170 years after the famine, the late blight of potatoes remains

Dundee, Scotland, 1861

Despite the tools available to combat and control plant disease, the pathogen which caused the Irish famine continues to destroy potato crops worldwide


The famine wasn’t that long ago. I can trace my family back to Peter Lettice and his wife Mary Lowrie who left Ireland in the early 1840s, in their case for Dundee, Scotland, to avoid starvation. Many people can do the same. Knowing their names means that the headline figures that get used in connection with the famine - one million dead and one million emigrated - become very personal. Those figures get used whenever anybody talks about the famine, but they make the whole thing anonymous in a way. It's something that happened to other people and their families.

The massive global changes brought about by the famine are still evident in the large number of people claiming Irish heritage in North America, Australia and elsewhere. At home, the population of the island of Ireland (approximately 6.5 million in 2016) has only now returned to pre-famine levels.
Historians can rightly point to many contributing factors and causes for the famine. Political, social and economic issues all played a role, but the cause of the crop losses at the heart of the Irish potato famine ultimately was Phytophthora infestans. This pathogen comes from a group of organisms called oomycetes and can no longer be correctly called a fungus. In fact, it’s more closely related to the brown algae.

The ‘father’ of plant pathology, Anton de Bary, was the first to demonstrate experimentally that the pathogen caused the disease we now know as late blight and de Bary coined the name Phytophthora, meaning "plant-destroyer". English botanist Rev. Miles Berkeley had first observed that late blight was "the consequence of the presence of the mould, and not the mould of the decay" 15 years earlier (Journal of the Horticultural Society of London, 1846).

Phytophthora is an appropriate moniker. Symptoms of the disease include blackish lesions on the leaves and purple-brown lesions on the surface of the tubers themselves. When the disease is advanced, the tubers are rotten inside and there is a distinctive odour which must have struck fear into the heart of poor subsistence farmers all over the country during the famine.

As any potato grower will tell you, late blight of potatoes has not gone away. It remains the most economically destructive of all potato diseases worldwide. Typically, commercial potato growers in Ireland use between 15 and 20 applications of fungicide to control the pathogen every year and there are no commercially-viable resistant varieties available. 170 years after the famine, our potato crop is still as vulnerable as ever to destruction caused by Phytophthora. The difference now is the availability of chemical control options to keep the worst of the losses at bay.

Globally, many crops are vulnerable to diseases that have the potential to cause devastating losses. For example, rice blast fungus (Magnaporthe oryzae) is the most destructive disease of rice, a staple foodstuff that feeds half the world’s population. Diseases of cereals like Puccinia and Fusarium are a threat that require constant vigilance and we are regularly reminded that the much-loved and economically important Cavendish variety of banana (that’s the banana you had for lunch) is on the brink of extinction due to Panama disease caused by Fusarium oxysporum.

A major problem is our over-reliance on a small number of crops for much of the world’s food supply. Just 15 crop plants account for 90 percent of the world’s food with maize, wheat and rice accounting for over 50 percent of the world’s caloric intake (UN FAO). If even one of the top ten crops were to fail, the consequences could be catastrophic, especially for developing countries.
Increasingly though, we are running to stand still with a lot of the major diseases. Much like the Red Queen in Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking-Glass, keeping one step ahead of emerging and evolving plant pathogens "takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place".

In this context, it’s more important than ever that we are using all of the tools available to us to combat and control plant disease. That means an integrated approach to pathogen and pest management where one tool such as chemical control is not over-used. Such reliance on one control method runs the risk of forcing the pathogen to evolve to overcome the control measure, rendering it useless.

One of the tools that will certainly be in that toolbox is the development of resistant varieties. However, in the case of late blight, we’ve yet to breed a commercially-viable, fully blight-resistant potato. That’s not to say it’s impossible: Sarpo Mira, Sarpo Axona and Blue Danube are all potato varieties that are very resistant to late blight but they have not been commercially successful outside of the organic market.

Luckily, help is at hand in the form of modern plant biotechnology which has the capacity to quickly develop blight resistant potato varieties as well as resistant crops to various other diseases) A major problem with conventional potato breeding is the difficulty in crossing domesticated varieties with their disease-resistant wild relatives. Genetic transformation has overcome that problem by transferring a potato gene for resistance from wild to cultivated varieties. Such varieties were grown successfully in Ireland in recent years.

