Aloha! We have some exciting news to report about the upcoming Plant Biology 2017 conference in Hawaii, and are asking for your help in bringing top-notch training in science communication to the next generation of students and scientists. We face many challenges and our world desperately needs informed policy and improved technologies to meet those challenges, many of which will have plant science serving a crucial role such as in agriculture, food, fiber, fuel, and fun. We’re going to “Talk Story” at our workshop, and need your help to keep everyone energized and to thank our speakers for helping make this happen.
What we’re doing
On Saturday, June 24th, we are hosting a workshop on using human-centered storytelling for science communication, using compelling examples that touch on plant biology from Hawaii and across the Pacific. This will be followed by group activities and a panel discussion, along with resources for our attendees to help them get started. The workshop will happen right at the beginning of the Plant Biology 2017 conference in Honolulu, Hawaii, so there will be four days of plant biology for our 165 registered attendees to think about through the lens of communicating science through human-centered stories.
Dennis Gonsalves and an enthusiastic fan, Credit: KJHvM
Talks will include the story of the Hawaiian Papaya by Dennis Gonsalves, Sudden Ohia Death by Ambyr Mokiao-Lee, communicating science in a politically-charged environment with Sarah Thompson, and Bt Brinjal with a video by Arif Hossain. While the event is currently full, we will be recording the talks so anyone who couldn’t make it can still take part.
What we need
Everything is in place for a great and memorable experience for our attendees. We are going to have fresh Hawaiian papayas for them to eat, along with coffee to help counteract jet lag and wake everyone up to start thinking about science communication. As you probably know, conference center catering is expensive, and with 165 people getting coffee and papayas, the cost is high! We would like to do something special for our speakers and panelists to thank them for volunteering their time to make this happen. There will also be a few printing costs.
All told, $1,000 will cover our costs. If we are not able to raise the whole amount before the workshop, it will not jeopardize our plans, and that is thanks to the contributions of our Sustaining Members. So you can donate with confidence that your support will go toward this and other great projects.
only da best papayas for our attendees!
What you get
Anyone who donates $50 or more before the workshop on the 24th will get acknowledged by name at the start of the proceedings, for one. Second, dozens of young scientists could take up the mantle of trying their hand at storytelling to communicate science, and it could have far-reaching impacts. Finally, after the conference is over, we will be uploading videos of the talks to Youtube and Plantae so that everyone can benefit from it! Mahalo, and we appreciate your support!
On June 23, the film Food Evolution comes out in theaters, and is sure to make a splash in the debate over genetically engineered crops. The film is narrated by Neil deGrasse Tyson, and produced by Academy Award®-nominated director Scott Hamilton Kennedy, and premiered at the DOC NYC film festival last November. I remember the night well because I trekked across the country to see it for the first time, meeting the filmmakers and Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson! I didn’t want to write about my impressions of Food Evolution at the time because I wanted to see it again and let it sink in. I’ve long been interested in the portrayal of science in media, particularly in my chosen field, and so I searched for what would be a good angle to approach the film. At the DOC NYC premiere, I learned about the genesis of the Food Evolution film, direct from the president of the Institute of Food Technologists which funded the film, and after seeing the film again at UC Davis I followed up with Scott Hamilton Kennedy and IFT for more information. The story of how this film came together is as amazing as the film itself.
I found the film to be powerful, meaningful, and educational, and adds an indispensable human element to a debate fraught with abstraction and distraction. Food Evolution documented real events and shifts in attitude as they happened, surprising even myself, and entertains with genuine humor that will help you pick your jaw up off of the floor. This is the first real documentary on genetically engineered crops, and you have only to watch the trailer to know that this film is worth seeing, except if you have something to lose by changing your mind. In which case you should see it anyway.
The Genesis of Food Evolution
Documentary films are a way to record – to document – issues and events as they unfold and present them for the world to see, understand, and think about. The documentary style is familiar enough in our culture as a signal for presenting truth that it is imitated for comedic effect in shows like The Office, and in films like, well, just about every previous “documentary” film that has covered the topic of GMOs. Advocacy pieces adopting the documentary style include The Future of Food and the brazenly industry-funded and advertised GMO OMG which started with the filmmaker saying it was “time to take back our food”, neither of which were open-minded nor accurate on issues of science and law. Outside the theater at the DOC NYC film festival. Credit KJHvM
In contrast, Food Evolution was not funded by the biotech industry and wasn’t even going to be about genetically engineered crops – not at first. While standing around after seeing the film in New York, I was talking casually to a man standing next to me who identified himself as John Coupland, the president of IFT. Naturally, I asked how this whole project got started. He explained that in mid-2013, IFT was planning what they would do for their 75th anniversary the following year. They decided that they wanted to do a documentary about the food challenges of feeding people in 2050 and what role various food technologies might play in feeding the 9 billion people that are expected to live on this planet just 36 years down the road (now 33). They contacted a variety of accomplished film producers asking for proposals for films, and they eventually decided on Scott Hamilton Kennedy and Trace Sheehan – who had worked together before.
