Famine and food

The ongoing debate regarding the efficacy of genetically modified (GM) crops to increase global food security goes on, while a recent study of US consumers indicates that opinions on genetically modifies crops are not swayed by specific arguments about plant disease and famine.

At least one million people died and a further one million were forced to emigrate during the Irish potato famine of 1845-1852. Those figures are so often repeated in undergraduate plant pathology classrooms that they lose their shock value. Those years seem so distantly removed from our lives in the 21st century that we occasionally fail to recall that it happened just a handful of generations ago. The famine had such a profound impact on the social, geographic and economic landscape of Ireland that the country still bears the scars. For instance, the population of the Republic of Ireland, as measured by the 2011 census, stands at 4.6 million compared to a pre-famine population of 6.5 million in 1841. Meanwhile, there are 39.6 million Americans who claim Irish ancestry, due in part to massive emigration to the US during and immediately after the famine.

In a recently published study, American consumers were asked their opinion of GM. Half of the sample group were first asked to read a short vignette describing the causal agent of the potato famine, the fungal-like potato disease late blight. The second half of the sample was asked to read a similar vignette, though not mentioning late blight and the Irish famine specifically.

For example, the late blight-specific vignette included:
"Late blight was a key cause of the Irish Potato Famine of the 1850s that led to the starvation of millions of people in Ireland and forced many Irish to leave the country. Late blight has re-emerged in recent years as a substantial threat to crops across the United States and around the world."

Ultimately, even when the question was contextualised in relation to late blight and famine, there was no significant difference in public views about the perceived risks, benefits or fairness of GM crops. This is an interesting finding; given calls in Europe and elsewhere to increase the cultivation of GM crops, particularly in traditionally GM-sceptical nations such as the UK.
This year, for example, the Council for Science and Technology in the UK, scientific advisors to the government, called for the EU to end its “dysfunctional” regulations on GM crop cultivation saying that if the country didn’t embrace GM “the risk is people going unfed”.

Even in Ireland, where one might expect the memory of the famine to linger long with consumers, limited trials of late blight resistant potato plants in recent years have met with some resistance. These EU-funded trials, conducted by Ireland’s agricultural development agency were described as “economic suicide” by opponents who called GM an “unwanted technology”. The scientists conducting the trials, which began in 2012, were keen to stress the impartial nature of the study and that it was not about “testing the commercial viability of GM potatoes” and was specifically concerned with their environmental impact.

In fact, there is a myriad of reasons why some consumers reject GM technologies in foodstuffs. Not all of them, of course, are supported by any real science, but that doesn’t negate the fact that they are real obstacles to overcome for those who would promote a sustainable food-production system which incorporates all aspects of biotechnology, including genetic modification of crop plants. What is clear now is that simply using the approach of emphasising the crop protection benefits of GM is not enough. Consumers are, rightly or wrongly, also worried about the environmental impact of such crops and no amount of appealing to their memory of past catastrophic crop failures will appease them.

One might argue that the passing of time between the Irish potato famine and the current advances in plant biotechnology can account for the lack of relevance and impact on consumer opinion. Perhaps, informing consumers about more recent plant disease outbreaks would be more beneficial.  One could point to the Bengal famine of 1943, when an estimated 2 million people died when the rice crop was attacked by a fungal pathogen. In truth, the vast bulk of food for human consumption worldwide is provided by just fourteen crop plants. Failure of any one of these could have a significant impact on global food security. However, we are in a very dark place indeed if we must look for a catastrophic crop failure to remind consumers of the value of plant biotechnology in protecting our food supply.

In praise of the potato

Image: Courtesy of the Southern Star. Details below.

I was delighted to take a trip to Liss Ard Estate, just outside Skibbereen, West Cork, yesterday to speak about the potato plant at a seminar organised by A Taste of West Cork Food Festival.

The panel of speakers for the event included Regina Sexton of UCC, Madeline McKeever of Brown Envelope Seeds and Éanna ní Lamhna, author and RTE radio contributor.

Éanna opened the evening with an informative and exciting summary of the history of the potato and its arrival in Ireland. This was followed by Regina Sexton's presentation on the potato as a food item amongst both the rich and poor in Ireland.

Madeline McKeever spoke of her experience as an organic grower based in West Cork and about the interesting work done by the Sarvari Research Trust to breed blight-resistant potato varieties.

My own talk centered on the historic and present-day impact of late blight on the potato crop and the recent advances in the science of the potato.

I pointed out that an “arms race” now exists between the late blight-causing pathogen Phytophthora infestans and those who would seek to control it. The pathogen’s genome, its genetic blueprint, was sequenced in 2011 and this shows us that it is an incredibly flexible and rapidly-adapting organism. As we develop new fungicides or resistant potato varieties to control late blight, it is just a matter of time before Phytophthora infestans evolves to overcome these barriers.

We have a number of options for the future including the development on new, blight-resistant potato varieties. These varieties can be developed via conventional breeding methods: for example, Teagasc developed the highly successful Rooster variety via its breeding programme and that potato now accounts for about 50% of all potatoes grown in Ireland. Unfortunately it’s not fully resistant to late blight.

Resistant varieties do exist and they are often employed in an organic setting: sarpo mira, blue Danube, etc. However, consumers are reluctant to change from the traditional varieties.

As expected the issue of the recent planting of GM blight-resistant potato plants in Ireland was raised by a number of audience members. I expressed my view that a small-scale, well-designed, open and honest experiment such as this, conducted by a well-respected public body such as Teagasc is to be welcomed.

Opponents of GM often call for more information and more testing to be done on GM plants. This is exactly what the Teagasc experiment is designed to give us.

We must use all the tools at our disposal: organic, conventional and GM to control late blight and protect the potato, a plant which has huge social, historical and economic importance for this country.

The event concluded with a sampling of some delicious potato-based recipes (the lemon potato cake was particularly to my liking) as well as some gripping drama provided by the Skibbereen Theatre Society. All in all, a wonderful celebration of the potato plant.

A Taste of West Cork Food Festival continues this week. More details of other events.

