Rice genome decoded

Scientists from 10 countries have decoded the rice genome following a seven year project, according to a new report in Nature. The project was a multi-national one led by Japan with teams from the US, the UK, China, India, Thailand, Brazil and France.

The rice genome can be used as a base for genomic studies of other crops: rice is genetically similar to maize, wheat, barley, rye, sorghum and sugarcane. The BBC reports this genetic similarity has already helped researchers identify genes responsible for resistance to powdery mildew and stem rust in barley.  And genes that confer certain traits – such as yield - have also been identified.

This is good news because:

The blueprint will speed up the hunt for genes that improve productivity and guard against disease and pests.

In order to avoid shortages, rice yields must increase by 30% over the next 20 years, researchers say.

…

"Rice is a critically important crop, and this finished sequence represents a major milestone," said Robin Buell of The Institute for Genomic Research (TIGR). "We know the scientific community can use these data to develop new varieties of rice that deliver increased yields and grow in harsher conditions."

Here’s the reason genetically modified foods should continue to be developed and cultivated. The world's population is forecast to rise to 8 billion by 2025. One challenge will be to feed these extra 2 billion people. But that's really only part of the story. The real challenge will be to feed these extra 2 billion people without destroying forests and wildlands to make way for additional farming land. That is the real environmental challenge.

Most usable land is already under cultivation and global urbanization is taking some back. We have to find ways to increase yields further and to use land currently not suitable for farming. The reason is simple: every acre that (say) doubles its yield is one acre of rainforest that does not have to be chopped down, or one acre of wild land that does not have to be cultivated to grow food. The same is true for an acre of unusable land that is recovered for farming. So how do we do that? We must increase global yields, and to do this we must use all available tools, including genetic modification.

The threat is not only to forests and wildlands. We are probably going to have to grow this additional food with less water:

In addition, global warming may mean that rice is required to be more robust in the face of droughts.

Of course, the anti-GM protesters in rich countries like the US won’t be the ones who will go to bed hungry if yields are not increased, so maybe they think they can afford to call for a global moratorium on genetically engineered foods and crops. Ironically they’re missing the real environmental challenge: to preserve the existing wildlands and forests for all of us. For this we need to employ all the tools available.

Comments

[latibulum]

Higher yields=more food=more people not dying from starvation=more babies=need for more food.

[Adrian]

There is an huge worldwide surplus of food, especially when you consider the amount of human-consumable food fed to livestock. GM has lead to monocultures, making them more vulnerable to disease or pests, reducing our ability to feed the hungry.

The idea that GM will feed the world is nice hype, but it isn't the real story.

[chaperonin60]

Nice piece -

Gotta love the responses so far though

"huge surplus of food... has led to... reducing our ability to feed the hungry"

Classic

[trrll]

GM has lead to monocultures, making them more vulnerable to disease or pests, reducing our ability to feed the hungry.

That horse was already out of the barn before GM came along. Plain old selective breeding led to largely monoculture crops. Monoculture is risky in principle, but so far it has worked out OK in practice. There is no evidence that monoculture has reduced our ability to feed the hungry. GM actually offers a potential way to move away from monoculture by reintroducing controlled diversity into crop plants.

[Skeptico]

latibulum:

Re: Higher yields=more food=more people not dying from starvation=more babies=need for more food.

I agree that is a dilemma. Population control would be preferable, but the forecasts are that the population will increase anyway. Not producing enough food means some people will starve, which doesn’t seem right to me. If anyone has any better ideas I’d like to hear them.

Adrian:

Re: There is an huge worldwide surplus of food, especially when you consider the amount of human-consumable food fed to livestock.

I covered this in the article. Did you read it? The problems are:

• 2 billion extra people expected
• Need to grow food for them without using up all the forests in the world to do so.

Re: GM has lead to monocultures, making them more vulnerable to disease or pests, reducing our ability to feed the hungry.

Tgibbs covered this – monocultures are a problem with farming in general, not GMOs per se.

Re: The idea that GM will feed the world is nice hype, but it isn't the real story.

It’s also a straw man, since that’s not what I said.

[Naked Ape]

Higher yields=more food=more people not dying from starvation*

*(as long as they can afford to pay Monsatan).