In an interview with me last week, Scott Hamilton Kennedy said “It is very important for people to know that there were other very important documentarians that IFT was interviewing, and their only caveat was Be inspired by the challenges of food in 2050, how are we going to safely and sustainably feed the growing population? That was the big umbrella.”
The filmmakers actually had somewhat of an uphill battle in convincing IFT to do a film on GMOs. Kennedy said they had considered other topics like food waste before settling on this subject. “We researched so many different subjects, and the GMO story was just waving its hands. It is about science, food, sustainability, and corporations, and greed, and trust – and the story didn’t seem to be being told correctly. Why didn’t I know about the GMO papaya in Hawaii? Why was every scientific organization that has helped people like myself with information about climate change also saying that GMOs are safe for human health and the environment? Why is this not showing up in my social media feed?”
On the IFT side, he said, they were reluctant to take on the topic of genetic engineering. “At first, IFT didn’t want to make the GMO movie, because they saw what a hot-button, terrifying lose-lose subject. Look at how Amy Harmon, Neil DeGrasse Tyson have been treated by the antis. Was it worth taking on this controversial issue?” Initially, they viewed it as an “ag science” topic and that it wasn’t their fight. Kennedy continued, “Ag science is from seed to farmer’s gate, and food science is from farmer’s gate to being eaten. They didn’t even ask for food science to be in it, and they let us go and make that movie. It’s as if we were funded by DC comics, and our film starred Marvel comics characters.” In their article, On the Origin of Food Evolution, the filmmakers state that “neither the motivation nor the funding for this film would come from any grants or from any particular company or industry group, but solely from the scientific society itself on behalf of its diverse membership.”
Both parties didn’t know what to expect, but they made an agreement based on mutual respect. “At first, I thought they were just looking to see what “the other side” thought. It was through several conversations and several meetings, I saw how smart, humble, and open they were about making a real documentary. I said, This conversation can come to a very quick close if you don’t let me have the final cut. They understood that that had to happen. They respect the scientific method – you can’t ask for promised results, and I can’t promise results. I had to be an independent journalist. It was a miracle the way this film got made.”
IFT tells their story
I contacted IFT to get more information, but they said they were very busy preparing for several large events and were unable to grant the time, but they did release a statement that expands on this story.
“IFT funded the documentary Food Evolution to inspire discussion and show the critical role science and innovation play in building a safe, nutritious and sustainable food supply for everyone. This film is intended to contribute to a rational conversation about science, facts and food.
IFT wanted to fund a documentary dealing broadly with the challenge of feeding an estimated global population of 9 billion people in 2050. We approached several high-quality film makers, including Scott Hamilton Kennedy. While we funded the film, it represents the vision, full creative control and final cut that Kennedy and his partner on this project, Trace Sheehan, have maintained throughout the project. We worked with Scott Hamilton Kennedy because he is known for his skill and integrity. We knew he would come at this project from a completely fresh, objective vantage point. Food Evolution focuses on the GMO debate because the director found it to be emblematic of the public misunderstanding about the science of food and food sustainability. We believe Scott’s film is thought provoking, fair-minded, and an important contribution to gaining a better understanding of the critical role sound science plays in the global food system.
IFT is a non-profit scientific association of 17,000 scientists from 95 countries representing multiple disciplines, innumerable perspectives and shared commitment to science. We are committed to a world where science and innovation are universally accepted as essential to a safe, nutritious, and sustainable food supply for everyone, and we are proud to have funded this important film and hope that it will encourage informed discussions about sounds science.”