Image: Speakers and organisers of the "Humble Spud" event at Liss Ard. Image courtesy of the Southern Star. Seated (l-r) Madeline McKeever, Regina Sexton, Éanna ní Lamhna, Eoin Lettice. Standing (l-r) Michael Hurley (Chair) and Kay Quinn (Organising Committee) 

Read the Irish Examiner's coverage of the event here.

GM trial gets go-ahead

A genetically modified potato variety will be planted in Ireland as part of a Teagasc-led experimental trial, which has today got the 'green-light' from Ireland's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

This post also appears on the Cork Independent Blog.

The field trials were allowed to proceed after an assessment of the experimental plans and designs by the EPA and a broad-ranging consultation process. The EPA also received 83 representations from interested parties - all objecting to the proposed trials. I've previously written about why, I think, this trial is needed.

Teagasc applied for a liscence to plant the potatoes back in January. These plants contain a gene which makes them resistant to late blight (Phytophthora infestans) - the organism which caused the Irish potato famine. This gene has been taken from a wild, related potato variety and inserted into the cultivated potato using GM technology.

The EPA have given their consent to the trials subject to eight conditions, saying in their decision: "The agency believes that the risk to human health and the environment from the deliberate release of these GM potatoes is negligible".

The conditions include a requirement of Teagasc to monitor the experimental site for at least four years after planting. They also require Teagasc to report to the EPA every two months on the progress of the experiments and to set up a 40m exclusion zone around the site where no commercial potato planting can take place.

This trial will ensure that we can have real experimental data, based on Irish conditions, so that we can sensibly assess the impact of GM potato planting on the environment under closely monitored and controlled conditions. From reading through the large number of submissions, it is clear that a large number of those objecting are calling for "more information" before such planting takes place. They seemingly fail to see that this trial is specifically design to provide that information they crave; and to do so in a safe, controlled and carefully-monitored fashion.

There will be a large amount of hyperbole written and spoken about this decision in the next few days. Already, the Organic Trust has warned of "grave ramifications" and a Green party spokesman has suggested it will do "untold damage to Irish farming". On the other hand, those welcoming the decision may talk of feeding the world and food security. In reality, the product of this decision will be far less clear-cut. We will hopefully learn more about how GM plants work in the Irish environment and those who support or oppose GM will continue to argue their own side of the debate.

I believe this is a positive step forward however. This experiment will provide real results which can only add to, enrich and enlighten what is an already heated debate. I look forward to seeing the results of this experiment.

I'm a Scientist - GM Food

Regular readers will know that I'm a fan of I'm a Scientist, Get me out of here and that I've previously taken part in the unique science outreach project.

I'm a Scientist (IAS) allows school children to ask real scientists what ever comes to mind. The questions generally range from the well-informed and well-thought-out to the truly bizarre and firmly tongue in cheek. No matter the question, it allows students to get to know what scientists really do and the project even allows the students to vote out scientists until one winning scientist remains.

This time round, along with a range of specialist and general zones, the organisers have introduced a GM Food Zone to deal with some of the issues which have hit the headlines again recently. This zone is also unique, in that everyone can take part - not just school students.

Regarding the motivation between such an event, the organisers have said: "We simply got fed up with accusations being slung around the media in articles, in opinion pieces and in comments. We wanted to create a space where experts in all relevant areas could answer questions from the public and be able to give their points of views alongside each other.

For most people this is not a black and white issue (GM good or GM bad). We’d like to create a space for a discussion with a bit more nuance. Whatever ends up happening with GM Foods we all of us on the planet will have to deal with the consequences. It may be difficult at times, but we believe it’s worth all trying together to explore the issues and consider other points of view."

To take part and to ask a question of the expert panel, you'll need to register, but you can read the questions and comments without registering. The event continues this week and concludes on the 6th July.

In more IAS news, the event will be coming to Ireland in the Autumn, running up to 5 zones during Science Week (11-18th November). The event will be part of Dublin 2012.

Attention-grabbing rampage adds nothing to GM debate

Grain Aphid (Image: Rothamsted Research)

Regular readers of this blog will know that I've advocated a sensible and rational debate about GM crops and I've added my voice to the growing calls for trials to establish the scientific evidence for and against such crops.

In a recent article for the Guardian's Notes and Theories Blog, I've also called for a move away from division based on ideology in agriculture and food production towards a compromise solution where the best features of all agriculture systems are used safely and effectively.

That is why it's particularly disturbing that this weekend could see one of the most difficult, disturbing and avoidable stand-offs in the whole GM debate so far.

Located north of London, Rothamsted Research station is the longest running agricultural research station in the world. A trial of GM wheat plants has been ongoing since the 22nd of March. The plants are designed to repel aphid pests because they emit an aphid repellent.

The gene inserted into the wheat is synthetic in nature - it doesn't come from any other species. It allows the plant to produce (E)-β-farnesene, an alarm pheremone that the aphid itself produces to warn off other aphids when they come under attack. Simply put, the plants are designed to repel the aphids by scaring them off.

However, the trial, designed to see whether the new plants would grow as expected and repel aphids, is under threat from an anti-GM grouping called Take The Flour Back.

This group has called for a 'decontamination' of the site next Sunday, May 27th. According to their website, "Take the Flour Back will be a nice day out in the country, with picnics, music from Seize the Day and a decontamination. It’s for anyone who feels able to publicly help remove this threat and those who want to show their support for them".

In what amounts to a threat of physical force, the group has called on the Rothamsted researchers to remove the plants or face the consequences of a 'decontamination'. Protesters are encouraged by the protesters website: "If you are able to bring your own biohazard protection and dustmask, please do".

Rothamstead researchers took the unprecedented step of writing an open letter (pdf) to the protesters and producing a youtube video (below), appealing that their research would not be destroyed.


Apart from a letter from the protest group they seem to have been reluctant to engage in any sort of meaningful dialogue - even withdrawing from a public debate which they themselves had called for.
You can read a timeline of events and the correspondence itself here.

A petition, organised by Sense about Science has garnered over 5,500 signature in the last few weeks in support of the Rothamsted researchers.

At this late stage, it seems unlikely that the protesters will not attempt to destroy legitimate and much-needed scientific research on Sunday. They will also put at risk the nearby Broadbalk experimental site - itself the longest running field experiment in the world.