I am all for genetic enhancement to increase yeilds and so on, but it is not like this is being done for the good of the planet in the long term, it is being done for larger profits for the corporation.

I am just saying, I don't think that the nice people who gave the world Agent Orange should be believed when they say that they are pretty sure nothing bad will come of using their products. Their track record is not so good on that sort of thing.

I have no issues with universities working on this sort of technology, but I don't trust profit driven corporation's altruism. If they were really just trying to make the world a better place they would be giving this technology away, not selling it. Think open source.

I do have issues with the rag tag retards that are usually seen trying to spread FUD about Frankenfoods. At the same time, I do think the terminator gene concept is way more retarded.

I guess I am less frightened by the idea of Mad Scientists that I am of the Mad Corporate Executives who might be a little more inclined to rush these sorts of things before they are fully tested, or who might be inclined lean far more toward profit than safety.

Think Haliburton.

/rant

[outeast]

Skeptico,

Knowing your skeptical, pro-science stance on the GM issue, and in the light of the emphasis you place on debunking the nonsense that is spread about GM crops, I pointed you in the direction of some rather worrying findings about GM oil seed rape. At the time, you said you'd look into it. Did you?

There are certainly some problems with the above Guardian report, true, but nevertheless the case for GM does not seem to be quite as open and shut as you seem to imply (another scientific report published in the last few days seems to further indicate that problems with weeds becoming resistant to the pesticides used with GM pesticide-resistent crops are looking increasingly likely to prove problemastic). None of which is to imply that the hysteria about GM is justified, but there do seem to be indications that GM crops still warrant a great deal of caution.

I know this post is about rice, not oil seed rape, and that it is not necessarily the place to raise those concerns; nevertheless, you seem to be exhibiting some bias in what you choose to present here. It would be a shame to compromise your skeptical approach by focusing only on the science that supports GM - just as it would be if you ignored new scientific findings in any other area in which you have avowed opinions.

[outeast]

IGNORE ABOVE POST!

Only checked in for the first time this week today - hadn't realized you had indeed posted on this (it's been a post-intensive week!). I'll reasd what you have to say.

Sorry!

[outeast]

Interesting; dontcha just hate journalists?

Thanks for looking at that - and again, sorry for thinking you hadn't! It seems clear that the Guardian journalist (unsurprisingly, perhaps, though often the science correspondents are more reliable than that) was letting rip rather than reporting the facts... I'd been concerned that this was a genuine documented case of finding anti-GM fears coming true. Seems not - or certainly not to the degree implied.

I do think, though, that caution is still necessary; as you say, with proper obervance of procedure risks can be minimized, though Murphy's Law suggests that won't help in the end if the dangers are great. On the other hand, as with all risk management it's partly a balance of where the worse danger lies - and as you also point out, the loss of vast amounts of land to agriculture carries its own hazards.

Again, sorry for jumping the gun. I feel a profound ass.

[outeast]

PS Can't you put in a 'delete comment' feature?

[Skeptico]

outeast

No problem - we all jump the gun occasionally. I can't put in a "delete comment" button. I can delete your comment though if you want. Let me know which ones, if you do.

[Raj]

Our technological advancements are cumulative and swift, however, our biological evolution takes place over vast expanses of time.

My only (main) concern regarding GM foods is the long term biological effect upon the consumer. Historically, environmentally speaking, we have frequently failed to forsee the full repurcussions stemming from our intervention with nature and the delicate balance of our eco-system. These GM foods will have an impact (for good or ill) upon our entire food chain (e.g. feeding GM grain to livestock as well as people).

We already sell many combinations of food products that are indigestible and are simply passed through the body as trash. I would like some assurance, from the scientific community, regarding nutrient content and if modifications affect nutritional assimilation.

Many of our agricultural problems arise from farming in depleted soil. The crops are weak and are more prone to damage from pests. We have looked to chemical solutions (fertilizers) to overcome the depleted soil issue (forget crop rotation, too costly) at great expense to the environment.

On balance I am in favor of GM because of the potential benefits. However, nothing that we have ever initially done hasn't required some adjusting at a later time.

It could wind up to be a big boon for skeptico bloggers as everyone in the world could wind up being virtually full of shit!

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

[BronzeDog]

We already sell many combinations of food products that are indigestible and are simply passed through the body as trash.

Evidence, please?