Revelations
GMOs in the audience! Credit: KJHvM
I asked Scott Hamilton Kennedy how his perspective had changed over the course of the film. He said, “In the beginning, I was skeptical, for sure, just from the name GMO, sounds horrible. There’s this company Monsanto that works in pesticides, but there’s a little bit of smoke there, but it never felt in balance with the horrible things being written about it from the anti- side. I went from mildly skeptical to pro-science. If these insane accusations are true, would I really be reading about it in a meme on social media, or would I see a Pulitzer prize journalist investigating it?”
“The most surprising part was finding out that there’s also an industry behind a lot of the anti-GMO vitriol. I smelled it a little but I had no idea how much some in the organic foods, wellness, and supplements industries had used fear of GMOs to sell their products. I just didn’t realize the cynicism that went with it.” But when he was out there filming and interviewing, the biggest surprise to him was how intelligent people who were against genetically engineered crops couldn’t agree on the interpretation of the same data. “Confirmation bias is a bitch!” He said.
Finally, I was curious how they decided to call the film Food Evolution. “The title was inspired by Darwin, and people associate survival of the fittest with ruthlessness, but sometimes we leave out the moral side of Darwin. He struggled with his relationship with God, and there is a morality angle to survival of the fittest. Do I crush my neighbor or do I help my neighbor? Our relationship with food is inherently tied to evolution.”
An ear to the film
I first heard inklings of the film project in February, 2014. I was contacted by Trace Sheehan because of some analyses that I published about the bills being considered in Hawaii to ban GMOs, which eventually became a subject of the film. From time to time I had been contacted by them for more information – like my thoughts on a piece of news or a recent study, and over time I observed the shift in opinion that Kennedy described. I witnessed the beginnings of the exploration, saw what they were curious about, and how they reached out to dozens of experts, thought leaders, and people active on both the pro- and anti-GMO sides. I feel fortunate to have been one of the many independent scientists who freely provided some of their time to answer their questions. When they got wind of the fact that I co-founded the March Against Myths in 2015 and that we were counter-protesting anti-GMO activists in the name of justice, with little warning they hired a local camera crew to capture the event and some of the surprising interactions, some of which made it into the film.
Knowing all of this, it still didn’t prepare me for what to expect in the film. Publicupdates taken into account, the filmmakers kept their cards close to their chests, leaving many people wondering how it would eventually turn out. Was the science accurate? Did they miss something? How nuanced was the take on it? Myself and other colleagues who had heard about or contributed to the film had heard very little, but I knew I should try to see it when it came out. Fortunately, the March Against Myths got a huge boost from a recent T-shirt sale, and I was able to make the trip out to New York City for the premiere.
Seeing Food Evolution
It was a really fun experience. My wife and I traveled to New York, and met up with Kavin Senapathy to attend the premiere on November 12 last year. We watched the film and got to meet Neil deGrasse Tyson – but I’ll tell you about that interaction at the end. Excitement! Film poster! Frank N. Foode! Chili vest! Credit: KJHvM Food Evolution is good. It takes the abstract and remote topic of genetic engineering, and critically thinking about food systems and brings it down to Earth to show how this impacts and affects people. It takes the viewer on a trip around the world to show how the words and actions of people whose hearts are in the right place but whose facts are wrong can have devastating impacts on people on the other side of the planet. The film then invites the viewer to dig deep within themselves to examine how we all make decisions. When was the last time you changed your mind?
The film was beautiful. Plant biologists should be especially pleased to see sweeping shots of space-planted nurseries of diverse varieties viewed from the sky, and appropriate detail paid to getting the science right, aided by clever graphics. This film is not committing the mistake of beating you over the head with facts, but concentrates on the people involved and how these facts affect their lives. You can tell that they really went on a journey themselves, digging up details and issues that I did not know much about myself. And they captured critical events such as the Intelligence Squared debate on genetically engineered foods – a monumental bellwether that I did not fully appreciate at the time. What happened in the halls outside the debate will echo through time. They were there to see it happen, and we are lucky to have had a window into it.
The biggest flaw I see in the film is that it is dense and at times hard to remember all of the threads going on, but that is not without reason. The range of issues and topics that connect to genetic engineering, agriculture, and food is immense, and those who have steeped in the public debate surrounding this technology will find many familiar arguments found in the film. It is simply not possible to address every question as some Facebook and Twitter threads purportedly attempt to do, and many previous films failed utterly to do the topical breadth justice while keeping a good flow with the narrative. One of the filmmakers’ techniques that I appreciated was how repetition was used to examine previous statements that flew past the viewer’s heads the first time around, but on closer examination revealed new and important information. So I could tell that they paid attention to helping the audience understand what was going on – not simply flinging facts and claims at them like other people have done. It is not so much a flaw as it is the great challenge and they met that challenge well.
