Terminator seeds will not usher in an agricultural judgement day

By Mark Lynas, Cornell University

In the polarised and fractious debate over the use of genetic modification in agriculture, few issues have raised hackles as much as the proposed use of genetic use restriction techniques (GURT), more commonly known as “terminator technology” or – to its many opponents – “suicide seeds”.
The idea behind GURTs is to produce seed or offspring which are sterile in order to restrict the spread of new genes which have been introduced into the target plant. Campaigners against the technology have long alleged that terminator seeds would enslave farmers by preventing them from saving seed from one season to the next, making them dependent on re-purchasing seeds from big biotech companies. The furore over a decade ago led to a global moratorium on GURT development, agreed under the aegis of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity in 2000.
The popular fear about terminator seeds has since become something of a zombie myth: constantly cited by opponents of GM technology as a reason for their campaigning, despite GURT never actually having come into existence. Lurid claims continue to be circulated, such as the allegation – originally by Indian anti-technology activist Vandana Shiva – that sterility would somehow be inherited and transferred unintentionally to other plants, despite this being biologically, as well as logically, impossible.
Following renewed campaigning by anti-GM groups, a recent article disinterred these zombie myths once again. It suggested that new legislation under consideration in Brazil could lead to “suicide seeds” that might “threaten the livelihoods of millions of small farmers around the world”. But the truth in Brazil is very different to this media sensationalism and renewed activist myth-making.
It is true that Brazil is considering relaxing regulations that prohibit research on GURTs. However, this would be applied to pharmaceuticals, not food crops. It is aimed in particular at allowing scientists to examine whether the technology could have biosafety applications – applications that would safeguard the environment against the unintended release and spread of modified genes. Currently the law prohibits scientists even from conducting research – a ban on knowledge gathering that is senseless and potentially damaging.
Among the pharmaceutical uses where GURT technology might be useful is the development of “bioreactor” plants such as lettuce modified to produce a vaccine to prevent Leishmaniasis, a disease that causes serious deformities or scarring in victims. Around 12m people are believed to be infected, with an estimated 1-2m new cases each year, and a further 350m people, mainly in poor countries, are at risk. Plants are good candidates for the production of the necessary antibodies because, like animals, their cells are eukaryotic and able to reproduce the necessary complex proteins at a large scale.
Another example is genetically-modified lettuce to assist in the diagnosis of Dengue fever, where early detection dramatically increases the chance of survival. In both cases there is currently a shortage of the materials needed both to identify and treat the disease, which can only be produced in extremely secure facilities. If GURT restrictions were loosened, genetically modified plants could potentially produce the needed vaccines and diagnosis tools on a larger scale without fear of the altered genes spreading into the environment.
Many other crops, including tobacco, alfalfa, banana and soybean have been considered for bio-pharming to produce drugs against conditions that range from cancer to HIV/AIDS. Industrial applications have also been proposed, such as genetically modified trees with reduced lignin content which would enable the use of less toxic chemicals for pulp and paper production, as well as to reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.
In all these cases, sterility could have a biosafety justification, in order to safeguard against unintended gene release. Indeed, last week researchers at the University of Oregon announced the conclusion of successful trials using sterile, genetically modified poplar trees. These grow faster and are more resistant to insects, potentially more productive for biofuels, and are intended to be able to reduce land wastage and the use of pesticides.
It is somewhat ironic that with all their focus on terminator technology, anti-GM activists seem to fail to realise that either sterility or seeds that do not breed true are already widely used in conventional agriculture. Seedless grapes, watermelons and bananas are prized by consumers around the world, and despite their sterility have apparently not yet enslaved the farmers who grow them.
F1 hybrids – the offspring of two different parent varieties of the same crop – also require farmers to buy seeds anew each year, because their second-generation seeds do not breed true. But their use has been increasing for decades because farmers value highly the increased productivity, and therefore profits, that come from the seeds' hybrid vigour. Almost all the world’s commercial corn crop is grown from F1 hybrid seed, for example.
As these existing examples show, this application of modern technology to agriculture need not be remotely scary, but activists stoke fears in order to secure prohibitions on scientific research which conflicts with their ideological preferences. Opponents of innovation frequently cite the precautionary principle as a reason to stop scientific work, but neglect the flip-side: namely future benefits foregone when technologies are not pursued.
A continued ban on GURT may sound sensible and precautionary, but could harm our potential to develop lifesaving vaccines and environmentally beneficial crops. Scientists should be allowed to conduct research, and society can later decide– through open, inclusive and democratic debate – how or if these technologies are later deployed more widely.
This article is co-authored with Lúcia de Souza, plant biologist and vice president of the Brazilian National Association of Biosafety (Associação Nacional de Biossegurança), ANBio.
Mark Lynas does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

This article was originally published at The Conversation. Read the original article.