Gene-editing technology will allow even more precise changes to be made to plant genomes with the goal of introducing resistance for a host of important crop diseases. Whatever our personal views on such technologies, there is no doubt they will be an integral part of maintaining global food security and preventing future famines.

Recently, Ireland was named the most food-secure nation in the world. That’s an amazing turnaround, even if it has taken 170 years. In light of our remarkably journey from famine to world leaders in food security, surely there is a moral imperative on us to support other countries to boost their food security - and to advance the science that will prevent similar famines from happening to other countries in the years to come?

The National Famine Commemoration 2018 takes place at University College Cork on Saturday May 12th. The International Association for Plant Biotechnology congress 2018 (IAPB2018) takes place in Dublin in August

This article first appeared on RTE Brainstorm.

Time for a new debate about food production

Producing enough food to feed a growing human population while protecting an environment under pressure will mean changes in lifestyle, diet and food production.

The Citizens’ Assembly recently voted in favour of introducing measures to reduce the impact of food production on the environment. 89 percent of the assembly members voted to recommend a tax on greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture with the revenue raised being invested in climate-friendly agriculture. This begs the question: what exactly is "climate-friendly agriculture"?

An overwhelming majority of 93 percent of assembly members also recommended the government take action to curb food waste throughout the food production and supply chain. This is a much needed intervention. Although major retailers have made moves to reduce food waste significantly, one study has estimated that 50 percent of all food produced globally never reaches a human mouth. Instead, it is lost on the farm, in processing, storage, distribution or in the back of fridges.

This is a staggering waste given that the secure access to food is a basic human right. Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares it is "the right of every man, woman and child…to have physical and economic access at all times to adequate food". It’s a noble aspiration but it’s clear that we are struggling to make that a reality on a global scale. Figures just realised by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations tells us that 815 million people remain undernourished. A sobering figure.

It’s no surprise then that how we produce enough food to feed a growing human population (approximately eleven billion by 2100) while protecting an environment under pressure has never been higher on the agenda. Unfortunately, we can’t get away from the organic versus conventional debate when we discuss food production these days and evidence suggests that it is the wrong debate to be having

Research indicates that organic systems require anywhere between 25 and 110 percent more land than comparable conventional systems and cause more eutrophication of water bodies than conventional farming. When it comes to crop yields, it really depends on the type of crop you’re growing but, on average, organic yields are 25 percent below that of crops grown conventionally. There are other advantages of organic production though, such as increased soil quality and overall farm biodiversity.
But this is a debate that is going round in circles. There are advantages and disadvantages to both systems and we’ll need to use the best parts of all farming systems if we’re going to solve the global food security crisis.

We need to have a different discussion. It’s now well established that plant-based foods have the lowest environmental impacts and that meat production (especially cattle and sheep) has around 100 times the environmental impact of plant-based food. We need to discuss a dietary shift from beef to pork or from meat to plant-based food. That’s the debate we should be having. Going organic has some environmental benefits, but that’s negligible compared to the benefits of a dietary shift.

 Former president Mary Robinson suggested last year that adopting a vegan diet would reduce our carbon footprint (cue wailing and gnashing of teeth from farmers organisations). Pope Francis recently suggested a similar "change in lifestyle" when speaking at a World Food Day event.

We’ve also got to consider the potential role of genetically engineered crops and crops that have had their genome edited using such techniques as CRISPR. The technology is now available to make photosynthesis more efficient. As the driving force for life on earth, improving photosynthesis could be the key to improving crop yields in a sustainable manner.

CRISPR, a technology that that has far-reaching consequences beyond plant biotechnology, allows scientists to precisely engineer even single letter changes in a plant’s genetic code. This can be done without the need for transgenic DNA, making it radically different to the now conventional forms of genetic engineering which, though leading to huge advances in crop production worldwide, remain a controversial topic in Ireland and most of Europe as this recent Irish survey shows.

These tools join conventional and organic methods in a farmers tool-box. It seems unreasonable that with such challenges to overcome, we often opt to do so with one hand tied behind our back. We now need a new green revolution for the 21st century.

In 1708, the English cleric and economist Thomas Malthus wrote that the "premature death" of the human race was inevitable given the power of population increase over the ability to provide food for these new people. Despite his scaremongering, we’ve obviously overcome these challenges and seen dramatic increases in food production and human population over the last two centuries.