There were many Easter eggs throughout the film that were also easily missed, and the film bears a second, and third viewing to take in and appreciate it all. It could have used more of the tempered yet critical comments that the likes of Michael Pollan and Marion Nestle could provide, but the film was already very full as it was, and it rightly and artfully focused instead on the people who are primarily and actively part of the GMO debate. Food Evolution deals with big issues, from science to ethics, psychology and culture, profit-seeking and conflicts of interest. There are complex issues involved in this field, and there are people who attempt to turn it into a black-and-white issue. It has been over seven months since the premiere at DOC NYC, and at the time of writing only positive reviews have surfaced. I predict that the first negative reviews will be penned by people who stand to lose by having people open or change their minds on genetically engineered foods. It will most likely be written by someone with a direct or indirect financial interest in the sales of competing products that have used fear to increase sales. They will inevitably tie the film to nefarious conspiracy theories that will reveal more about how they see the world than how the world really is.
Myself, my wife Ariela, and Kavin – none of us knew precisely what to expect, so when I saw my own appearance in the film, my nerves turned to laughter and saw that everyone else was laughing with me. With Kavin, too! For years we have been trying to communicate with people who disagree with us, and the film showed our frustration and to my surprise the audience around me felt it too. Will the film change people’s minds? That’s an intriguing hypothesis. Will it open people’s minds? I’ve seen some anecdotal evidence of that. Should you go see it and make up your own mind? The science is in: Absolutely!
I ♥ NGT
Talking science with NGT and taking photos. Credit: KJHvM
Oh yes, Neil deGrasse Tyson. I’ve been a big fan of him ever since seeing videos of him speak at the Beyond Belief conference in 2006. His talk after the film was awesome, engaging, and Scott Hamilton Kennedy had to rescue the microphone from his now-famous “mic drop” move. When asked, what can we do about scientific literacy in this country, Dr. Tyson broke down on his knees saying “I’m trying!! I’m trying! What more do you want me to do? I did Cosmos!” He’s only one scientist communicator, and can only do so much. But, he has done so much!
When I came out of the film, there he was taking photos on the sidewalk. I walked right up to him and introduced myself, and he took a keen interest in my outfit. I was wearing a chili pepper-decorated vest of my own making, paired with a periodic table tie. He grabbed the tie and yanked it out – I thought to either look up the atomic number for Boron, or to strangle the bold moron in front of him. Instead, while holding the tie he asked what my favorite element was? As a biologist, I said that it would just have to be carbon, because it makes all of this possible. He said that Jon Stewart shared the same favorite, and was satisfied by my answer. I presented him with a couple gifts: An I ♥ GMO T-shirt and some plant plushies to take home, and we posed for some more pictures as I stuffed my tie back in. Later that evening he saw me giving the same T-shirt to one of the filmmakers and wanted to make sure I didn’t grab and re-gift his. “That’s not mine, is it? I put mine over there!” I made sure he got his shirt. And I might have slipped him a genetically engineered potato or two. Kavin and Karl giving Neil deGrasse Tyson some plushies and a shirt! Credit: KJHvM
Biology Fortified hosted a live, public webinar as an introduction to science communication, particularly aimed at young scientists and science enthusiasts. Learn about psychology, ethics, effective strategies, and how to network to help your communication efforts achieve the greatest impact.
We’ve all seen non-GMO labels in the grocery store. What does GMO mean and why should we care? In this webinar, Biology Fortified showed how biotechnology can be used to give plants superpowers. We discussed plant breeding methods, current and future GMO traits, GMO safety, and regulation of biotechnology in the United States.
I am pleased to announce the launch of a new series of Infographics, called GMOs Revealed, that will explain how genetically engineered traits work using accessible images, text, and backed by scholarly references. The benefits, challenges, and impacts of these traits will be discussed so that anyone who wants to learn about or discuss this technology can get on the same page. The first graphic in this series covers Bt, which provides resistance to insects in four different crops around the world, with more traits coming to this series in the near future. I’m going to talk about how this project came together, what our goals are for this project, and how you can help Biology Fortified make them better! Continue reading “GMOs Revealed – New Infographics!”→
Editor’s note: Story previously published at Food and Farm Discussion Lab. Eight years, $3.6 million a year, 40 employees, zero knowledge back. This is the story of GenØk and the politicization of science in Norway. Guest Authors: Øystein Heggdal and Liv Langberg Norway has one of the world’s most restrictive set of regulations for genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Farmers are forbidden from cultivating biotech crops, biotech feed is prohibited for farm animals. Attitudes towards biotech are such that even though the salmon industry is allowed to use GMO soy as feed for production, they don’t do it because fear of public perception.