All The Advice In The World

I wanted to do some thoughtful post about my debut year and maybe list some advice for those who will debut in the future. That sounds like the right kind of post for a day so close to the end of 2013. But as I've been trying to think about what to say, it was all coming off false for me.

Because when it comes to debuting, the thing is you will read a TON of advice…

…and you will ignore most of it.

Every author will tell you to avoid reading reviews, and you will still look at reviews. Every author will tell you not to check your Amazon rank, and you will still take a look. Every author will tell you to write the next book, and you will still struggle to do it because there is a new kind of pressure you have to deal with.

You'll be warned about how crazy you'll get two months prior to release, how every person you know will ask "how's your book doing?", how submissions will still be terrifying, how it'll be hard not to compare yourself to every other author who's getting more or less than you—and you probably won't quite get it or believe it until it happens. And even if you do believe it, you'll experience it in an entirely personal way.

It's like any big life change. You can study and prepare and plan to your heart's content, but that's not the same as actually experiencing it. There are some things you can't predict, and one of those is how you'll react to it all. You just have to go through it, plain and simple.

So I guess today I don't want to offer advice to those debuting in 2014 or even after that. What I want to offer you is a big hug, a few cupcakes, and a very sincere "Yes, I know it's hard, but you'll be okay."

Because it's scary. It's new. It's wonderful. All rolled into one.

You are allowed to feel how you feel, and only you will be able to work through all the ups and downs that come with debuting. There will be days when you get burned and days where jealousy will rule and days when you feel like you can fly it's so wonderful. So hang in there, and remember your dream is coming true, even if it sometimes doesn't look so much like a dream. That's just what it is, only it's become a reality now.

PaxVax applies to have GM cholera vaccine tested in Australia - But "Genethics" objects to Australia testing Solutions for Third World Disasters

Original ABC post by medical reporter Sophie Scott and Alison Branley Posted Mon 23 Dec 2013, 11:59am AEDT
Original nwes clip here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-23/gm-cholera-vaccine-trial-draws-criticism/5172118

Australia could join a global trial of a new genetically-modified cholera vaccine which could save thousands of lives in the developing world.

United States-based vaccine company PaxVax is running a trial of the oral vaccine, and has applied to the Federal Government to run part of the trial in Queensland, South Australia, Victoria and Western Australia.

PaxVax says the single-dose vaccine has been genetically-modified to remove the part of the cholera bacteria that makes people sick.

It wants to use Australia as a trial site to test the vaccine on about 1,000 adults, and potentially children, planning to travel overseas to cholera-affected areas.

PaxVax chief executive Nima Farzan says the plan is to then expand the vaccine's use to developing countries.

Cholera is a worldwide health problem with 3 to 5 million cases and up to 130,000 deaths a year.

"Cholera is endemic in sub-Saharan Africa, cholera is endemic in parts of south Asia and even parts of Latin America," Mr Farzan said.

"Outbreaks can come quite rapidly. Cholera, if not treated, can be a fatal disease."

Mr Farzan says the vaccine is safe because it has been genetically-modified, meaning it cannot produce toxins or reproduce the cholera bacteria.

"The study in Australia will only be looking at the immune response or the antibody levels and the safety from taking this vaccine," he said.

"What we are measuring in the vaccine is anything that could come about local or systemic reaction that could come from the vaccine."

First World Worries First. Third World Realities Last
 -- "Genethical" approach to Third World Problems. 

However, anti-genetic modification campaigner Bob Phelps from the Gene Ethics Network says as cholera is rare in Australia, there is no justification for a mass vaccination program.