Much of the yield increase has been due to the adoption of (at the time) novel tools for plant breeding and cultivation - the so-called ‘green revolution’. We now need a new green revolution for the 21st century. A green revolution that is not limited by ideology but uses all proven and safe technologies available to boost yields while protecting the environment.

This article first appeared on RTE Brainstorm

Dealing with Food Waste

Recent reports that Irish people are wasting one million tonnes of food give us, as the old idiom goes, food for thought.

According to some reports, this translates into 2 billion meals and around€1 billion worth of food. At a time when some of our citizens struggle to put food on their table, this is a worrying statistic. The figures also represent bad news for our environment and indicate a food production system under pressure.

Ireland is not alone in our wastage of food. A 2013 UK study suggested that, worldwide, between 30 and 50% of all food produced never reaches a human mouth. That amounts to about 1.3 billion tonnes of food wasted every year on the planet, with losses in developing countries mostly down to inefficient growing and harvesting. In developed countries, like Ireland, consumer waste is a huge issue. Put in monetary terms, $1 trillion worth of food is wasted every year, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation.

Up to 30% of the UK and Ireland’s vegetable crops are never harvested due to changing, and some might argue, unreasonable demands from the big supermarkets. This is very slowly changing. Under pressure from consumers and activists, some supermarkets have introduced ranges of fruit and vegetables which are perfectly edible but aren’t the perfect shape or size that is normally demanded. These “ugly” or “wonky” fruit and vegetables are a step in the right direction but represent just a drop in the ocean compared to the amount of produce that is destroyed each year because it doesn’t meet retail guidelines. 

So, think about that loaf of bread that you forgot about in the back of the cupboard and had to put in the bin after a few weeks. The first thing you should reflect on is that you really should clean your cupboards out more often. After that, it’s worth remembering that it’s not only the loaf of bread you’re putting in the bin. You’re also wasting all of the energy, water and other resources which went in to producing that loaf. 

From start to finish, from field to bakery to supermarket shelf, a 1kg loaf of bread takes about 1,600 litres of water to produce. Agriculture is thirsty work.

If you choose to add some roast beef to your bread it gets even worse: 1kg of beef takes 15,000 litres of water to produce. And that’s just one resource. You’ve also got to factor in the land, energy, fertilisers and pesticides it took to produce these foodstuffs that are ending up in the bin. Food waste is unsustainable.

About 9 billion people will live on this planet in 2050. According to the United Nations, we have enough food already to feed that many people if it was more fairly and less-wastefully distributed. With advances in agricultural technology, plant breeding and plant protection products, we are getting better at producing higher yields on the same amount of land. 

Energy is another limiting factor for food production, especially in light of obligations to curb climate change. For every calorie of plant-based food, it costs around 3 calories worth of energy to produce. However for every calorie of beef produced it costs 35 calories. When most of this energy comes from non-renewable resources like fossil fuels, meat (and dairy) consumption starts to look unsustainable on a global scale.

At the recent COP21 meeting in Paris, it was estimated that around a quarter of all greenhouse gas emissions globally come from agriculture. So, agriculture is a cause of global climate change but it is also a victim of it. Changes in weather patterns, temperature and rainfall will increasingly dictate what kinds of crops will be grown where. Agriculture will be forced to change if it doesn’t do so voluntarily. This is an opportunity for Ireland to lead global change to a more sustainable model of food production.

In fairness, the issue of food waste is being taken seriously at the highest level. One of the results of the COP21 talks has been the establishment by the G20 group of countries of a Technical Platform to measure and reduce food loss and waste. Recently, the Rockefeller Foundation has pledged $130 million to help sub-Saharan African farmers to improve their harvesting, storage and food transportation systems.

More locally, organisations like FoodCloud and the Bia Food initiative are finding innovative ways to connect companies with food at risk of becoming waste with charities who can use such food to fight hunger. Meanwhile, in Denmark a charity has just opened a supermarket stocking exclusively ‘surplus’ food. There is no doubt that for business, the issue of food waste has become an image problem and an opportunity to engage with society to develop novel solutions.

If all of that doesn’t convince you to waste less food, it’s worth pointing out that the Environmental Protection Agency reckons the average Irish household throws away about €700 worth of food every year. We bin 50% of all the salad we buy. 25% of all fruit and vegetable that we buy are thrown away (with potatoes and bananas being main culprits). 20% of bread and 10% of meat and fish is also dumped in homes up and down the country.