In that light, the lack of response in the wake of an popular Norwegian science program called “Folkeopplysningen (People’s Enlightenment) was quite surprising. Previously, they have made headlines debunking misconceptions around homeopathy, clairvoyance and super foods. In September they aired a show debunking the most common myths about GMOs, and there no public outcry afterwards. With one exception.
A small research team located 360 km north of the Arctic Circle, in the small city of Tromsø opined in a small note their dissent. They complained about the lack of nuance and balance in the program. The researchers work for GenØk – National Centre for Biosafety, and they think they should have been allowed to tell viewers that there is no scientific consensus regarding the health and environmental risks associated with GMOs.
I would like to believe that most people who escape ending up on the critical gaze of penetrating show like “Folkeopplysningen” would breathe a sigh of relief, but not GenØk. GenØk wanted to get in the ring. The producer of Folkeopplysningen, Lasse Nederhoed in Teddy TV, said to me; “If we were going to tackle GenØk, we would have to devote a whole program to them. Because there is something very strange going on there. ”
Strange indeed, because the scientific consensus regarding the biotech breeding techniques and biotech crops is broad and durable. The vast majority of scientists working in the relevant fields hold that biotech breeding produces no different set of risks than breeding by conventional means. Nor are there credible hypothesis as to why biotech breeding would produce a greater set of risks than conventional breeding techniques.
Who is GenØk, and what are they doing?
The Norwegian Institute of Gene Ecology (GenØk) was founded in 1998 as an independent foundation and is located adjacent to the University of Tromsø. In 2006, they expanded their mandate when Kristin Halvorsen and the Red-Green coalition government promoted them into a national center for biosafety. Their purported vision is the safe use of biotechnology.
GenØk has largely limited themselves to biotechnology in agriculture, and from the beginning they have engaged fiercely in both in Norway and internationally in opposition to the use of genetically modified plants, warning that they could have unintended consequences for our health. As early as 1998 Terje Traavik, who eventually became Director of Research at GenØk, said the following to a local newspaper:
” We have no means to long-term test the consequences that could result from genetically modified foods. Some examples from abroad are very frightening. “
In the early years, GenØk mainly worked on two things; they organized big conferences on biosafety, and they traveled around the world promoting perceived risks associated with genetic engineering. In 2003 they organized a course with the bouncy title: “Regulating a privatized genetic industry which has the potential to destroy the future.”
When they weren’t hosting conferences at home, they traveled the world in search of opportunities to spread their message. In 2002 Traavik & Co. traveled to Zambia, which was in the midst of a famine of biblical proportions. But hunger was not Traavik’s concern. He was concerned that aid coming from the United States contained genetically modified maize. He alerted Zambian researchers about “a long list of theoretical risks” linked to the American corn. This led to Zambian government to refuse the aid from the US. Meanwhile, Norwegian aid money was spent on Traavik and his team checking corn on the border to see if it contained GMOs.
Then GenØk traveled to the Philippines on a study expedition. Monsanto had been planting corn there that had been bred to be resistant to pest insects. The corn had a gene inserted encoding a Cry1Ab protein, otherwise referred to as Bt maize. The Cry1Ab protein comes from the soil bacterium bacillus thuringiensis or Bt. Bt has been used safely as an organic insecticide for decades and Cry1Ab protein can be considered the “active ingredient”. Cry proteins work as an insecticide by binding with a receptor in the gut of corn borers and similar pest and disrupting their digestive system. The protein is activated by the alkaline environment of the digestive system of these pests. In humans have an acidic digestive system and they are digested as any other protein would be. Nor do we have the specific receptors for the protein to bind to. This is why Bt is such a safe insecticide – it has a very specific and narrow “mode of action”.
Traavik was in the Philippines to collect samples of Bt corn so GenØk could do research on it. In this context, he discovered that a small village near where they grew Bt corn had suffered an outbreak of a mysterious disease. People had come down with fever, breathing problems, diarrhea, nausea and skin irritations.
