Genetically modified cassava

You know how anti-GM organizations like Greenpeace like to say that GM foods don’t help feed the hungry, don’t increase yields, aren’t necessary and so on? It gets a little tiresome. They remind me of how Laura Bush defended the decision to limit embryonic stem cell research because cures from such research were not just “around the corner”. As I think Jon Stewart said at the time – “so that means we shouldn’t start looking?”

Fortunately GM research is producing higher yields. As I learned from Hit & Run, the Ohio State University has modified cassava plants to produce roots over 2½ times the normal size:

The findings could help ease hunger in many countries where people rely heavily on the cassava plant (Manihot esculenta) as a primary food source, said Richard Sayre, the study's lead author and a professor of plant cellular and molecular biology at Ohio State University.

The researchers used a gene from the bacterium E. coli to genetically modify cassava plants. The plants, which were grown in a greenhouse, produced roots that were an average of 2.6 times larger than those produced by regular cassava plants.

“Not only did these plants produce larger roots, but the whole plant was bigger and had more leaves,” Sayre said. Both the roots and leaves of the cassava plant are edible.

Cassava is the primary food source for more than 250 million Africans – about 40 percent of the continent's population. And the plant's starchy tuberous root is a substantial portion of the diet of nearly 600 million people worldwide.

(My bold.)

And a separate study published in the July issue of Plant Biotechnology Journal as reported in SciDev.Net has produced a cassava immune to a devastating virus:

Researchers have used genes from a virus that periodically devastates cassava crops in Africa to create cassava plants that can resist the virus. The finding could save African farmers large economic losses.

African cassava mosaic virus is transmitted to cassava by whiteflies when they feed on the plant. In parts of East and Central Africa, epidemics of the disease can lead to total losses of harvests.

So far, the only way to fight the virus is by using massive doses of insecticide to kill whiteflies. But this can be prohibitively expensive for subsistence farmers and can threaten their health and that of surrounding plants and animals.

(My bold.)

Apparently the virus’ RNA can be inactivated (thus preventing replication of the cell) when an engineered matching RNA strand is made to bind to it.

In tests, when the plants were exposed to small amounts of the virus, the researchers could see no signs of disease, suggesting their theory was verified.

Of course, field experiments will be needed to confirm the effectiveness of this technique, but it seems like a good start.

So, let’s review. Using genetic engineering it appears we may be able to increase the yields of a staple food, in an area where people are hungry, by 2½ times, and we may be able to reduce the need for expensive and unhealthy insecticides. (Admittedly not both in the same actual plant, as yet.) Perhaps we will now stop hearing about how GM does not produce higher yields, and how GM means poor farmers suffer. No? I don’t think so either.

Comments

[judy wyatt]

Plants that produce more food per area and require less pesticide and fertilizer are certainly potentially a boon to poor hungry people. My question is, will the GM plants come with a sterility gene, requiring the farmers to buy new seeds/plants every year because the plants won't make new seed, or will the sellers of these wonder-plants go around and test to see if the farmer has planted the plant in a field without registering and paying for it? My concern is that frequently the wonder-plants turn out to be more wonderful for the holders of the patents than for the poor peoples of the world.

Just being a teensy bit pessimistic about the altruism of humanity.

[Bronze Dog]

I'm certainly curious how the GM'd plants will get over to the farmers. I'd hate to see the potential wasted because of economic or political reasons.

[dan]

RE: Judy
I hope those plants come with a sterility gene so as to prevent any cassava promiscuity that may create unwanted hybrids. Weeds that grow twice as large? no thanks.

[Eric]

"Cassava promiscuity" would be a good name for a band.

[TheBrummell]

The arguments about sterile GMO and how evil that is run directly up against the arguments about cross-polination with wild conspecifics, usually from the same people.

Make up your minds! Either there's a risk these engineered genes will end up in wild populations and cause detrimental effects, or there's a serious ethical problem with an inventor controlling the sale and distribution of their invention.

Personally, I've never seen a well-supported argument to support either view - if some big corporation wants to patent something THEY INVENTED, how is that a problem? If a GMO breeds with "weeds", will this cause detrimental effects? I doubt it - the genetic tweaking that makes these plants useful to us are most likely to make wild plants or wild / GMO hybrids highly UNFIT in a natural setting - growth is a tradeoff with other physiological activities, like gamete production or chemical competition with other plants.

Hurray for these researchers. I hope they keep up the good work (and put both modifications in the same plant, and try that out).