Rothamsted scientists will be at work on Sunday, a short distance from the trial site, to answer questions from the public. Nearby, years of scientific research could be reduced to nothing by extremists who refuse to accept the rule of law or the argument that a debate based on evidence is needed rather than a hot-headed, attention-grabbing rampage. As one commentator put it, destruction adds nothing to the sum of human knowledge.

Even at the eleventh hour, this group needs to call a halt to this 'protest' and engage in a proper debate. If the evidence against GM is as convincing as they think it is, then they have nothing to fear.

GM Potato set to be planted in Ireland

A major new EU study is set to examine the effects of growing GM, blight-resistant potato plants on biodiversity and the environment in agricultural ecosystems. It will also see the first GM crops being grown in Ireland since the late 1990's.

In a statement issued at the end of February, Teagasc (the Irish agricultural development agency) announced that they are to seek a license to carry out field trials of GM potatoes as part of the AMIGA consortium - a group including representatives of research bodies from 15 EU countries.

Late Blight, caused by the fungal-like organism Phytophthora infestans, decimated the Irish potato crop  in the 1840s leading to the Great Famine. Since then, it has remained a problem for Irish farmers, requiring chemical fungicides to be used to maintain Irish potato yields. GM potatoes have the potential to protect the potato plant from Late Blight attack without the necessity for large amounts of fungicide to be applied.

The potato variety Desiree was transformed withe the Rpi-vnt1.1 gene which confers broad spectrum resistance to Phytophthora infestans. That gene, along with its own promoter and terminator regions were taken from the wild potato species Solanum venturii and inserted into the cultivated potato using Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated transformation.

While there are indications that public concern over GM crops has declined in the UK, the news that field experiments will be carried out in Ireland for the first time since the late 1990s has drawn some criticism here.

In a statement released last week, Irish Organic Farmers and Growers Association (IOFGA), called the experiments planned for Teagasc's Oakpark headquarters a waste of taxpayers money. "In light of the fact that Teagasc has lodged an application with the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) for a licence to grow GM potatoes at its headquarters in Oakpark, IOFGA are demanding that Teagasc be held accountable for their decision to waste taxpayers money on this project."

File Photo: Minister Ruairi Quinn at an Anti-GM event last year

Grace Maher, Development Officer with IOFGA said that considering growing GM in Ireland is "economic suicide" and that the move would put at risk an export market worth 9.1 billion: "Ireland has an excellent reputation internationally as a clean green island that is also a GM free region, and we need to build on this reputation not destroy it”.

The statement ends by accusing Teagasc of pedalling an "unwanted technology":
"In this austere economic climate we need to end wasteful public spending immediately and enforce accountability on those who continue to do so."

Unfortunately, it seems the lobby group for the organic industry, is jumping the gun a bit here.

The funding comes directly from the EU's FP7 research programme - a €50 billion fund specifically designated for research and technological development. There is no question of further money coming from Irish taxpayers.

No matter where the money comes from, there is also a wider issue. Teagasc is Ireland's agriculture and food development agency. It is that organisation's role to carry out research leading to a better understanding of agriculture and new agronomic techniques. To accuse such a body of "wasting" money by doing the very thing is was set up to do, is ridiculous. Any arguments for or against GM crops need to be based on firm scientific evidence and that does not simple fall out of the sky.

The field tests to be carried out at Oakpark will look at the impact of GM plants on the surrounding ecosystem and John Spink, Head of Crops Research at Teagasc was keen to point out that the research is "not about testing the commercial viability of GM potatoes".

"The GM study is about gauging the environmental impact of growing GM potatoes in Ireland and monitoring how the pathogen, which causes blight, and the ecosystem reacts to GM varieties in the field over several seasons.”

Mindful of the controversy surrounding trials of GM sugar beet in Ireland in the late 1990s by Monsanto, these new experiments will use a potato developed at Wageningen University in the Netherlands and there will be no biotech or GM company involved. The sugar beet trials ended with a number of the sites being destroyed by a group styling itself the Gaelic Earth Liberation Front.

According to documents submitted to the EPA as part of the licence application, the field experiments are designed to measure the impact of GM potato cultivation on bacterial, fungal, nematode and earthworm diversity in the soil compared to a conventional system; to identify positive or negative impacts of GM potato on integrated pest management systems; and to use the project as a tool for education in order to engage and discuss the issues surrounding GM with stakeholders and the public.

As Teagasc researcher Dr. Ewen Mullins put it: “It is not enough to simply look at the benefits without also considering the potential costs. We need to investigate whether there are long term impacts associated with this specific GM crop and critically we need to gauge how the late blight disease itself responds. This is not just a question being asked in Ireland. The same issues are arising across Europe.”

Speaking to the Irish Examiner, Dr. Mullins remarked: "People are asking about the merits of GM potatoes.At Teagasc, we have a remit to inform people. We haven’t had GM field trials here since the late 1990s. The goal is to look at all of the environmental impacts, and to fill the vacuum that exists currently in terms of impartial knowledge."

An edited version of this article appears on the Guardian's Notes and Theories blog. You can read it here.

BASF Moves Plant Biotech Jobs to America

The global biotech and chemical company BASF is to withdraw from Europe and concentrate its plant biotechnology business on North and South America. 140 jobs in Europe will go.

Just when science, technology and biotechnology, in particular, have the capacity to create jobs, build confidence in economies and promote an economic recovery, Europe now risks becoming known for an anti-science agenda.

The company said today that it will halt development and commercialisation of all products targeted solely at the European market because of "a lack of acceptance for this technology" from the majority of consumers, farmers and politicians.

BASF say they are "convinced that plant biotechnology is a key technology for the 21st century" but at this time the "conditions for cultivation of genetically modified crops in Europe are unfavourable".

The move will stop development on Europe-targeted crops such as Amflora, a genetically modified potato variety which provides easy to extract starch for industry. The company will also halt work on its Fortuna potato variety, bred to be resistant to late blight, Phytophthora infestans. BASF had applied for approval from the EU for commercial cultivation of Fortuna late last year. The variety had two resistance genes inserted from a wild relative found in South America.

Despite ceasing development of other such products, BASF have said they will continue with the regulatory approval process already in train.

Greenpeace have welcomed the move claiming that "Europeans don't want GM crops, and for good reason".

