Solution to the GM debate?
(The address of this page is www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/GMdebatesolution.htm )
26 February 2000 (with updates)
Things are moving fast in the 'genetic modification'
debate. The article below from the UK's Farmers
Weekly confirms acknowledgement by Monsanto
that there are important viable plant breeding
alternatives to genetic modification techniques (ie.
recombinant DNA technology - John Innes Centre
definition: 'The technique of isolating a gene and
inserting it into the DNA of another organism. Also
called ‘genetic engineering’, ‘gene
splicing’ or ‘genetic modification’ http://www.gmissues.org/claire/glossary.htm#16
).
Although the detail of how these alternative techniques,
such as 'marker assisted breeding',
are developed will need to be carefully scrutinised this
situation offers the clear possibility of putting
developments in 'biotechnology' to good use in the
agriculture and food sectors without having to accept the
risks associated with genetic modification techniques
(for more on these risks see:
http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/camv.htm
http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/gmrisk.htm
http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/compliance.htm
).
The term 'biotechnology' (often misunderstood) is not the
same as 'genetic modification' (with it is sometimes
confused), but refers to any applied form of biological
science, including conventional plant breeding (the John
Innes Centre defines 'biotechnology' as: 'Making use of
the natural processes or products of living things').
Equally the term 'genetic modification' does not refer to
conventional plant breeding (see: US analysis - 'Genetic
Engineering is not extension of conventional plant
breeding' - http://www.biotech-info.net/wide_crosses.html
).
The technology referred to in this article would not
change (as far as can be seen from the detail reported)
the fundamental processes of conventional plant breeding.
It would, however, enable scientists to be more effective
when selecting traits for
conventional plant breeding purposes - meaning that much
faster progress could be made in creating new varieties.
Despite the final paragraph of this piece it is
encouraging that companies like Monsanto
are beginning to recognise that this is a much more
satisfactory way forward. Although this article
relates to wheat breeding, in principle the same approach
is capable of being applied to all other crops.
In 1998 the UK's Farmers Weekly reported on the annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science in Wales, where Professor Denis Murphy of the Brassicas and Oilseeds Department of the John Innes Centre, put forward similar proposals regarding the future development of oilseed rape varieties. Professor Murphy is a global expert on the development of oilseed varieties for industrial uses. At the time Professor Murphy was quoted as saying:
"Oilseed crops can replace oil from non-renewable
fossil sources and genetically modified crops need not
play any role in the revolution....This approach could
enhance agricultural diversity and supply us with
valuable, renewable products for as long as the sun
shines on the earth...This is a novel strategy that is
not widely appreciated as yet. But it could provide a
real alternative to the use of GMOs."
Now that major seed companies like Monsanto
appear to be coming 'on board' with a similar message,
the current major debate over rapid developments in
modern plant breeding may be fast moving to a close -
biotechnology (appropriate parts of) 'YES'
; genetic modification (recombinant DNA technology) 'NO'.
Congratulations to Farmers Weekly for publishing yet
another crucial story in this vital area.
NATURAL LAW PARTY WESSEX
nlpwessex@bigfoot.com
www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex
Footnote: Whilst this area may
provide a possible solution to the major issues raised by
the current GM debate, it does not on its own resolve the
continuing problems of global agriculture which require a
more thoughtful overhaul. For more on this see: Dismantling the
myth of genetics as the principal constraint on
responsible global agricultural production
See also: Why
GM crops are not needed for sustainable industrial
products
Addenda:
- See important policy statement from Soil Association on the use of marker assisted breeding or 'genomics' in organic agriculture at - http://www.biotech-info.net/marker_assisted_breeding.html
- See further support from the genomics concept as an alternative to recombinant DNA from the University of Wisconsin at - http://www.biotech-info.net/portends.html
- USDA articles on marker assisted breeding -
http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/jan02/wheat0102.htm
http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/jan02/form0102.htm
http://www.biotech-info.net/wheat_future.html
WHEAT FUTURE IS IN BIO-TECH NOT GM —
BREEDER
Farmers Weekly 25 February 2000 (Arable Focus Supplement)
By Charles Abel
BIOTECHNOLOGY rather than genetic modification is the key
to improving wheat varieties, says Monsanto. Although GM
techniques may develop some traits, most will stem from
conventional breeding backed by sophisticated biotech
tools.
Biotech to aid conventional wheat breeding is already
attracting 10 to 20 times more effort than the genetic
transformation of the crop, says US-based Tom Crosbie,
Monsanto's global head of plant breeding.
"Genetic transformation is just one particular
wrench in the biotechnology tool box. We have lots of
other tools to accelerate the development of new wheat
varieties," he says.
Unlike some crops, most of the genetic material needed
to create better wheats is already available in existing
varieties and close wild relatives. The trick is to move
desired traits into new varieties more rapidly and more
accurately.
That is where biotech helps. Genetic transformation can
only be used to introduce one segment of novel genetic
material to a variety at a time, but biotech tools can be
used to enhance a host of existing traits. "It's a
numbers game and ultimately non-transformation biotech
offers the greatest potential."
Monsanto now has the best wheat breeding material in the
world Mr Crosbie claims.
Biotech methods such as gene mapping and molecular
markers will transform conventional breeding, effectively
turning the lights on where breeders previously worked in
the dark, Mr Crosbie adds.
"Aligning 20 segments of desired genetic material
using conventional breeding would take a
one-in-a-trillion chance. Using molecular markers we can
achieve it in three cycles."
Some wheat varieties entering UK national list trials
benefited from tagging. In future, mapping and tagging
could help improve yield factors and resistance to BYDV
and yellow rust.
But GM techniques could still have a role, he says. The
protracted flowering period for hybrid wheats renders
them particularly susceptible to fusarium, resistance for
which has already been introduced into Canadian spring
wheat using GM. GM could be the key to successful hybrid
wheats.
More on this from Jeff Cox, general manager for Monsanto Northern Europe - click here
More Marker Assisted Breeding Developments
Letter to Director General of the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation - June 2001
New high performance non-gm OSR lines
from Syngenta
Monsanto 'MAB' progress reinforces
positive FAO world food forecast
Tagging New Leaf Rust Resistance Genes in Wheat
Wheat May Become Resistant To Diseases, Pests
With Its Own Genome
DNA
Markers Streamline Texas Rice Breeding - Scientists
use DNA markers for transfer of desired traits into
improved varieties
Using
Biotech to Speed Classical Breeding - USDA
Return
to NLP Wessex GM page
Will GM crops deliver
benefits to farmers? - some realities behind
biotechnology myths
Reducing Food Poverty with Sustainable Agriculture: A Summary of New Evidence - University of Essex
Population
duped by genetic engineers
Can Organic Agriculture Feed the World?