[BlackSun]

I'm sick and tired of criticism of "GMO" as if it was one monolithic bogeyman to be opposed. It is a method, which needs refinement like any other new way of doing things.

From Beta-carotene infused rice, to increased casava plants, to plants that make pharmaceuticals, this is a technology we must pursue. Whatever dangers may come along with it, the world cannot do without it.

[pv]

Along with the inventions of the wheel, bicycle, steam engine, internal combustion engine (motor car), radio, television, skirts above the ankle, telephone, Internet and walking under ladders, genetically modified food will mean the death of humanity. rofl :)

[Bronze Dog]

If the evil cell phones don't get us first.

[Mike Huben]

I agree that GMO isn't a monlithic bogeyman. Nor is it a monolithic wish granting good fairy.

All technologies bear risks, many discovered after it becomes economically easy to suppress the discovery.

Lead in gasoline was trumpeted as a wonderful discovery. Lead in paint pigments was wonderful. Asbestos was wonderful. Etc.

Sterility genes (and GMO equivalents) are another case in point. Sterility genes exist in cassava, and could easily be used. About 40 years ago, sterility genes caused a disaster in the US corn industry: they had been so widely adopted in hybrid seed production that most of the US corn crop had them. Those genes proved vulnerable to a corn blight, and a huge part of the US crop was lost one year (I think it was 1969.) Many farmers lost their shirts.

Could a similar problem arise in cassava due to mosaic coat genes?

Larger roots and plants sound nice: but will they produce more per acre? Will they have other drawbacks, such as unfamiliar flavor?

The other threat is the creation of a monopoly stage of production and distribution though seeds, as we've seen in rapeseed. Past such stages, usually due to economics of distribution, have resulted in squeezing out farmers (by their impoverishment) and corporatization of farms.

The good news is that those two improvements are unpatented and public. The bad news is that corn sterility genes were also unpatented and public.

As for sterility, it has advantages and disadvantages. Cassava is normally propagated asexually, by cuttings. Sterility could prevent weedy forms from arising, but far more important might be putting the mosaic genes and large root genes into local races of cassava. Also, seed produced cassava starts off free of most virus and other disease.

[Chuck the Lucky]

I am pro GMO but I don't like the way farmers always get the short end of the stick. Everyone wants the big veggies so farmers need to grow the GM crops only to find out that the time honored tradition of saving seeds and seed tubers from the crop to grow next years crops is not allowed. Do they then find out that the bigger growth requires more fertilizer? If you want big veggies and low fertilizer costs you need the next generation GMO.

Do the neighboring farms get sued when some stuffed shirt from Monsanto finds that seeds from his trucks landed at the edge of their fields?

If I were a farmer these days I would hate to have to rely on patented crops from an industry with little real competition. When you have spent your money on Roundup ready crops and Roundup goes up in price what are your options? Pay to weed your field after you've paid a premium for a herbicide resistant plants?

I think that developing nations should rely only on open license products developed by universities like and other organizations if they don't want to get snookered. At least until there are more players in the industry and more options.

[Skeptico]

Chuck the Lucky:

Re: Do the neighboring farms get sued when some stuffed shirt from Monsanto finds that seeds from his trucks landed at the edge of their fields?

Only if they deliberately then spray their fields with Roundup to leave only roundup ready plants, and then save the seeds and plant them next year, using Roundup as a herbicide to get the full benefit of the seeds and technology without paying for it. You know, a bit like Percy Schmeiser? In that case, yes.

If the seeds just blew onto their land, then no.

Re: If I were a farmer these days I would hate to have to rely on patented crops from an industry with little real competition. When you have spent your money on Roundup ready crops and Roundup goes up in price what are your options? Pay to weed your field after you've paid a premium for a herbicide resistant plants?

If it is cheaper to weed your field another way you would presumably do that next year. Farmers would only continue to use GMOs if the overall costs, including costs of the seeds etc, is less than non-GMO costs. No one forces the farmer to stay with GMO if the alternative is cheaper.

[Juliet Muir]

Will the uni that developed the new better plant donate it to the third world or strangle hold them financially?

[Bronze Dog]

How could they strangle hold them? If the seeds aren't worth what they're paying, they could buy from competitors instead, GM or otherwise.

Unless there's something I don't know about contracts or whatever, it reminds me of the people on the WotC forums saying that they're being "forced" to buy new books, even though you only "need" the 3 core books to play D&D.