Marco Contiero, Greenpeace's agriculture policy director said that it wasn't just health concerns that worried EU consumers; "GM crops go hand in glove with factory farming, pesticide use, pest resistance and disappointing long-term yields".

Today's development sees a company with European origins having to move much of its research and development to the Americas due to continuous delaying and buck-passing when it comes to GM regulations in Europe.

This has created an atmosphere where even the research and development of GM crops, for one company at least, has become impossible.

Science Public Lecture Series Kicks Off

The popular Annual SEFS Public Lecture Series at University College Cork will begin its 2012 programme on Wednesday, January 11th with a lecture by Professor William Reville. 

The lectures will be held weekly on Wednesday evenings at 8.00pm in Boole 4 Lecture Theatre and will run until Wednesday 14th March.

The lecture series will cover a wide range of contemporary issues, including How Weeds Develop Resistance to Herbicides, Nanosensors, Teaching Computer Science to Primary School Children, Biodiversity and Infectious Disease, Generating Electricity from Ocean Wave Energy, Irish Innovation Policy, Toxic Chemicals in Consumer Products, and Can Particles Ever Move faster than Light?.

In the first lecture on January 11th, Professor William Reville will give a lecture titled ‘The Weeds Fight Back - How Weeds Developed Resistance to Roundup”. William Reville is an Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry at UCC. He will describe how growing the world's major commodity crops (corn, cotton and soya), genetically engineered to be resistant to the herbicide Roundup, is now confronting a serious problem with weeds that have become resistant to Roundup. 

Admission is free, and as always, members of the public are invited to attend.

More details on this year's College of Science, Engineering and Food Science (SEFS) lecture series  can be found here (pdf).

Science and GM in Election 2011

The presence of the Labour Spokesperson on Science, Ruairi Quinn at an anti-GM press conference raises questions about the party's credibility on the GM issue.

At a recent talk I presented on the GM crops issue and in a recent article here and for the Guardian science blog, I suggested that the GM issue had now become an election issue.

On Monday, celebrity chef Clodagh McKenna along with people from "food, farming, conservation and human rights sectors" gathered in Dublin to speak about what their press release called the "inherent dangers of new moves to allow a relaxing of laws in relation to genetically modified food and feed". See the bottom of this post for a video from Monday's press conference.

Calling the GM "lobby" the "Anglo-Irish Bank" of the food sector, the grouping called for (amongst other things) another moratorium on GMO.

Representatives from the Irish Organic Farmers and Growers Association (IOFGA), Western Organic Network, Irish Seed Savers, and Afri amongst others met to denounce what they called a "dubious scientific review" of the GM issue.

All very predictable. It is to the direct economic benefit of the organic sector to ensure that GM does not get a fair hearing. It is to the direct economic benefit of the organic sector to scare consumers into rejecting GM food products.

It is analogous to the guy who produces white bread telling consumers that brown bread will give them leprosy - it has absolutely no scientific basis, but as a marketing ploy, it does wonders for white bread sales!
What was most surprising about the press conference was the very visible presence of Labour spokesperson on Education and Science Ruairi Quinn TD.

Labour are against the cultivation of GM crops on the island of IrelandIt is surprising given the stated position of the Labour Party on the issue.  Although Labour are against the cultivation of GM crops on the island of Ireland, they are in favour of the importation of animal feed potentially containing trace amounts of GM material.

The party's 2006 21-part plan for "A Quality Future for Rural Ireland" commits the party to "work towards the aspiration of a GMO production free island of Ireland within the context of the relevant EU and UK legislation and in the relevant national and international fora.

"Until that aim is achieved", the policy document continues, "the Labour Party will push for the strongest possible evidence-based rules governing the release of GMOs into the environment".

Two things strike me as interesting about this statement. First is the careful wording of the the first paragraph and the aspiration of a "GMO production free island", clearly not ruling out the importation of GM animal feed - as is the party's stated policy.

Secondly, the plan calls for "evidence-based rules" governing the release of GMOs. These evidence-based rules do not seem to be important when deciding the core position- that of being for or against GM crops.

While the Labour Party are to be commended on clearly spelling out their position on GM (the party line of anti-GM cultivation but pro GM  importation seems quite straightforward), the presence of the party's science spokesperson at Monday's launch suggests a different viewpoint.

Speaking at a meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Debate in 2008, Sean Sherlock, Labour Spokesperson on Agriculture and Food pointed out: "The EU scientific committee has applied a certain rationale which is based on common sense and practical solutions. If it is advocating a certain position [on the GM feed issue], I do not understand why the Government is not adhering to that advice or why it would abstain on votes when the time comes".

"if the EU scientific committee advises and recommends that we import certain feedstuffs, I do not see why the Government cannot approve it" - Sean SherlockThere is no dichotomy or contradiction between maintaining the biodiversity of this island and the importation of EU-approved feedstuffs. The two are not mutually exclusive. It is reasonable to express reservations about scientific trials on the growth of GM feedstuffs pending further debate and dialogue. However, if the EU scientific committee advises and recommends that we import certain feedstuffs, I do not see why the Government cannot approve it. We have all bought into that process by virtue of our membership of the EU", said Sherlock.

The labour spokesperson continued: "The precautionary principle is rolled out when it is politically expedient to do so. The Green wedge or wing of the Government has a politically philosophical position on these issues and there is a certain constituency to which it must play. This is to the detriment of Irish agriculture and ultimately the Irish consumer who will end up, if we continue on this route, paying less but without a guarantee that imported livestock or meat products from third countries are GM-free."

In a brief statement on twitter, a Labour Party spokesperson confirmed to Communicate Science that Quinn was representing the party at Monday's event and said that the party "are against growing GM crops here, but are not opposed to importing GM feed". This seems directly at odds with Ruairi Quinn's

very visible endorsement of a GM-free Ireland concept which specifically, according to the groups own press release, is also strongly opposed to the importation of animal feed potentially containing trace amounts of GM material.

it is sending senior figures to campaign for a GM free IrelandThat the Labour Party is against the cultivation of GM crops in Ireland is clearly laid out in their 2006 policy document. I would argue that there is no scientific basis for this position, but that is beside the point. What is problematic for the party is that on the one hand it is sending senior figures to campaign for a GM free Ireland - and against imported animal feed potentially containing trace amounts of GM material; while on the other hand saying that it is not opposed to the importation of such feed. 