A small amount of food waste in unavoidable and food safety is an important issue. However, we all have an obligation to drastically reduce the levels of food waste if we are to develop a fairer, more sustainable society.

Dr Eoin Lettice is a plant scientist and lecturer at the School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences at University College Cork. This article originally appeared in the Evening Echo.

Water, water, everywhere...

It takes over 17,000 litres of water to produce just 1 kg of chocolate.

That's one of the startling figures compiled in a new report on food waste by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers in the UK.

The report: Global Food - Waste Not, Want Not; made the news last month because of the headline-grabbing figure of 50%. That's the proportion of food wasted worldwide without ever reaching a human stomach.

The figures for water usage in the report come from the Water Footprint Network and make for stark reading when tabulated (see below). For example, it takes 822 litres of water to produce 1 kg of apples.

On average, 1 kg of beef takes 15,415 litres of water to produce and one cup of tea takes 27 litres.

The various wasted inputs (water, energy, agrochemicals, etc.) associated with wasted food is often not considered by consumers but, as the report states: "[the 50% headline figure] does not reflect the fact that large amounts of land, energy, fertilisers and water have also been lost in the production of foodstuffs which simply end up as waste".

Water use in agriculture (Source: Global Food - Waste Not, Want Not)

According to a recent European Environment Agency (EEA) report on water use in Europe, agriculture accounts for 33% of total water use. That figure can go as far as 80% in parts of southern Europe where irrigation of crops is essential and accounts for almost all agricultural water use.

In the clamour for higher yielding varieties of crop plants for agriculture, it makes sense to stop and think about how current yields are squandered and how limiting resources such as water and energy and thrown in the bin.

You can read the food waste report here.

You can read the EEA report here.

I write more on the issue of food waste, the global future of crop production and precision agriculture in the Spring edition of Walton Magazine, which is out now.

Image: Watering Crops by Margaret W. Nea. Creative Commons

Why organic must turn to science to survive

According to a couple of recent news stories, organic food is no better for you or the environment than conventionally farmed food. While growers and consumers would do well to take a closer look at the findings before making up their minds, the organic sector needs to turn to science if it is to remain relevant.

The big organic story of the week is a Stanford University meta-analysis which has variously been reported as showing that "Organic food no healthier" (Irish Times), "Why organic food may not be healthier for you" (NPR), and "Organic food is 'not healthier'" (Telegraph).

According to the study published in Annals of Internal Medicine, there is little evidence from 237 existing studies that suggest organic foods are more nutritious than conventional alternatives. The authors do acknowledge that consumption of organic foods "can reduce the risk of pesticide exposure". Clearly the healthiness of a foodstuff is more than just its nutritional value, so the reduced pesticide use on organic foodstuffs is worth noting.

“Some believe that organic food is always healthier and more nutritious,” said Crystal Smith-Spangler, co-author of the report. “We were a little surprised that we didn’t find that.” Perhaps they shouldn't have been given that a 2009 analysis of 50-years of research showed similar results.

Some commentators have mentioned that they don't purchase organic because it is better for them, they shop organic because it is good for the environment. It seems, however, that this claim may not live up to further scrutiny.

The second, and less widely reported organic story of the week is a study by Oxford University scientists which suggests that while organic farming is good for biodiversity, it does not necessarily have a lower impact on the environment than conventional food production.

The Oxford study, published in the Journal of Environmental Management, is a meta-analysis of 71 peer-reviewed studies conducted in Europe. The authors report that "whilst organic farming almost always supports more biodiversity and generally has a positive wider environmental impact per unit of land, it does not necessarily have a positive impact per unit of production."

The study showed that organic production generally needed less energy, but more land than the same amount of conventional produce. While biodiversity was 30% higher on organic farms, the production of organic milk, cereals and pork all generated more greenhouse gases than the conventional alternative.

"Many people think that organic farming has intrinsically lower environmental impacts than conventional farming but the published literature tells us this is not the case," said Dr Hanna Tuomisto, who led the research at Oxford University's Wildlife Conservation Research Unit (WildCRU). "Whilst some organic farming practices do have less environmental impact than conventional ones, the published evidence suggests that others are actually worse for some aspects of the environment. People need to realise that an "organic" label is not a straightforward guarantee of the most environmentally-friendly product".

an organic stamp should not be seen as the pinnacle of achievement in terms of sustainable food production What these two studies clearly show is that an organic stamp should not be seen as the pinnacle of achievement in terms of sustainable food production. On the other hand there are clearly some advantages of growing organically - increased biodiversity on farms and a decreased use and exposure to pesticides being just two highlighted in these studies. While these are positives, as conventional agriculture slowly moves away from the worst excesses of pesticide use, the importance of purely organic production may wane.