[Skeptico]

Juliet Muir:

I refer you to the answer given to “Chuck the Lucky” in the comment directly above yours.

[Peter Ambrus]

The truth of the matter is that there is simply no NEED for GM foods. Why? Because there is currently more than enough food to go around to give every person on the planet an adequate diet. The primary reason as to why people are continuing to starve to death lies in the corrupt political practices of various First and Third world regimes, which in turn leads to problems of distribution et cetera.
GM crops are not needed, therefore they should not be forced onto a reluctant public that has every good reason to fear what can only be described as an obscene gimmick to make a handful of rich biotech companies even richer. Where is the 'objective science' in research that is carried out under duress? If a research scientist who worked for one of these corporations were ever to discover that GM 'foods' were not healthy after all, how long do you think that he (or she) would keep their job?
Think people, THINK!!! Use your brains!

[Skeptico]

Peter Ambrus:

You really need to look a little deeper into this subject before you embarrass yourself again.

Re: The truth of the matter is that there is simply no NEED for GM foods. Why? Because there is currently more than enough food to go around to give every person on the planet an adequate diet.

Covered this already. Read The Economist on the need to grow even more food for the estimated ten billion people expected by 2050, and what this implies for farming:

That will mean either better yields or less rainforest—which is why fertilisers, pesticides and transgenes are the best possible protectors of the planet.

As I wrote before, a challenge will be to feed those extra people, but a bigger challenge will be to feed them without chopping down more forest, and without losing more waste-land to cultivation. It’s a conservation thing as much as anything else.

Also, there is more to it than just feeding a given number of people. The Economist article again:

In 2004 200m acres of GM crops were grown worldwide with good effects on yield (up), pesticide use (down), biodiversity (up) and cost (down). There has not been a single human health problem.

There are many more examples. Read my other posts on GM. For example this and this.

Re: The primary reason as to why people are continuing to starve to death lies in the corrupt political practices of various First and Third world regimes, which in turn leads to problems of distribution et cetera.

Tell that to 250 million Africans who might benefit from this Cassava. Do you think they care about your armchair theories about why they are hungry?

Re: GM crops are not needed, therefore they should not be forced onto a reluctant public

I have just demonstrated your premise wrong. Also, no one is forcing them on anyone. Not very good at this, are you?

Re: that has every good reason to fear what can only be described as an obscene gimmick

Obscene? You mean like with non-GM crops:

Today scientists use thermal neutrons, X-rays, or ethyl methane sulphonate, a harsh carcinogenic chemical—anything that will damage DNA—to generate mutant cereals. Virtually every variety of wheat and barley you see growing in the field was produced by this kind of “mutation breeding”. No safety tests are done; nobody protests. The irony is that genetic modification (GM) was invented in 1983 as a gentler, safer, more rational and more predictable alternative to mutation breeding—an organic technology, in fact. Instead of random mutations, scientists could now add the traits they wanted.

No, GM is better.

Re: to make a handful of rich biotech companies even richer.

And now we see your real objection. The eeevil corporations. Whatever – it has no bearing on whether GM crops are good or necessary.

Re: Where is the 'objective science' in research that is carried out under duress? If a research scientist who worked for one of these corporations were ever to discover that GM 'foods' were not healthy after all, how long do you think that he (or she) would keep their job?

Any evidence that GM foods are bad and or such research is being suppressed? Didn’t think so. GM foods are regulated and tested more than non-GM foods I don’t regard this phony scenario of yours as a much of an argument.

Re: Think people, THINK!!! Use your brains!

Good advice. Pity you didn’t take it yourself.

[Peter Ambrus]

Ten billion people by 2050? Even assuming that we could feed an extra four billion, our other resources (such as fresh water and oil) are running out. Do you really believe that the Earth can support such a high number of people? The only way that a complete ecological catastrophe can be avoided is to 1) keep out numbers under control and then, 2) reduce them.
The 250 million Africans you mention live under repressive and corrupt regimes that don't give a damn about their citizens. The Sudan and Somalia come to mind where their respective governments have actually tried (and in the case of Sudan, are still trying) to exterminate a large segment of their population. Starvation works wonders in this regard.
You think that no one is trying to force GM crops onto an unwilling public? Then why on Earth have the manufacturers of this brand of food resisted every attempt at labelling their product as GM modified? Could the reason be that they know that such a product would not sell?
'And now we see your real objection. The eevil corporations. Whatever - it has no bearing on whether GM crops are good or necessary.' Well actually, it does matter. A manufacturer of any product has one primary concern - to make money, and lots of it. I've often heard the PR people for companies such as Monsanto say, 'What about the poor hungry people who will benefit from our product? After all, we really do want to feed the worlds' hungry'. Do you honestly believe this drivel? And you call yourself 'Skeptico' - what a joke!
As you would say - you're 'not very good at this, are you?'