As I've said, the Labour Party have a clear policy on this issue and while I disagree with it, they are to be commended for outlining that position, unlike a number of other parties. However, the voting public deserve to know whether or not a potential Minister for Science in the next government has rejected the overwhelming volume of scientific advice on this matter and has arguably been used as part of a marketing strategy for the anti-GM lobby.

The following video is from Monday's press conference. Ruairi Quinn sets out Labour party policy from 2:30 min onwards.

Communicating Science: GM Crops

Well done and thank you to Cork Skeptics who organise the monthly 'Skeptics in the Castle' event at Blackrock Castle Observatory in Cork.

I was delighted to be invited to speak to the meeting on the issue of GM crops and the public perception of science and really enjoyed preparing the talk, which of neccesity was quiet different from a talk I would be used to preparing for students.

From my point of view at least, the talk went well and generated some amount of lively discussion afterwards. Hopefully I got across some of the science behind the issue and provided some food for thought.

See a write up on the talk here.

Is GM now an election issue in Ireland?

Amidst the background of one of the most divisive and stormy parliamentary elections in Ireland's history, the outgoing government has made a significant move on GM crops.

Outgoing Minister for Agriculture, Brendan Smith, from the ruling Fianna Fáil party, confirmed in a statement this week (Tuesday, Feb 8th) that Ireland has changed its voting position and will now support a number of EU Commission proposals designed to allow for the marketing of GM food, feed and food ingredients.

The move, although welcomed in many quarters will no doubt cause controversy, not least from the ruling party's former coalition allies the Green Party, whose departure from government triggered a general election to be held on February 25^th next.

Up till now, the GM issue has been absent from the debate over who should form the next government. Understandably, voters have been more worried about their jobs and the future of Ireland's economy than to be interested in the details of EU policy and rhetoric from pro- and anti-GM sides.

It's not the first time that the GM issue has impacted on this coalition government. Back in 2009, the Green Party - Fianna Fáil government had to renegotiate their terms of agreement and their programme for government (pdf). This led to a major concession to the Greens - the promise of making Ireland a 'GM-Free Zone'.

Although much trumpeted by the Greens then, it has never become a reality. Neither has the promise to introduce a GM-Free logo modelled on the German "Ohne Gentechnik" logo.

In a short response on twitter, Green Party Chairman and Senator Dan Boyle replied that the u-turn had shown “what Fianna Fáil really thinks of consumer fears” and that, in government, the Green party “had stopped this”.

Meanwhile, the Green Party’s Agriculture spokesperson Trevor Sargent said the party was “alarmed” by the move and that “in government, the Green Party ensured that Ireland abstained on this vote”.

Calling the move a backward step, Sargent said that the issue was about “consumer choice” and that the decision “damages the quality image of Irish food produce”.

Brendan Smith explained this week that "it has been a matter of great concern to Ireland, in recent years, that there has been a severe disruption to trade of animal feed, caused by the delays in the authorisation, by the EU, of GM varieties which have already been approved in the exporting countries."

According to Smith, the difficulty of importing certified GM-free animal feed  (90% of which comes from North and South America) has led to the shortfall having been made up by more expensive feed which puts Irish meat producers at a serious disadvantage. The Irish Farmers Association say this disadvantage can be as much as €15 on every pig produced.

The greens however dispute this argument asserting that “as cattle eat grass most of the year, this small premium would represent a tiny price differential for the customer (e.g. 2c on a Sunday roast)”. That’s fine, I guess if you’re eating beef and not pork on a Sunday.

Ireland's support for the EU Commission proposals was confirmed at a meeting of the EU Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health in Brussels on Tuesday.

GM-Free Ireland, had called (pdf) for Smith to vote against the proposals saying they would "undermine our Government's agreed GM-Free policy". The Irish Organic Farmers and Growers Association called the move “short-sighted” and argued that the decision did not reflect the wishes of the people.  Clearly though, with the Greens now out of government, the remaining Fianna Fáil ministers were free to make decisions without the input of their former partners.

The EU proposal seeks to remove the "zero tolerance" policy towards GM components of animal feed and allow trace amounts, up to 0.1% to be imported.

It will be interesting to see whether one of the final decisions of the outgoing administration will lead to GM becoming an issue in this election. One suspects not, but it may at least allow the public to hear from each political party where they stand on the GM issue.

The author will be presenting a talk entitled Trust Me, I'm A Scientist: Genetically Modified Crops and the Public Perception of Science to a meeting of Cork Skeptics in Blackrock Castle Observatory, Cork on Friday February 18th, 2011 at 8pm. All Welcome.

This article also appears, in an edited form on The Guardian science blog: Notes and Theories.

GM Crops & The Public Perception of Science

Assessing Risk: GM, Food Safety and Science in Europe

Recent revelations from WikiLeaks show that the US government was deeply concerned about opposition to GM crops in Europe back in 2007. However, a recent poll suggests that just 8% of European consumers believe it is the most important food safety concern.

When respondents to the Eurobarometer survey (pdf) were asked to explain, in their own words, what possible problems or risks they associate with food and eating, there was no single, widespread concern that was cited by a majority of respondents. 

The survey found that the presence of chemicals (such as pesticides, herbicides, etc.) in the food was the concern most cited (19% of respondents). Food poisoning was the second most frequently cited (12%), followed by diet-related diseases (10%), lack of freshness (9%), the presence of food additives (9%), with other issues such as the traceability of food and ‘BSE’ (‘mad cow disease’) also being mentioned.

Eight percent of the respondents throughout the 27 EU member states spontaneously (i.e. without prompting) cited GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) as a problem or risk associated with their food. A similar percentage of respondents “Didn’t know” of any potential risks and 9% said they could think of no problem associated with their food.

When specifically asked about  genetically modified organisms, the percentage of respondents worried about GMOs in their food ranges from under half of the sample in Ireland (46%), Sweden and UK (both 48%) up to 81% in both Greece and Lithuania. Overall 66% of the total EU respondents said they were “very worried” or “fairly worried” about GMOs in their food. This ranked in fifth place when compared to 16 other possible risks that respondents were specifically asked about.