He is also concerned that people taking part in the trial will only be monitored for one hour.

"In the [company] application, there is no follow-up monitoring or proper surveillance," he said.
Doctors say 'no risk' vaccine will spread cholera in Australia

Victoria is one of the potential trial states. Its chief health officer Dr Rosemary Lester says there is a rigorous process to assess anything which is genetically modified, not just vaccines.

"The risk would be carefully assessed before the trial is allowed to go ahead," she said.

There's really no risk to people living in Australia.
Our sanitation and hygiene systems are so good. I would be very comfortable with that sort of trial going on.Victorian chief health officer Dr Rosemary Lester

Dr Lester says there is no risk of the vaccine spreading cholera to Australia.

"There's really no risk to people living in Australia," she said.

"Our sanitation and hygiene systems are so good. I would be very comfortable with that sort of trial going on."

Over the past five years, there have been 22 cases of cholera reported in Australia. Most of these were acquired in South-East Asia.

"In Australia, fortunately cholera is a very rare disease," Dr Lester said.

"It's almost always seen in returned travellers. We typically see about three to six cases per year in returned travellers," Dr Lester said.
Adverse reactions to vaccine infrequent, mild

Results of a phase one trial into the PaxVax vaccine found that a single dose created an immune response in almost 90 per cent of patients.

The company says the vaccine was well-tolerated, adverse events were infrequent, and generally mild.

Of 3,000 volunteers worldwide, 1,000 would be from Australia and the remainder from North America.

Cholera is a gut infection caused by consuming of food or water contaminated with the bacterium vibrio cholerae.

It usually presents quickly after infection and in extreme causes large amounts of painless, watery diarrhoea that can quickly lead to severe dehydration and death.

Most episodes are mild or moderate and similar to other stomach flus.

In Australia there is an existing travel vaccine which can prevent cholera that is typically given to health-vulnerable travellers, but it is a double dose regime which takes longer to complete.

The Federal Government's Office of the Gene Technology Regulator will seek public comment on the PaxVax trial after a risk assessment and risk management plan is released in late January.

The trial is expected to last 12 months.

@ PaxVax applies to have GM cholera vaccine tested in Australia - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation):

Genetic discovery points the way to much bigger yields in tomato, other flowering food plants

A mutation in the hormone that controls flowering
postpones when a plant stops producing flowers,
 yielding many more fruits. Credit: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

Phys.org/CSHL December 26th, 2013 in Biology / Biotechnology

Every gardener knows the look of a ripe tomato. That bright red color, that warm earthy smell, and the sweet juicy flavor are hard to resist. But commercial tomato plants have a very different look from the backyard garden variety, which can grow endlessly under the right conditions to become tall and lanky. Tomatoes that will be canned for sauces and juice are harvested from plants that stop growing earlier than classic tomato varieties, and are therefore more like bushes. While the architecture of these compact bushy plants allows mechanical harvesters to reap the crop, the early end of growth means that each plant produces fewer fruits than their home garden cousins.
But what if commercial tomato growers could coax plants into producing more fruit without sacrificing that unique and necessary bushy plant shape? Today, CSHL researchers announced that they have determined a way to accomplish this. Their research has revealed one genetic mechanism for hybrid vigor, a property of plant breeding that has been exploited to boost yield since the early 20th century. Teasing out the hidden subtleties of a type of hybrid vigor involving just one gene has provided the scientists with means to tweak the length of time that bushy tomato varieties can produce flowers. In these plants, longer flowering time substantially raises fruit yield.
First identified at CSHL by George Shull in 1908, hybrid vigor – or heterosis, as biologists call it – involves interbreeding genetically distinct plants to generate offspring more robust than either inbred parent. It has been used for decades to improve agricultural productivity, but scientists have long debated how and why it works.
In his previous work, CSHL Associate Professor Zach Lippman and Israeli colleagues identified a rare example of hybrid vigor involving a genetic defect in the gene that makes florigen, a hormone that controls the process of flowering and flower production. The mutation dramatically increases tomato yields in bush tomatoes, and Lippman and his team, led by postdoctoral researcher Ke Jiang, set out to understand the mechanism behind this remarkable result.
They found that bushy plants with a mutation in one of the two copies of the florigen gene, producing half as much florigen as plants without the mutation do, postpone the moment when they stop producing flowers. This, in turn, leads to many more fruits overall. "This is because," Lippman explains, "bushy tomato varieties are highly sensitive to the amount, or dosage, of the florigen hormone, which alters plant architecture – that is, how many flowers can form before growth ends. These discoveries lead to an exciting prediction: that it may be possible to tweak florigen levels to increase yields even further."
Lippman's team also studied florigen mutants in another plant, the crucifer weed known as Arabidopsis that is a cousin of crops like broccoli and cauliflower. Although they did not see the same increase in yield, they did observe similar changes in plant architecture because of florigen dosage sensitivities. These results suggest that it may be possible to manipulate florigen in a wide variety of flowering species to increase yields.