[Skeptico]

Oh dear, Peter Ambrus has blown a fuse. Unfortunately, there is still very little content in his rant, and nothing about why GM foods are bad.

Re: Ten billion people by 2050? Even assuming that we could feed an extra four billion, our other resources (such as fresh water and oil) are running out. Do you really believe that the Earth can support such a high number of people? The only way that a complete ecological catastrophe can be avoided is to 1) keep out numbers under control and then, 2) reduce them.

And how would you “reduce” these people? Isn’t this a little arrogant? Not to say racist?

Ideally populations would be lower, but forecasts show these people will be here. We critical thinkers have to live in the reality-based world. And you clearly missed the bit about reducing the amount of rainforest or wild lands that would have to be destroyed for food – and this is true whether the population reaches 10B or not. I guess this potential benefit of GM just too inconvenient for you to consider.

As are all the other benefits I listed.

Re: The 250 million Africans you mention live under repressive and corrupt regimes that don't give a damn about their citizens. The Sudan and Somalia come to mind where their respective governments have actually tried (and in the case of Sudan, are still trying) to exterminate a large segment of their population.

And what does this have to do with whether we should try to feed these people? Are you saying we shouldn’t feed them because their governments are bad? That’s incoherent, as well as heartless.

Re: Starvation works wonders in this regard.

What a humanitarian you are. It is nice not having to face starvation though, isn’t it? Some of us are a little more empathic about it than you though.

Hey wait a minute. You said in your earlier rant:

The truth of the matter is that there is simply no NEED for GM foods. Why? Because there is currently more than enough food to go around to give every person on the planet an adequate diet.

Now you’re saying people will starve. So which is it? Is there enough food, or are you hoping starvation will thin the herd so the rest of us can live? Which is it? (Are you sure you've thought this through?)

Re: You think that no one is trying to force GM crops onto an unwilling public? Then why on Earth have the manufacturers of this brand of food resisted every attempt at labelling their product as GM modified? Could the reason be that they know that such a product would not sell?

Or could the reason be because scare-mongering idiots like you have convinced some people that GM food is dangerous when it isn’t? (Rhetorical questions are great, aren’t they. Saves having to provide any actual, you know, evidence.)

Anyway, why should they have to label their products as GM when there is not a shred of evidence that GM food is dangerous? What is stopping non-GM food from labeling itself as non-GM food?

Re: 'And now we see your real objection. The eevil corporations. Whatever - it has no bearing on whether GM crops are good or necessary.' Well actually, it does matter. A manufacturer of any product has one primary concern - to make money, and lots of it.

Of course – that’s how the capitalist system has become the most successful system known for producing what people want and need. Do you have a better system? If so, what is it? And please show your work.

Re: I've often heard the PR people for companies such as Monsanto say, 'What about the poor hungry people who will benefit from our product? After all, we really do want to feed the worlds' hungry'. Do you honestly believe this drivel?

Nice straw man. Ironic in a thread about farming. Ironic but still fallacious.

Re: And you call yourself 'Skeptico' - what a joke!

Being a skeptic doesn’t mean you doubt everything you hear. It means you apply critical thinking to evaluate claims. You should try it sometime.

Re: As you would say - you're 'not very good at this, are you?

You can say what you want. But since you have not refuted one point I have made, and not presented any evidence that GM foods are bad, it is clear which one of us is not very good at this. Now listen up – in any future comments here you’re going to have to either:

Directly refute something I have written with evidence,

Or

Provide evidence the GM foods are dangerous – I believe the phrase was “a reluctant public that has every good reason to fear what can only be described as an obscene gimmick”.

The operative word here is “evidence”. Show some or push off.

[Eric]

I've often heard the PR people for companies such as Monsanto say, 'What about the poor hungry people who will benefit from our product? After all, we really do want to feed the worlds' hungry'.

They must be liars, of course. But what if they really are trying to feed people, AND turn a profit while doing so? Is that so bad?

I guess feeding the world's hungry people is totally not cool if you make any money doing so. It's better they starve than corporate shareholders (such as union pension funds, 401K plans, and other retirement vehicles) profit.