In fact, GMOs in food and drink was a topic found to fit into the “Medium Levels of Worry” list in the survey, alongside such topics as the quality and freshness of food; the welfare of farmed animals; and the risk of food poisoning.

The survey also found that European consumers are almost evenly divided over whether they believe scientific advice on food related risks is independent of commercial or political interference.  The results pose interesting questions for scientists across Europe, particularly in light of the WikiLeak revelations.

Just 47% of respondents agreed that such scientific advice was “independent of commercial or political interests”. A significant minority of 41% of consumers disagreed on this point.

The survey found that consumers felt most confident about information regarding food safety that they obtained from health professionals (84% totally confident) and family and friends (82%). 73% of consumers were totally confident about such information being provided by scientists. In contrast, 19% of respondents were “not very confident” in information of this type from scientists and 4% were “not at all confident”.

The highest levels of total confidence in scientists were in the Czech Republic (87%) and Finland (86%) with the lowest levels of confidence in Germany and Slovenia (both 65%). The EU average was 73%.

While a high level of trust in scientists appears to exist across Europe on this issue of food safety, the results should be seen in light of findings published in June (pdf) of this year where 53% of Europeans felt that because of their knowledge, scientists “have a power that makes them dangerous”.

Consumers appear to be reluctant to rely on the media for information about food safety, with 48% of respondents citing mainstream media (TV, newspapers, etc.) as a source of information they would have confidence in, compared to “the internet” which was a trusted source of information on food safety for 41% of respondents. 

Interestingly, the report shows that when consumers hear news about unsafe or unhealthy food, 25% of them worry about the problem but ultimately don’t do anything about it, by changing diet, etc. Approximately another quarter ignore the news story and do nothing about it. 

The most common reaction (approx one third of respondents) was to avoid the food mentioned for a while, but then return to eating it. Just one in ten said that they permanently changed their eating habits in response to a news story.

The results of this survey indicate that, while GMOs are a concern for European consumers, they are by no means at the top of the list when it comes to concerns about food. Europeans appear to be much more worried about, what we might call ‘traditional’ food concerns like food poisoning and pesticide residues, than the presence or absence of genetically modified organisms in the food chain.

Despite some misgivings, scientists are seen by European consumers as being the third most trustworthy grouping from which to obtain food-safety information. This makes the need for scientists to communicate effectively about the issues involved in food safety all the more important.

Biotechs speak up on GM crops

Despite a largely negative response from EU agriculture ministers to proposals to allow individual countries make their own decisions on the cultivation of GM crops, it seems certain that the battle over GM will be won or lost in the hearts and minds of EU citizens.

Organisers of a new campaign to promote the positive aspects of GM say that they want to allow citizens have "an informed choice in the supermarket or when discussing GM at the dinner table".

Carel du Marchie Sarvaas, EuropaBio’s director of agricultural biotechnology stressed that they are pro-choice when it comes to GM. “Europeans should definitely have a choice, but by nationalising the decision-making process, is there really more choice? As it stands now, all the Member States already have a voice in the approval process,” he said.

Read the rest of this post here in the Euroscientist, the official publication of the Euroscience organisation. It publishes articles on a variety of topics based on science and science policy.

Europe divided on new GM crop rules

John Dalli: new regulations on GM crops criticised

Plans for new GM regulations in Europe are faltering amidst rejections from a number of large EU countries.


The proposed regulations would have allowed individual member states to decide for themselves whether genetically modified crops were grown in their territories. The regulations were floated in July by Health and Consumer Policy Commissioner, John Dalli who said that member states would be allowed to ban GM crops on grounds other than those based on a scientific assessment of health and risks to the environment .

Having received mixed reviews from both pro- and anti-GM groups, it now seems that some of Europe's major agricultural nations have noted their opposition to the proposals.

On Monday, Marco Contiero, Greenpeace's agriculture policy director in Europe warned EU countries not to be "duped into accepting the proposal as it stands and taking the pressure off the Commission to improve crop safety and prevent GM contamination".

'EU ministers should demand a moratorium' - GreenpeaceContiero called for the EU to totally rethink its strategy on GM crops: "Until Europeans and farmers can be sure that the dangers of GM crops are thoroughly addressed, EU ministers should demand a moratorium on new authorisations".

At a meeting of EU agriculture ministers in Brussels on Monday, there was significant difference of opinions on the matter, with all sides agreeing to delay any decision on how to move forward until after the proposed regulations are reviewed by the EU's legal team and the World Trade Organisation. There are concerns that the regulations could have a significant impact on the internal market which operates within the union.

Apparently, France, Italy, Germany and Spain all came out against the proposals. France and Italy would traditionally have been seen as anti-GM, while Germany and Spain would be considered pro-GM in attitude.

Italian agriculture minister Giancarlo Galan said that Italy does not support the proposal as it stands and that "Each for himself undermines the foundations of the common agricultural policy (CAP)".

His French counterpart Bruno Lemaire was equally dismissive saying that national decision making would “give a wrong signal to European citizens and a wrong signal for the CAP".

'if it's the only way to move forward it may be the least worst option'- James PaiceBritish Minister of State for Agriculture and Food, James Paice also attended the meeting in Brussels and outlined his government's opposition to the fragmented approach, but seemed open to compromise: "The idea of effectively nationalising the policy is pretty counterproductive in terms of the single market, but if it's the only way to move forward it may be the least worst option".

Commissioner Dalli hit back at a press conference after the meeting saying that the proposal "does not undermine the internal market and it is not against WTO rules". Dalli also pointed out that the regulations will be discussed by a council of Environment ministers on the 14th of October and no doubt he will be hoping from a more positive outcome for his proposals.

'GMOs or non-GMOs don't excite me all that much'- John DalliIn a recent interview with Reuters, Dalli warned of rejecting GM out of hand: "GMOs or non-GMOs don't excite me all that much - it's a question of innovation. If Europe is going to say 'no' to anything that is new, then we are condemned to backwaters".

It can be all too rare to find someone involved in the GM debate who doesn’t get “excited” about the positives or negatives of GM crops. Unfortunately, the topic is one which seems to polarise opinion across Europe and this may be the crux of the problem from Dalli’s point of view. However, in trying to introduce an ‘a la carte’ solution which is likely to see the development of blocks of member states in the pro- and anti-GM camps, Dalli risks dividing opinion even further.