Thirty nine blood samples were taken from villagers, and sent to GenØk’s lab in Tromsø to be analyzed for antibodies against the Bt toxin. They found antibodies in their blood that may or may not have been traceable back to pollen the villagers inhaled from Bt corn plants. They could also have got there in a whole host of other ways. But that did not stop Traavik from venturing forth with the unpublished results to a biotechnology conference in Malaysia and creating hysteria in the Philippines. Criticism of Traavik and GenØk may never have been sharper than this, delivered by a group of American scientists:
“There are guidelines for the responsible conduct of science. Your turn has come to follow them yourself. Note that failure to release your data and methodology immediately will prevent any and all legitimate scientists and health authorities from taking your claims seriously. “
That was was in 2004. In 2006, the GenØk gang obtained status from the coalition government as the National Center for Biosecurity. One wonders what conclusions the government expected from them.
This is when GenØk really got rolling. Until then, they had not published any basic research which could indicate that genetically modified plants constituted an elevated risk to the environment or human and animal health. 2006 marks the point at which Thomas Bøhn, Marek Cuhra and quite a few water fleas entered the picture.
In troubled waters with water fleas
Water flea (Daphnia pulex)
Water fleas are used as a model organism to test whether a drug can be toxic or harmful to aquatic organisms. They have short lifespans, so that multiple generations can be quickly observed, they are genetically very similar to one another, and they are easy to handle and maintain. The first of GenØk’s water flea studies was published in 2008. I expect champagne corks hit the roof up in Tromsø right around that time.
After ten years of having warned us that we didn’t have good enough studies on the long-term effects of feeding animals genetically modified crops, GenØk had now produced research that showed that water fleas receiving Bt maize died earlier than water fleas fed conventional corn. Or had they?
Bøhn and company had produced a science experiment that was more a textbook case of “How Not To Do Science” than a demonstration of health risks presented by the Bt corn. Bøhn and his team had failed to control for multiple variables rendering their feeding trial useless. They had fed the water fleas corn that had been grown at Elizabeth Cruzara a village near Iloilo City in the Philippines in 2003. The problem is that they had not analyzed the two maize types for nutritional content, or noted other external conditions such as soil, weed spraying or crop quantity; all of which would affect the results. We can see that there are even visible differences between the two maize types. So there is a plethora of variables that could have affected the result, but GenØk concludes that the genetic modification must be the reason why those water fleas did not live as long. Thomas Bøhn In 2010, they performed a similar study on the same corn, again without controlling for any of the obvious variables that could affect the outcome; again they came to the same conclusion: Bt corn is dangerous to water fleas. Criticism of their work from the scientific community was massive. (Editor’s note: See this study’s GENERA page.)
In 2014, GenØk took on a new task. They analyzed the nutritional content of soybeans and glyphosate residues taken from thirty one farms in Iowa USA. Eleven of them organic, ten conventional and ten genetically engineered soy varieties.
The trial was designed to show residues on soybeans of glyphosate. Glyphosate is the herbicide sold under the trade name RoundUp which the biotech soybeans had been bred to be paired with. The soybeans are able to survive an application of RoundUp while the weeds are around them are destroyed, allowing for easier weed management. Unsurprisingly, Bøhn’s team found glyphosate residues on soybeans that had been grown in fields sprayed with glyphosate, while glyphosate residues were significantly lower in the non-GMO and organic fields. What was notable was that they failed to test for the residue of other herbicides. The non-GMO fields were almost certainly treated with herbicides other than glyphosate – most of which are considered somewhat greater in environmental impact and health risks (but have the advantage of being all but ignored by anti-GMO activists because, while their environmental impact may be greater they aren’t tied to a biotech crop, so their use has not been politicized), but we have no way of knowing because they only tested for glyphosate. Nor did they test for other pesticides – insecticides, fungicides, etc. Of course the organic fields had lower glyphosate residues, but were they lower in total pesticide residue? Maybe / Maybe not. We don’t know because they only tested for glyphosate. So was this about measuring environmental impacts, or coming to a predetermined finding that could be used to generate headlines? GenØk wanted to find RoundUp, and they certainly did that.
