Posts

Posted on

Aren’t steroids illegal?

Karl, from Inoculated Mind, describes Nature magazine’s selection of plant scientist Richard Sayre (as one of five crop scientists who could change the world) as “a good pick.” Sayre’s pet project, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, is to build a super cassava; 500 g will contain the daily requirements of protein, vitamin A and E, iron and zinc. Karl describes BioCassava Plus as “like golden rice on steroids.” And I guess whether you think that’s a good thing or not depends on what you think of Golden Rice and what you think of steroids.

We’ve crossed swords on Golden Rice before now; I’m not going to go there. I’ll just repeat that I remain unconvinced that Golden Rice will measurably increase the nutritional health of people outside the mostly urban market economy, and that if they were to increase their vitamin A precursor intake with other foods it would, in my view, deliver greater total good.

I’ve made my thoughts on super cassava known too. And again, I repeat the fundamental question; when you have engineered one variety of cassava and planted it across Africa, how are you going to respond when the entire population falls prey to a newly virulent form of some disease?

The answer to nutritional deficiencies is not a super variety of any staple. It is diversity. People in the cities might be able to afford super-staples, and the farmers supplying it might do OK. But they will not help poor farmers either to earn a living or to improve their own nutrition.

Posted on

Food crisis almost over, people starving as usual

Agriculture related press releases continue to start with a sentences like “The current crisis in world food prices…”. Take these three of yesterday’s posts on this blog: the above quote is from the article discussed in Great Expectations; we need induced mutations because: “The global nature of the food crisis is unprecedented”; and it is also a reason to go forth and grow halophytes: “There’s a real urgency to addressing the issue of rising food and fuel prices.”

Haven’t they noticed that the crisis is (almost) over? Supply is up and speculators are retracting. The first stories about complaining farmers are coming in. Perhaps I am missing the point of the long term trend of dearer oil (fertilizer) and climate change?

Either way, in a couple of months we’ll be back to business as usual. Cheap food, and,

every day, almost 16,000 children that die from hunger-related causes — one child every five seconds.

Posted on

Do the right thing


Dan Barber waxes lyrical about foie gras. Not, you might think, the most agrobiodiversity-laden topic in the world. And entirely inappropriate given that a billion people don’t have enough to eat. Hear him out, though, and then decide whether what he says makes sense.

Posted on

Induced mutations? Nein danke.

We briefly nibbled SciDev.Net’s take on a press release from the International Atomic Energy Authority, advocating “Nuclear Science for Food Security”. It’s an old story; bombard seeds with radioactivity to induce more mutations, from which breeders can select wonderful new varieties. But as a correspondent reminds us:

There’s really nothing inherently wrong with it. Because it’s a totally random, “shotgun” approach to generating new variations, it lacks the benefits of natural selection to sort out not only what’s viable, but also what’s somehow well-adapted to growing in the environment and have other desirable traits.

Radio-induced mutagenesis was a popular technique decades ago, and some improved varieties were produced as a result. But I think that a much more logical approach would be to more fully assess and exploit the vast amount of extant diversity currently languishing unstudied in genebanks and farmers’ field, material that has already passed through the filter of many centuries, if not millennia, of natural and human selection. Radio-induced mutation is really just a shot in the dark. Better to focus more attention on the existing crop diversity that has yet to be exhaustively collected, characterized or evaluated, before resorting to such an aleatory approach.

Do you agree? Is inducing extra mutations — by chemistry, radioactivity, whatever — a good way to generate more diversity for breeders (and farmers?) to select from. Or should we focus on understanding the diversity we already have? It isn’t binary, of course, but I wonder where the balance should be?