Even before Tomorrow’s Table graced the shelves of bookstores across America, I was intrigued by the idea of combining science with traditional farming methods. In this week’s Nature Genetics, Jonathan Gressel reviewed Tomorrow’s Table and may have coined a term to describe the combination of organic and transgenic methods – orgenic! What do you think of the term?
Dr. Gressel is interesting in his own right, a professor emeritus of plant sciences at Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel, and author of ” Genetic Glass Ceilings: Transgenics for Crop Biodiversity”. I can’t wait to find a copy and let you know what he has to say. A preview is available at Google Books. He argues that we need to use biotechnology in order to break the glass ceiling – alluding to the decline in crop yield improvement over the past few years. According to the reviews, he also addresses problems with biotech and ways to overcome them.
At its heart, organic ag is based on biology – understanding biological processes in order to coax food out of the soil. Conventional ag has forgotten things, such as how soil-bacteria interactions can affect soil fertility, how polyculture (or at least rotation) can help prevent disease, or how natural predators can be used to keep pests away. In short, conventional ag is chemistry while organic is biology.
Even though the technology is new, biotech is biology, not chemistry. This is eloquently described by Raoul Adamchak in Tomorrow’s Table. For example, giving plants the means to protect themselves from disease with technologies like RNAi is very different from spraying potentially toxic chemicals, and doing so is fundamentally true to the idea behind organic farming.
Unfortunately, there aren’t many people who are listening. For example, when I brought this up in a Sustainable Agriculture class at Iowa State, the response was:
Organic agriculture is defined by law (unlike other forms of agriculture) and as such, the rules prescribe that transgenic forms cannot be used in organic agriculture.
The rules about what is and is not organic may be defined by law, but they aren’t defined by science. Some of the additives allowed by the organic rules are quite dangerous and don’t follow from the idea of biologically concious agriculture – such as the use of sulfur and copper (see p133-137 of the Google Books preview of The Truth About Organic Gardening).
The line drawn to exclude biotechnology is arbitrary. Included are techniques like chemical and radioactive mutagenesis, forced hybridization across species, grafting to form physically chimeric plants. Excluded are techniques like cell fusion, microencapsulation and macroencapsulation, and recombinant DNA technology. There is one distinction I can see: techniques allowed in organic farming have been in use for decades and can generally be done with minimal equipment while techniques excluded from organic farming are new, patentable, require expensive equipment and trained technicians.
It has been suggested that the organic movement (specifically the anti-GM movement) is actually a reflection of anti-capitalism and in some cases anti-technology sentiment. The regulations support this theory, but I think at least some of that can be left in the past. I hope we can all look forward to redefining organic to stay true to its original meaning of biologically based agriculture. Without an integrated farming strategy – orgenic farming – I’m afraid we won’t have much left to eat.
Jonathan Gressel (2009). Orgenic Food Nature Genetics, 41 (2), 137-137 DOI: 10.1038/ng0209-137
Genetic Glass Ceiling looks fascinating, wish it weren’t so pricey on amazon. Have to look for a copy I can borrow out here.
“Orgenic!” Excellent. Pam once suggested to me the name GE-Grow, meaning Genetically Engineered, GROWn organically. But this slides off the tongue more readily.
If we called it Organic 2.0, that would also frame it interestingly. It might be possible to create an identity for a form of agriculture that is more science-based, that includes and encourages helpful practices whether organic or not, and includes genetic engineering in its tool chest. I wonder if it could work…
[…] of Dust. An excellent collection of the latest in genetics blogging, this issue includes a post by Biofortified’s own […]
Last week on New Hampshire Public Radio’s program Word of Mouth, Host Virginia Prescott interviewed James McWilliams from Slate.com about rethinking the ban on GMO products in organic foods. I think it would be right up your alley. You can listen at http://www.nhpr.org/node/21842.
Thanks very much for the link, Robin. I was apprehensive at first of a history professor discussing the science, but he’s actually done quite a good job of carefully looking at the technology at what it might be able to do. Once my lab work slows down I hope to cover the interview in a post and to discuss some of the all too common fears in the comments.
Just guessing that somewhere in the middle east 10,000 or so years ago someone said that it was not pleasing to the gods to keep seeds over the winter to plant in the spring. I think that R&D with plants can be done if we are careful and do it in much more controlled conditions. Some article I read said that some Canadian group does GM in an old mine with grow lighting. But then while I try to eat ‘organic and natural’, I whole heartedly support new technology or how can we get to the stars. Onward and Upward! Oui, don’t forget the Cousteu’s, so dive underwater for exploration also. Why can’t we herd fish?
LOL! Omg, meet “Orgenics, Bride of Frankenfood!” That’s what I’ll title my new essay! (Pro-orgenics btw.) Awesome, stuff as ususal, Anastasia. Thanks for all you do.
Conventional science has a terrible history when it comes to environmentalism, having endorsed a multitude of environmental atrocities over the past century. In fact, it seems most of the environmental “advances” were pioneered by the organic movement. Since they have more environmental credibility shouldn’t we be seeking their advice now about non viable terminator seeds and GM crops?
Comments are closed.