Bøhn’s team also looked at the nutritional composition of the soybeans and found that the organic soybeans came out the best. The problem is once again that factors such as the variety of soybean, soil, fertilization scheme, any organic spraying, crop yield and harvest date are not included in the report. Researchers at The Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research (NIBIO) criticized them for concluding that the organic soybeans had the best composition of nutrients, when it simply does not match the figures in the survey:
“ It is thus very surprising to us that a product with the highest concentrations of sugar, Zn and Ba, and lowest concentrations of Se and fibre is described as having the healthiest nutritional profile. Experts on human nutrition rarely consider enhanced sugar levels in food to be beneficial, and both Zn and Ba may be highly toxic to humans.”
After this experiment, which really shows nothing other than that different soybean varieties grown under different conditions will have different compositions of nutrients, the GenØk team pressed on with three feeding trials on water fleas.
In all water flea experiments in 2014, 2015 and 2016, the fleas were fed with the soy from 2014. Once again, the experiments show that water fleas react differently to different soy varieties and varying nutritional composition, but that obviously didn’t prevent GenØk researchers from concluding that RoundUp was the reason why water fleas died more quickly rather than any of the variables they had failed to control for.
In 2016, their last attempt to date, the water fleas are fed with purified Cry1Ab and Cry2Aa proteins in addition to the RoundUp. The trial was meant to show that the water fleas fed the most toxins die first. This time one would think that several environmental factors had been cleared away, but as EFSA writes in its response, GenØk have used doses of these toxins that one would never find in water near fields where genetically modified crops are cultivated. So, they can kill water fleas with doses that are not field realistic. Congratulations. In addition, the test ran for 78 days as opposed to the 21 days the OECD recommend for water flea tests. Thus, they introduce sufficient statistical noise to draw whichever conclusions they want.
Flawed research dead in the water
In the EU, it is the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) that considers whether genetically engineered plants are approved as being as safe as conventional plants. Because of the chronically poor design of GenØk’s trials, it is impossible to draw any conclusions from their research. Thus, the EFSA has not included any of their studies as basis of the approval process.
Read that sentence again. None of the trials are viewed as good enough. Seven studies, eight years, $3.6 million per year, 40 employees – and we’ve gotten zero knowledge back.
Worse, it is actually not zero knowledge, it’s “anti knowledge”. GenØk has, ever since they were founded 18 years ago, written page after page about how we don’t have enough knowledge of the long term effects of releasing genetically modified organisms into the environment. The problem is that GenØk does not help to close these gaps. They just contribute to further confusion. And there are many who listen to them.
In Norway we have what is called Bioteknologirådet (Biotechnology council) which was first established in 1992 and has since then been a consultative body for the government and parliament on both ethical and environmental concerns related to genetically engineered crops for import. Bioteknologirådet has yet to recommend importing even a single genetically engineered food crop (Oddly, they made an exception for one variety of carnation flower, of all things). That is unsurprising when one looks at how tight the bonds are between the Council and GenØk.
GenØk in the murky waters of activism
Former Director of Bioteknologirådet, Sissel Rogne, sat simultaneously on the Board of GenØk. The current leader of Bioteknologirådet is Kristin Halvorsen. Back in 2003, she suggested making GenØk the National Center for Biosafety, and she carried it through when she entered the coalition government in 2006. Terje Traavik has been both the research director at GenØk and a member of Bioteknologirådet. The densest coupling, however, is Aina Bartmann. She was a member of Bioteknologirådet from 2000 to 2008 while chair of GenØk in the years 2005 to 2011. She is currently the coordinator of the organization Network for GMO-Free Food and Feed (No GMO Norway). One can imagine the outcry if it had been if a former chairman of Norway’s Center for International Climate and Environmental institute had been transferred to a job in the Climate Skeptics. When it comes to opposition to biotech, these guys do not even have to hide their activism.