I've long argued for a third way - an agricultural system based on science where what works and is safe from all systems of agriculture can be used together to get the best results for growers, consumers and the environment.

If organic farming is to remain relevant in an era of growing food insecurity, it must be based on rigorous science and clear evidence. The organic sector must also begin to pick its battles. Organic is not the answer to all of the worlds problems. It does however have real contributions to make in terms of biodiversity and sustainable pest management.

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.

The future of agriculture

A new report has highlighted the effect a rapidly growing human population is having on the world’s economy and environment. In the wide-ranging People and the Planet report, the Royal Society says that science and technology has a crucial role to play in offsetting these effects, including in the area of agricultural production.

According to the report, published this week, the global population will have reached 9.3 billion by the year 2050. While recognising the significant yield increases that have (and will be) achieved via the genetic improvement of crop plants, the authors also called for a focus on better crop management practices: “These include integrated pest control and inter-cropping systems, in addition to capital-intensive technologies such as precision agriculture which may offer large benefits in countries already practising intensive agriculture”.

The report recognises that technology will play “an increasing role” if more food is to be grown without requiring significantly more natural ecosystems to be turned over to farmland. 

So, if yield is so important, is there a future for organic agriculture? I’d argue yes, but as part of a new system which incorporates the best features of all agricultural ideals.

The Royal Society report comes as new research further confirmed the yield gap between organic and conventional agriculture but has shown that, given the right crop and growing conditions, organic can "nearly" match conventional yields.

Organic systems provide a number of tangible benefits over conventional agriculture, despite having generally lower yields. However, given the need for some crops, particularly cereals to keep pace with rapidly growing demand, the gap between that which can be provided by organic systems and which is required by a rapidly increasing global population is growing. 

In a paper published in the journal Nature this week, US and Canadian researchers used a meta-analysis of available information to conclude that, on average, organic yields are 25% lower than those produced in conventional agriculture. 

Depending on the type of crop examined, yield gaps varied significantly. For example, organic fruit production had, on average, just 3% lower yields than conventional fruit production. On the other hand, cereal production was seriously hampered by an organic system, with a yield reduction of 26% compared to conventional cereals, i.e. those produced with chemical pesticides and fertilisers.

The researchers showed that organic systems performed better in terms of yields, without matching conventional agriculture, when high levels of organic nitrogen were present, the organic system was well established and rain-fed irrigation systems were used.

Correct soil pH and the use of best management practices also influenced the yield gap, leading the authors to conclude that the results “suggest that today’s organic systems may nearly rival conventional yields in some cases—with particular crop types, growing conditions and management practices—but often they do not."

These new results support a study published earlier this year which also demonstrated a significant yield gap between organic and conventional. Researchers in The Netherlands used a meta-analysis to show that the yield gap was, on average, 20% in favour of conventional systems. 

These data should encourage further research in organic agricultural systems. The amount of research done on organic is tiny compared to conventional crop production. It is reasonable then to assume that, while perhaps never reaching the maximum yields possible with conventional systems, the advantages of organic, including biodiversity and soil conservation benefits should encourage us to look more closely at this type of agriculture.

the key will be to move away from the hard-line ideology of an organic versus conventional debate In my view, the key will be to move away from the hard-line ideology of an organic versus conventional debate and look to examine what features of all agricultural systems could be utilised in a multi-faceted approach, using complementary ideas from each camp. The importance of creating and maintaining high levels of soil biodiversity, such a crucial component of organic agriculture needs to be recognised in any new system. Conversely, the limiting factor that low levels of nitrogen in organic systems poses needs to be overcome. 

As the authors of this new research put it, there should not be winners and losers in this debate. The result should be a combination of what is best about organic and conventional crop production:

"There are many factors to consider in balancing the benefits of organic and conventional agriculture, and there are no simple ways to determine a clear ‘winner’ for all possible farming situations. However, instead of continuing the ideologically charged ‘organic versus conventional’ debate, we should systematically evaluate the costs and benefits of different management options. In the end, to achieve sustainable food security we will probably need many different techniques—including organic, conventional, and possible ‘hybrid’ systems—to produce more food at affordable prices, ensure livelihoods for farmers, and reduce the environmental costs of agriculture."