More information: "Tomato Yield Heterosis is Triggered by a Dosage Sensitivity of the Florigen Pathway that Fine-Tunes Shoot Architecture" appears online in PLOS Genetics on December 26, 2013. The authors are: Ke Jiang, Katie Liberatore, Soon Ju Park, John Alvarez, and Zach Lippman. www.plosgenetics.org/doi/pgen.1004043

Provided by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
"Genetic discovery points the way to much bigger yields in tomato, other flowering food plants." December 26th, 2013.

@ Genetic discovery points the way to much bigger yields in tomato, other flowering food plants:

The challenges of food security and sustainability

At the Prospect Round Table Dec 10:

...“Markets and trade are the only way we are going to feed the world” said Alfred Evans, CEO of Climate Change Capital. “But you need an effective system with good price signals and policies to make them more effective. There is a policy deficit and a lack of link-up between global organisations.”

“International negotiations are failing across different fronts,” said Professor Sandy Thomas, Head of Foresight at the UK Government Office for Science. “National governments may be aware of these problems but there isn’t a lot of political appetite for this issue and voters aren’t demanding their governments act.”

But what is the scale of the problem, both internationally and at a country specific level? Professor Sir Gordon Conway, the agricultural ecologist who heads the Agriculture for Impact Programme at Imperial College London said one of the big demands would be for meat-based diets (from the burgeoning middle classes of developing countries). Extensive use of fertiliser, rising oil prices, and the fact that we are running out of good land and water pointed to a massive crisis in which the poor would suffer.

The problem of a lack of understanding about the systemic connection between water, food and climate was raised by James Cameron, the vice-chairman of the World Economic Forum’s Global Agenda Council on Measuring Sustainability and chairman of CCC. His concern was a lack of long term thinking— “a scarce resource” —when it came to investment. He was worried too about the inability to value “public goods” or to change the value of assets. For instance land liable to be made infertile by flooding was a “stranded asset” which was not reflected in its price.

Climate change, and its effect on food production, was high on the agenda too. Kevin Watkins, the executive director of the Overseas Development Institute, said that there was a “total disconnect” between climate discussions and food production. A three degree rise in temperature would be unthinkable. He asked whether we wanted cheap energy or our world leaders to get to grips with climate change.

He spoke of the climate change “adaptation apartheid” between rich and poorer countries. The last big drought in the US led to insurance pay outs of $17bn to farmers which is more than all the contributions to sorting out climate change. He illustrated the point: “We have the Thames barrier while in Bangladesh they teach the children how to swim.”

Red tape also hinders investment in agricultural infrastructure, a point made by Stewart Lindsay, the director of sustainability and global corporate affairs at Bunge Ltd, the global agribusiness and food company. He said that approximately $60 trillion of investment was required in global infrastructure between 2013-2030. We need to maximise the efficiency of agriculture by connecting infrastructure—roads, rail and water systems. He said that the amounts involved were beyond the private sector and that governments must support large infrastructure initiatives as well as reduce bureaucracy. Storage infrastructure is often inadequate in developing countries causing sizeable losses to producers and excessive costs which lessen competitiveness in the market.

On the issue of diet, the panel agreed that the possibility of cultural change or “demand suppression” is important but will be hard to achieve. Professor Tim Lang, Professor of Food Policy at City University, London said “If we are going to have a meat based diet then there will not be enough food. We need to start thinking differently about the sorts of food we eat and the west is going to have to eat less and waste less.” On food waste, Robert Gladwin, the head of sustainability at BASF said the one in three calories of food was wasted, a crisis in production. Viki Hird, senior campaigner on land use, food and water security at Friends of the Earth, questioned whether there was a crisis in production, citing the huge waste in the system...