What the European Commission needs to do is act on a pan-EU basis and take the decisions which have been long-fingered by successive commissioners. A piecemeal approach will put up barriers to research and innovation which would not be permitted if we were dealing with almost any other scientific topic.

From the response of governments to his most recent attempts to remove the impasse on GM crops, it seems that Europe may be stuck in the backwaters for some time to come.

EC has "failed science and failed itself"

Canola in Alberta, Canada

The recent decision by the European Commission to give EU member states the ability to ban GM crops on a state-by-state and crop-by-crop basis means that the EC has failed science and failed itself.

The EC plan announced in July is to allow individual member states the freedom to "allow, restrict, or ban" the commercial cultivation of GM crops in their jurisdictions. The EU will still need to authorise the growth of such crops in the same way it always has, however now the individual member states can ban production of the crop even if the EU says it is perfectly safe to grow and consume.

In this respect, the European Commission is, on the one hand putting its faith in, what it calls, its own "science-based GM authorisation system" and on the other saying to member states that they can ignore the science and plough on regardless with anti-GM bans.

With one decision, the EC has cast doubt on its own GM authorisation system; has refused to back the overwhelming scientific evidence and has handed an own-goal to those who would ban GM crops without any research into their potential benefits, or indeed problems.

Undoubtedly, the GM authorisation system in painstakingly slow. Take for instance the eventual go-ahead received by German chemical company BASF for the production of its 'Amflora' potato variety. With altered starch-producing properties which makes it easier to extract the starch for industrial uses, the company spent 13 years guiding it through the European testing and authorisation procedures.

'there can be few who say that the process is not thorough enough'However, despite the system being slow, there can be little doubt that it is very thorough and very conservative in its decision making. GM opponents will, of course, question the final result in some cases, but there can be few amongst them who can say that the process is not thorough enough.

With the recent EC decision, this "science-based authorisation system" remains intact but it will now be just the first stage in the authorisation process. Once a thorough scientific investigation has been carried out at EU level, GM crop producers will need to face a new challenge: that of a heterogenous mix of member states with a range of views on GMO's.

The obstacles at member state level cannot be science-based: the science will have been tested at EU level and found to be sound (otherwise it will not reach the member states). The obstacles at member state level will be political, social and opinion-based.

In announcing the change of course, the Health and Consumer Policy Commissioner, John Dalli confirmed that this decision has nothing to do with science: "Granting genuine freedom on grounds other than those based on a scientific assessment of health and environmental risks also necessitates a change to the current legislation. I stress that, the EU-wide authorisation system, based on solid science, remains fully in place."

In Ireland, for example, the Green Party are now minority partners in government and hold a considerable amount of sway in decision making. Some good news for the environment perhaps, but they have also managed to get a promise to declare Ireland a "GM-Free Zone" written into the current Programme for Government.

Trevor Sargent, the Irish Green Party's spokesperson on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food says that the proposals from Europe "facilitates" the delivery of the GM-Free Zone but he notes: "GM plants do not respect borders and countries like Ireland who are choosing to opt for a GM-free strategy must be facilitated to do so."

Quite how any country could be facilitated in this way is unclear. News from the US last week tells us that GM Canola is capable of spreading over large distances, so it begs the question what would happen if two EU member states sharing a land border were to take opposite views on a particular GM crop?

'The proposed amendments to GM policy will lead to a segregation policy'In addition to a failure to stand up for science, the EC decision appears to be at odds with one of the key goals of the European Union - that of being a free market without border controls between its member states. The proposed amendments to GM policy will lead to a segregation policy with pro-GM and anti-GM states taking sides.

As John Dalli said, the authorisation system based on solid science "remains fully in place". It's just a pity that the EC won't stand over the results of that system, preferring instead to pass the buck to national governments who will be permitted to ban GM crops with zero science to back up their decision.

An edited version of this article appears on the Guardian.co.uk Science Blog. You can read it here.

How to create GM crops

Scientists at the Sainsbury Laboratory explain how they have produced blight-resistant potatoes using plant tissue culture. For more on this story, see our earlier post.

Anti-GM campaigners can't have it both ways

British scientists are to set up a 1,000-square-metre plot of genetically modified potatoes in Norfolk. The potato plants have been genetically modified by scientists at The Sainsbury Laboratory (TSL) to be resistant to "Late Blight" which is caused by a fungi-like organism called Phytophthora infestans.

The experiment is designed to tell whether GM potato plants that are resistant to late blight in vitro (that's in the laboratory) are also resistant to the pathogen in vivo (i.e. in the field), where there are a much larger number of different strains of P. infestans. If a fully resistant potato variety can be found, it could at least put a dent in the estimated £3.5 billion worth of losses that the disease causes worldwide every year.

Much of that cost is related to the use of fungicides - chemicals used to control fungi or fungi-like organisms. (By the way, although it's most appropriate to refer to P. infestans as a "fungi-like organism" and not as a fungi, the difference is very minor and one with which we need not concern ourselves here.)

Professor Jonathan Jones of TSL explains: "We have isolated genes from two different wild potato species that confer blight resistance Similar genes are found in all plants, and we are now testing whether these ones work in a field environment to protect a commercial potato variety, Desiree, against this destructive potato disease".

The group of scientists screened about 100 different wild species of Solanum, the grouping of plants to which potatoes belong and identified just a handful that were resistant. The next step was to isolate genes and insert them into the commercially available potato variety Desiree. Watch a video of the process here.

The modified plants can now recognise the onset of late blight attack and can trigger the plant to switch on its own defence mechanisms. By switching on these plant-based defences, it may drastically reduce the levels of fungicide which need to be applied.

Despite this good news, anti-GM campaigners have once again come out against such trials. Kirtana Chandrasekaren, Friend of the Earth's Food Campaigner accused the British government of "wasting millions of pounds of taxpayers' money by forging ahead with unnecessary and unpopular GM trials.
"We can feed a growing global population without trashing the planet or resorting to factory farms and GM crops - the Government must help farmers shift to planet-friendly farming" said Chanrasekaren.

