Posts

Posted on

Yes, maybe, no, yes: Transgenes in Mexican maize, after all

Update: The link below was behind a paywall. A new one, via SciDev.net, seems to be open access.
Elena Álvarez-Buylla and co-workers have found transgenes from genetically modified maize in landraces in Mexico. Their paper is to be published in Molecular Ecology, but for now we have this news article in Nature.

The evolving story has multiple layers, including the science ethics controversy. Quist and Chapela published the same finding in Nature in 2001, but their methods were questioned, and the journal made an unprecedented statement saying there had been insufficient evidence to justify the publication. Some saw the hand (and money) of Big Biotech in this 1, and in the subsequent denial of tenure to Chapela at the University of California, Berkeley (that was later overturned). Now Nature reports that the Álvarez-Buylla paper was not published in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) because the journal’s editor-in-chief Randy Schekman, also at Berkeley, considered that “the report could gain undue exposure in the press due to a political or other environmental agenda.”

We’ll see if the current paper settles the scientific controversy. Ortiz-García and colleagues did not find any transgenes in a large sample in 2003/4; a result that was found worthy of publication in PNAS. The Nature news article suggests that Álvarez-Buylla found the transgenes in only one field (out of more than 100 sampled), and that this field was also sampled by Quist and Chapela. So are we talking about a single farmer with a cousin in Iowa sending seed remittances? Or about a relatively small fraction of maize plants across the country?

It seems entirely obvious that if there are transgenes in U.S. maize, these will spread down to Mexico. Someone needs to find them first, for sure, but the more relevant question is not if transgenes spread, but rather: which, where, what mechanism(s) (long versus short distance dispersal), how fast, how much, how persistent, and what are the consequences, if any? The term “pollution” is used a lot in this debate. Me, I do not believe in pure races.

Posted on

Plan of action against UG99

Despite reassuring words from the Indian Minister of Agriculture at the start of the meeting 2, FAO announced that delegates of the 31 countries represented at the “International Conference on Wheat Stem Rust Ug99 – A Threat to Food Security” in New Delhi have pledged to support prevention and control of UG99. They agreed:

  • to share surveillance information;
  • that a global early warning system should be immediately established;
  • that plant breeding research should be intensified; and
  • that rust resistant wheat varieties should be distributed to farmers.
Posted on

Hybrid rice going south

Hybrid rice has been the dominant form of rice seed in China for a while. It has also been spreading to Vietnam, India, Bangladesh, the Philippines and other places. As you know, seed companies like hybrids because farmers who use them need to buy new seed every year. Farmers like the higher yields. It seems that multinational seed companies are increasing their investments in rice hybrids for Asia. Bayer just announced that is has opened up shop in Suphanburi, a rice growing region north of Bangkok. Thailand is a country hitherto better known for rice quality and exports, than for the use of high yielding varieties. Photo credit: Bayer

Posted on

Who Owns Nature?

There is a new report, “Who Owns Nature? Corporate Power and the Final Frontier in the Commodification of Life” from the ETC group.

It talks of corporate concentration in:

  • farm input (from thousands of seed companies and public breeding institutions three decades ago, 10 companies now control more than two-thirds of global proprietary seed sales);
  • food output (supermarkets);
  • pharmaceuticals; and
  • the New Post-Petroleum sugar industry (“the so-called ‘sugar economy’ will be the catalyst for a corporate grab on all plant matter –- and destruction of biodiversity on a massive scale”).

Their (not so new) bottom line on seeds:

So-called climate-ready genes are a false solution to climate change. Patented gene technologies will not help small farmers survive climate change, but they will concentrate corporate power, drive up costs, inhibit public sector research and further undermine the rights of farmers to save and exchange seeds.

Posted on

Climate Change Gabfest

Our colleagues at the Agrobiodiversity Platform will next week launch an intense debate on how communities make use of agricultural biodiversity to deal with changing climates. But, mindful of their duty not to exacerbate the problem, they’re doing the whole thing online, with a moderated discussion forum. The discussions will take place over about three weeks, with an initial focus on sharing knowledge about what communities are doing, followed by ideas on awareness raising and finally some wrap-up and the preparation of a first-draft position paper.

I know I don’t have time to participate, but I’m sure we’d be willing to host summary reports from the group here.