No, I have'nt 'blown a fuse' as you say, but I have gotten to the point where I can see that anything that I write here will just be misinterpreted once again, so why bother? (I can already hear the cheers from the other side of the Pacific).
I did NOT recommend that we kill people off to reduce our numbers, the way to do this is to educate people of the need to keep our numbers under control by not having children. That was my fault, I should have said so. Another cause of environmental destruction is, of course, our pathological obsession (in the West) for perpetual economic growth, and at any cost. A reduction of living standards and a willingness to give up a few luxuries (like the latest petrol-guzzling 4WD - that's SUV for all you Americans out there) should do the trick. A change of attitudes is what is required here to get us out of this mess.
'We critical thinkers have to live in the reality-based world' Really? You don't say? Well, why don't you then, starting right now?
You accuse me of failing to provide any evidence for any of my claims, and yet, as any critical thinker would no doubt know, the burden of proof (are you familiar with this concept?) lies squarely with the one making the claim, in this case 'that GM foods are completely safe'.
From what I have seen and heard thus far, no one has ever been able to show that they are. Where is the proof? There is none. What about the long-term side-effects, if any? Does anyone even know if there are long-term side-effects? Of course not, because GM foods have only been around for 15-20 years or so.
Oh, and just a little advice. Please do try your best not to belittle and insult anyone who happens to disagree with current scientific dogma. What you have displayed here in this little arguement that we have had here is a great deal of faith (yes, unreasonable faith) in whatever happens to be the latest fashionable trend in scientific circles. Obviously the church of corporate science cannot tolerate dissent.
Where is my proof, I hear you ask? Just have a good hard look at your own website.
Goodbye.

[Skeptico]

Re: We critical thinkers have to live in the reality-based world' Really? You don't say? Well, why don't you then, starting right now?

Okey dokey – let’s do it:

Re: You accuse me of failing to provide any evidence for any of my claims, and yet, as any critical thinker would no doubt know, the burden of proof (are you familiar with this concept?) lies squarely with the one making the claim, in this case 'that GM foods are completely safe'

Perhaps you could point me to where I said 'that GM foods are completely safe'. I’ll wait while you find the page.

…

No? Oh, perhaps that’s because I never said any such thing.

Critical thinking my friend means you don’t rely on logical fallacies in your arguments. That was a Straw Man fallacy – you made up a position (“GM foods are completely safe”), assigned that position to me (complete with quote marks even), and then proceeded to attack that position. Live in the real world you say? Starting now? Well try to live in the real world consisting of only things I actually said. As I said before, you’re not very good at this.

Re: From what I have seen and heard thus far, no one has ever been able to show that they are. Where is the proof? There is none. What about the long-term side-effects, if any? Does anyone even know if there are long-term side-effects? Of course not, because GM foods have only been around for 15-20 years or so.

If you are claiming they are dangerous (“an obscene gimmick” – and you did actually write that), it is up to you to show the evidence. (Not “proof” incidentally – that’s a naïve concept - evidence.) But despite my asking several times, you show nothing. No reality yet from you then.

Re: Oh, and just a little advice.

Advice from you – LOL!

Re: Please do try your best not to belittle and insult anyone who happens to disagree with current scientific dogma.

Thanks for that advice. Actually, I just point out when people (ie you) make claims you can’t support. For some funny reason I tend to think that is your problem not mine.

Re: What you have displayed here in this little arguement that we have had here is a great deal of faith (yes, unreasonable faith) in whatever happens to be the latest fashionable trend in scientific circles. Obviously the church of corporate science cannot tolerate dissent.
Where is my proof, I hear you ask? Just have a good hard look at your own website.

What you have displayed here in this little argument that we have had here is a great deal of faith (yes, unreasonable faith) in whatever happens to be the latest fashionable trend in anti-corporate circles. Obviously the church of anti-corporate science cannot tolerate dissent.

Where is my proof, I hear you ask? Just have a good hard look at your own comments.

(Hey this is easy – easier than having to show any actual evidence.)

OK joker, that’s it. I asked you for evidence to back up your claims and all I got was straw man arguments, evasions and more baseless claims and insults. If you want to post here again you have to back up your claims with evidence. Is that clear enough for you? This is not your playground, and although it is very easy and even moderately entertaining for me to deconstruct your feeble attempts at making an argument, I am now tired of this nonsense. If you want to rant freestyle get your own blog. If you post another evidence-free rant here it will be deleted.