Dr. Helen Wallace of the campaign group GeneWatch also called the trial a "waste opf public money" and suggested that "it is possible to breed blight-resistant potatoes using conventional methods, so there is no need to use GM technology".

"anti-GM campaigners need to make a choice"What Dr. Wallace and the campaign groups fail to grasp is that it has been nearly 160 years since the end of the Irish Potato Famine when one million people died of starvation and further one million people emigrated to survive. In those 160 years of conventional breeding, a tiny handful of varieties have been produced with full resistance to the pathogen and their propagation has been severely limited by consumers opting for older, more familiar varieties.

So, anti-GM campaigners need to make a choice. Either we stick with existing varieties and pump millions of tonnes of fungicides into them every year or we opt for a slightly modified version of a commercially relatively successful variety which can defend itself from late blight, reducing fungicide use significantly in the process. The campaigners can't have it both ways.

A previous post on this blog also dealt with the issue of consumer acceptance of GM crops.

Communicate Science @ guardian.co.uk

The good people at guardian.co.uk have published one of the articles from Communicate Science as a science blog on their website. The article deals with the recent decision by the EC to allow GM potatoes to be cultivated in Europe as well as consumer opinion on GM in general. The article, which is an edited version of the post that appears on this blog, can be viewed here.

Second generation GM can't come soon enough

This week’s decision by the newly-installed European Commission (EC) to allow genetically modified (GM) potato varieties to be grown in some EU countries brings to somewhat of a conclusion, a 13-year campaign by the German chemical company BASF.



An edited version of this article appears on the Guardian.co.uk Science Blog. View it here.

The potato in question, Amflora benefits from the gene for a particularly uneconomic form of starch (amylose) being turned off by genetic modification. This means that the useful starch that is produced (amylopectin) doesn’t need to be separated from the useless form.

The starch is used in the paper, textiles and adhesives industries. BASF say that while the starch will not be used in human food, they may use the product in animal feed.


Amflora also carries an extra gene called neomycin phosphotransferase II (nptII) which makes the potato resistant to the antibiotics neomycin and kanamycin. This ‘antibiotic resistance marker gene’ has provoked much debate and is focused on by opponents of GM technology.


In June 2009, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) concluded that these marker genes, including nptII are unlikely to cause adverse effects on human health and the environment, but due to limitations to sampling and detection they were unable to be conclusive. They did however re-emphasise that they considered Amflora to be safe.



"Insertion can be achieved by using a bacterium to “ferry” the gene into the plant cell or by blasting it in using a gene gun"The antibiotic resistance marker genes are a remnant of the genetic modification process that produced the potatoes in the first place. GM plants are produced by inserting novel genes into individual plant cells and then growing the plant cells into whole plants in the laboratory. Insertion can be achieved by using a bacterium to “ferry” the gene into the plant cell or by blasting it in using a gene gun. Alternatively, the tough plant cell wall can be stripped off and the gene can be inserted into this “naked” cell.



Whatever way it is inserted, not all of the plant cells treated will successfully take up the new gene and incorporate it into its own DNA; perhaps just 5 cells out of every 1000 in particularly susceptible plants. It is necessary therefore to be able to select those cells which have been modified from those which have not.


By not only inserting the novel gene, but also tagging a marker gene onto it, it ensures that cells which have been successfully modified exhibit resistance to a specific range of antibiotics. In the case of Amflora, it means that only those plant cells which will grow in the presence of kanamycin and neomycin have been successfully modified. The successful cells can then be allowed to grow into whole plants. However, these whole plants will contain the antibiotic resistance genes in every one of its cells.


BASF first submitted its Amflora potato for approval in 1996 but an EU-wide moratorium on GM between 1998 and 2004 delayed the process substantially. When the potato was resubmitted for approval after the moratorium ended, progress was so slow that BASF took the EC to court in 2008 to force them to come to a decision.


The chemical company filed an action against the EC in the European Court of First Instance for “failure to act” and decide on the issue despite the EFSA saying in two separate reports that the product had no harmful effects on human health and was as safe as any conventional potato. The company claimed that the previous commissioner, Stavros Dimas, “unjustifiably delayed” the decision on several occasions.


Now, within weeks of stepping into the role, the new European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Policy, John Dalli, has given the green light for planting to begin. BASF say the potatoes will be grown in Germany and the Czech Republic this year as well as Sweden and The Netherlands in 2011.


Opponents of GM technology have been quick to denounce the decision, with Greenpeace saying that Dalli has “steam-rolled” a decision through. Given that the potato variety in question has undergone 13 years of testing since its first submission, this analogy of a steam-roller might be better applied to the lumbering decision making process in Europe rather than this final decisive move by the new Commissioner.


At the crux of this issue is the consumer’s opinion on GM foodstuffs and GM organisms in general. Consumers genuinely do not see the benefit for them of using GM products.


"there is a need to move beyond GM crops that confer benefits to industry and growers alone and towards second generation GM"For this reason, there is a need to move beyond GM crops that confer benefits to industry and growers alone and towards second generation GM which produces added health and nutritional benefits for consumers. The president and CEO of BASF Plant Science Dr. Hans Kast is on record as saying that the Amflora potato represents a potential added value to European farmers of €100 million annually. The company has also pointed out that they are loosing between €20 and 30 million in license income for every lost cultivation season.



Perhaps I’m being presumptuous, but I can’t imagine many Irish or European consumers laying awake at night worrying about lost revenues for BASF. What Irish consumers are concerned about however, are real and tangible benefits from their foods.


In a study carried out in 2005, 42% of Irish consumers surveyed indicated that they would be willing to purchase a hypothetical GM-produced yoghurt if it had anti-cancer properties. In the same study, 44% of consumers said that they would use a GM-produced dairy spread if it had anti-cancer properties.


These second generation GM crops also have a role to play in developing countries, with the development of biofortified foodstuffs to counteract micronutrient malnutrition among the poor.


Undoubtedly, some British and Irish consumers, in common with their European counterparts are reluctant to consume GM crops and see them grown in their countries. The focus of industry on benefits to the grower and seed producer rather than on consumer-centred benefits will prolong this reluctance and hamper the innovation in our food and agriculture industries which is so badly needed at this time.