’s the lede:

Imagine a library containing 25 billion documents but with no centralized organization and no librarians. In addition, anyone may add a document at any time without telling anyone. You may feel sure that one of the documents contained in the collection has a piece of information that is vitally important to you, and, being impatient like most of us, you’d like to find it in a matter of seconds. How would you go about doing it?

And I thought to myself: just change that 25 billion, which of course refers to the number of pages on the internet, to 6.5 million or 7.2 million or whatever, and the guy could just as easily be talking about accessions in the world’s genebanks.

Now, basically we search for the germplasm we need by starting with a big dataset and applying filters: wheat, awnless wheat, awnless wheat with such and such resistance, awnless wheat with such and such resistance from areas with less than x mm of rainfall per annum, and so on. Would it make any sense to rank the accessions in that initial big dataset? On what basis would one do that anyway? That is, what is the equivalent of hyperlinks for accessions? Because the essence of PageRank is that important pages receive lots of hyperlinks from important pages. So, numbers of requests? Amount of data available on the accession? But wouldn’t that just mean that only the usual suspects would get picked all the time? Genetic uniqueness, perhaps, then? That would be turning the algorithm on its head. Looking for lack of connections rather than connections to other accessions. You could in fact have different ranking criteria for different purposes, I suppose.

Ok, now my brain hurts. This cross-pollination stuff can be fun, but it is hard work.

September 7, 2009September 7, 2009

Nibbles: Chickens, Peppers, Treaty, Breadfruit, Preservation, Food systems, Adaptation, Yam multiplication

Naked necked chicken in music video shock.
Piment d’Espalette. Jeremy asks “What’s the big deal, really?”
The ITPGRFA on CNN.
Fiji to set up breadfruit genebank.
Lacto-fermenting your eggplant and chrysanthemum petals.
More on FAO’s Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems book.
“Where farming communities have been able to maintain their traditional varieties, they are already using them to cope with the impacts of climate change.”
Yam Minisett Technology pushed.

September 6, 2009

Marina of the Zabballeen does the rounds

We’ve blogged a few times about the plight of the Zabballeen — Cairo’s Coptic garbage collectors and pig-keepers — in the wake of the pig cull which was the Egyptian governments main response to swine flu. Now, via Treehugger, comes news of a movie about this embattled community: Marina of the Zabballeen. It seems to have done quite well on the festival circuit. If you caught it, let us know.