We need a new agriculture- one which is not limited by ideology but is informed by science and which is relevant for an era of a rapidly growing human population and an ever increasing demand for food and food security.

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

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.

Agriculture: Here are the questions...now what are the answers?

A multidisciplinary team of 55 agricultural and food experts from 23 countries have come together to identify the 100 "Questions of Importance" to the Future of world agriculture.

Dr. Colin Sage, from UCC's Department of Geography was the sole contibutor from Ireland.

"We need to build greater resilience and adaptability into the global food system and that is likely to involve giving more serious attention to encouraging shifts in patterns of consumption as well as to finding ways of producing more food more sustainably" said Dr. Sage.

The authors began with an initial list of 618 questions before reducing them to the top 100 over a year long period. Thirteen themes were identified as priority to global agriculture and food production.

These themes include "Climate, watersheds, water resources and aquatic ecosystems" as well as a theme on "Crop genetic improvement" and "Consumption patterns and health".

The report was published in the International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability and is free to download here.

Wheat and Apple genomes provide hope for food security

The recent sequencing of two major crop genomes is good news for plant protection and for food security.

With the full genetic sequence now available for wheat and apple, scientists will have more information at their fingertips for the improvement of these crops to fight plant diseases and to ensure that growing human populations have adequate food resources in the future.

On the 26th of August last, a team of researchers in the UK released the 'first draft' of the wheat genome. While further work needs to be done to produce a fully annotated genome, the work is a major step forward for plant science.

The team of researchers responsible for the the wheat genome publication were funded by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) and come from the University of Liverpool, the University of Bristol and the John Innes Centre.

The first draft (basically the raw data from the sequencing work) will need to be further annotated and assembled into the individual chromosomes and is based on a reference wheat variety called Chinese Spring. Information on this reference variety will be key to unlocking the genetic information behind other commercial varieties of wheat.

Prof. Mike Bevan from the John Innes Centre says that "The sequence coverage will provide an important foundation for international efforts aimed at generating a complete genome sequence of wheat in the next few years".

The information should lead to improvements in current wheat varieties to ensure that high yields can be maintained in the face of changing environmental conditions and an increased threat from a variety of plant pathogens.

'By understanding the genetic differences between varieties with different traits we can start to develop new types of wheat' - Prof. Anthony HallProf. Anthony Hall of the University of Liverpool hopes that the new information will allow scientists to probe differences between wheat varieties with different characteristics: "By understanding the genetic differences between varieties with different traits we can start to develop new types of wheat better able to cope with drought, salinity or able to deliver higher yields. This will help to protect our food security".

Meanwhile, just this week, an international team of scientists announced that they had published a draft sequence of the domestic apple genome. The genome was published in the current issue of Nature Genetics.

Apple is the main fruit crop of the world's temperate regions and is a member of the plant family Rosaceae which includes many other important species including cherry, pear, peach, apricot, strawberry, and rose.

Much like with the wheat genome, this new information will allow scientists to identify genes which provide desirable characteristics to the crop such as higher yields and disease or drought resistance.

The work by scientists from Italy, France, New Zealand, Belgium and the US was based on the well-known golden delicious apple.

'the scientists were also able to delve into the apples mysterious past'As well as looking to the future of apple production, the scientists were also able to delve into the apples mysterious past. For years they have argued about where the domestic apple came from and now they know. The data published this week shows that the ancestor of the modern apple in Malus sieversii, a plant native to the mountains of southern Kazakhstan.

Prof. Doug Kell, Chief Executive of the BBSRC, who funded the wheat project, points out that "The best way to support our food security is by using modern research strategies to understand how we can deliver sustainable increases in crop yields, especially in the face of climate change. Genome sequencing of this type is an absolutely crucial strategy.

"Knowledge of these genome sequences will now allow plant breeders to identify the best genetic sequences to use as markers in accelerated breeding programmes" said Prof. Kell.

Both the apple and wheat genome work have been made possible by huge advances in sequencing technology. As Prof. Hall of University of Liverpool notes: "Sequencing the human genome took 15 years to complete, but with huge advances in DNA technology, the wheat genome took only a year. The information we have collected will be invaluable in tackling the problem of global food shortage".