Prospect Blog @The challenges of food security and sustainability:

Agriculture Development and Nutrition Security Special PNAS USA Feature

From Joonkoo Lee, Gary Gereffi, and Janet Beauvais, Global value chains and agrifood standards: Challenges and possibilities for smallholders in developing countries doi:10.1073/pnas.0913714108

Agriculture Development and Nutrition Security Special Feature - Perspective

C. Peter Timmer
Behavioral dimensions of food security
PNAS 2012 109 (31) 12315-12320; published ahead of print September 20, 2010, doi:10.1073/pnas.0913213107

Abstract
The empirical regularities of behavioral economics, especially loss aversion, time inconsistency, other-regarding preferences, herd behavior, and framing of decisions, present significant challenges to traditional approaches to food security. The formation of price expectations, hoarding behavior, and welfare losses from highly unstable food prices all depends on these behavioral regularities. At least when they are driven by speculative bubbles, market prices for food staples (and especially for rice, the staple food of over 2 billion people) often lose their efficiency properties and the normative implications assigned by trade theory. Theoretical objections to government efforts to stabilize food prices, thus, have reduced saliency, although operational, financing, and implementation problems remain important, even critical. The experience of many Asian governments in stabilizing their rice prices over the past half century is drawn on in this paper to illuminate both the political mandates stemming from behavioral responses of citizens and operational problems facing efforts to stabilize food prices. Despite the theoretical problems with free markets, the institutional role of markets in economic development remains. All policy instruments must operate compatibly with prices in markets. During policy design, especially for policies designed to alter market prices, incentive structures need to be compatible with respect to both government capacity (bureaucratic and budgetary) and empirical behavior on the part of market participants who will respond to planned policy changes. A new theoretical underpinning to political economy analysis is needed that incorporates this behavioral perspective, with psychology, sociology, and anthropology all likely to make significant contributions.

behavioral economics, structural transformation, food crises, world rice market


Joonkoo Lee, Gary Gereffi, and Janet Beauvais
Global value chains and agrifood standards: Challenges and possibilities for smallholders in developing countries
PNAS 2012 109 (31) 12326-12331; published ahead of print December 13, 2010, doi:10.1073/pnas.0913714108

Ted London and Ravi Anupindi
Using the base-of-the-pyramid perspective to catalyze interdependence-based collaborations
PNAS 2012 109 (31) 12338-12343; published ahead of print April 11, 2011, doi:10.1073/pnas.1013626108

Michael Kevane
Gendered production and consumption in rural Africa
PNAS 2012 109 (31) 12350-12355; published ahead of print May 4, 2011, doi:10.1073/pnas.1003162108

Daniel Maxwell, Luca Russo, and Luca Alinovi
Constraints to addressing food insecurity in protracted crises
PNAS 2012 109 (31) 12321-12325; published ahead of print June 6, 2011, doi:10.1073/pnas.0913215108

Prabhu L. Pingali
Green Revolution: Impacts, limits, and the path ahead
PNAS 2012 109 (31) 12302-12308; published ahead of print July 23, 2012, doi:10.1073/pnas.0912953109

Laurette Dubé, Prabhu Pingali, and Patrick Webb
Paths of convergence for agriculture, health, and wealth
PNAS 2012 109 (31) 12294-12301; published ahead of print July 23, 2012, doi:10.1073/pnas.0912951109

Thomas Reardon, C. Peter Timmer, and Bart Minten
Supermarket revolution in Asia and emerging development strategies to include small farmers
PNAS 2012 109 (31) 12332-12337; published ahead of print December 6, 2010, doi:10.1073/pnas.1003160108

Global standards and local knowledge building: Upgrading small producers in developing countries
PNAS 2012 109 (31) 12344-12349; published ahead of print June 13, 2011, doi:10.1073/pnas.1000968108

Ross A. Hammond and Laurette Dubé
A systems science perspective and transdisciplinary models for food and nutrition security
PNAS 2012 109 (31) 12356-12363; published ahead of print July 23, 2012, doi:10.1073/pnas.0913003109

Patrick Webb and Steven Block
Support for agriculture during economic transformation: Impacts on poverty and undernutrition
PNAS 2012 109 (31) 12309-12314; published ahead of print December 20, 2010, doi:10.1073/pnas.0913334108


@ Special Issue 2012

You Never Know...

Life is a fascinating thing. Looking back at myself eight years ago, when I was just out of college and working on my first book, I could have never guessed how this publishing journey of mine would have turned out.

I especially never would have dreamed of meeting so many amazing people along the way.

And this is what I want to talk about today—the people thing. The thing is, you never know how things will be in the future. You never know if the person you're talking to will someday cross your path again in a new way. Publishing is a small world, so this is something you really have to think about. I want to give you a few examples.

Person #1
My best friend started querying about the same time as I did, and we clicked and bonded over our similar circumstances and writing processes. We knew no one in publishing save a few other aspiring writers. We were, by all counts and measures, on equal ground. Then my friend got an agent about a year before I did, she sold at auction, and her first book hit the bestseller list before I even sold. By the time my first book came out, her fourth was on shelves.

There was no way we could have seen that coming, and it was exciting (and sometimes jealousy inducing) to watch. I didn't make friends with her because I could see the future and knew there would be success—I just liked her and I still do.

Person #2
There was an agent I always thought was cool, but I never thought I was cool enough to be her client. If that makes sense. I would pretty much query every other agent at her agency, but never her because I was scared she'd say no and that was something I wasn't sure I could handle from her. Because she was cool and honest and if she didn't like it then it probably really did suck.

I ended up signing with an agent at her agency. And when my agent left the business, I was lucky enough to sign with yet another agent at that agency. That agent sold my first book and it was awesome. And THEN my agent left yet again, and the Cool Honest Agent I'd always eyed asked to take me on.

I almost died. I couldn't believe it. But I'm so happy to have been at this agency that has taken such good care of me through all the changes. I would have never imagined working with this agent I admire so much, and yet here I am.

Person #3
Thanks to a contest I won, I met a guy who wrote pirate fantasy in contrast to my ninja paranormal. This joke turned into a bit of a friendship, and we read a few things for each other and have been supporting each other ever since. While I've gone on to publish, he has yet to (but it WILL happen!).

I knew this guy used to write video games, but I never would have imagined I'd get an opportunity to work with him on one because of that. He's now kind of my boss, and it's awesome to see him rocking this project. It's also awesome to be part of it—once again, it's something I never would have seen coming.

**

I could list a bunch more examples, but I think I'll stop there because the point has been made. Basically, you just never know what will happen not only to you, but to the people you meet along the way. You never know who you will meet, interact with, go on tour with, sit on a panel with, etc. Chances are, you will cross paths that both make you smile and make you cringe based on past behavior.

So this is the part where I put out a general BE NICE statement. Don't be nice because it could get you somewhere, but because you will always feel better about it. Truth is, writers gossip. A lot. I will admit to doing it and feeling AWFUL about it after, and that awfulness carries to when I've ultimately met some of those people and had this pit in my stomach as I realize they know people I know and did word get to them about what I said? And worse—those authors are always lovely people who didn't deserve a word of what I said or what I'd heard from others.

I can't take stuff back now, but I hope I can be forgiven and I try to stay away from that impulse we all have to be envious and say things we shouldn't because we don't actually know that person. It's so easy to be ugly when competition is tough in this business, but I've learned both the good way and hard way that being nice is just…better.

Because you never know. You never know if that aspiring author "below you" will actually be hugely successful one day. You never know if that bestselling novelist will be your tour buddy in the future. You never know if that editor that scares you will be the person who shapes your book into something amazing. You never know if that self-published writer will become the person you rely on to help you self-publish your own stuff.

Publishing is oddly poetic like that. Stuff comes back around. People remember you. It's both terrifying and good. Opportunities can arise out of nowhere from it…but the opposite is also true.

So don't forget, even if you can't see what the future holds, chances are the people you know, the things you talk about, the place you aspire to be will all get wonderfully mixed up down the road. I hope it surprises you in as many good ways as possible.