For not only do they perform badly designed water flea studies – they also bring conflicts of interest to the table; in two papers, one in 2014 and one in 2016, John Fagan is listed as co-author. Fagan is a known anti-GMO activist. In addition to his activism, in 1996 founded the company Genetic ID which provides technology to analyze foods to detect whether the DNA has been altered by genetic engineering. Under “Conflicts of interests”, where normal (ethical) scientists would have mentioned that one of the authors has a financial interest in a company that makes money from the controversy surrounding biotechnology, they declared no conflicts. Gilles-Éric Séralini
GenØk has also supported other activist scientists and dubious science from other organizations as well. They were supportive of Gilles-Éric Séralini at the University of Caen in France. In 2013 he published his infamous rat study. Séralini used a special kind of rats often used in researching carcogenicity because they easily develop cancer so impacts of carcinogens are more easily detected. He conducted a feeding study on genetically engineered corn – “NK603”, bred to withstand being treated with the herbicide RoundUp. The rats fed NK603 developed tumors, pictures of which were featured in that episode of “Enlightenment”. However, the rats in the control group also developed tumors – they just weren’t featured in photos in the paper Séralini published – a major ethical lapse. The paper was also widely criticized for the small number of rats in the control group, as well as a litany of other design flaws. As one of the only research centers in the world, GenØk came out and declared publicly that this miserably designed study somehow showed that there are unknown dangers with the use of GMOs. The study has been withdrawn from the scientific journal where it was first published. Meanwhile, Gilles-Éric Séralini sells homeopathic medicine to detox the body from “GMO poisons”.
Up there in Tromsø, they like to watch movies, and when the documentary OMG GMO came out in 2013, GenØk researcher Anne Ingeborg Myhr said in an article on Forskning.no (Research.no):
“A new film attracts attention and debate.” GMO OMG “sets a startlingly critical eye on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Hopefully the film will lead to raised awareness in all who today have no understanding of how modern genetic engineering challenge nature. “
“GMO OMG” provides insights and razor-sharp analysis of genetic modification along the lines of “Loose Change”, the conspiracy laden documentary the 9/11 terrorist attacks. It is a pure and simple activist film that has nothing scientific to offer. Reading critics tear it to shreds in pages of The New Yorker and Scientific American is better entertainment than watching the film.
It’s not just GenØk who thinks Hollywood might help us understand the complex connections in gene technology. When Sissel Rogne was the leader of Bioteknologinemda and on the board of GenØk, she traveled around the country and to high schools lecturing for teachers and students. Included in these seminars were two hours set aside to watch the 1997 film Gattaca. The film is a dystopian fable featuring Ethan Hawke and Uma Thurman living in a society where everything is determined by genetics, and only those with the best genes have the opportunity to live a worthy life. Now, if they absolutely wanted to show propaganda films to scare young people, why couldn’t they have shown Jurassic Park instead? It is a better film. And it has dinosaurs.
Not only youth were to be indoctrinated in how murky gene technology supposedly is, kids should also experience it. In 2008, kids who visited GenØk’s stand in the Research park in Tromso would meet the mad professor Kazoo, and his five legged chicken. Instead of using genetic engineering to do something useful, Kazoo bred a monstrous five legged chicken to create an artificial cautionary tale to scare school children visiting GenØk. Marek Cuhra would tell UiT:
“Unfortunately, we have seen that when laboratory adjust some genes, it may result in unforeseen consequences.”
So this is what we get for around $3.6 million a year.
Norway’s parallel GMO science
So, what they’re doing up there in Tromsø? Because it is not science. The French science communicator Marcel Kuntz calls it “parallel science”. Political parties and NGOs are very fond of science that confirms what they promote. Greenpeace wag their finger and tell us that there is scientific consensus that climate change is man-made. When it comes to the consensus that genetic engineering is as safe as traditional breeding, it is as strong, if not stronger, than the consensus on climate change. But then Greenpeace and political groups cherry pick marginalized research and individual researchers who believe things radically different from consensus. In 2006, when the political platform of Norway’s coalition government stated that GMOs were dangerous, they started shopping for researchers who could corroborate what they had already decided.
They were unable to find those researchers among the heaviest and oldest plant research center in Norway, based at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU). At NMBU, they don’t sway with alternating ideologies or fashions among politicians in Oslo. So the coalition government instead found a marginalized foundation up at the ice edge. This is how Norway has become an anti scientific superpower in the field of biotech and GMOs.
It is now time that our current government ends this charade in Tromsø. It has lasted long enough. Dr. Kazoo et. al should hang up their lab coats, and we should move everything related to biosecurity and GMO research down to the grown-ups at NMBU at Ås.
________ Øystein Heggdal Øystein Heggdal is a Norwegian agronomist. He holds a bachelor’s degree in environmental science and natural resources. He is currently working as an journalist for a Norwegian farming magazine. Liv Landberg is a social worker and cognitive therapist. She has studied biology and has a diploma in agronomy. Back in the day, she tried her hand at organic agriculture, so she knows a thing or two about cow dung (BS).
A version of this story previously appeared in Dagbladet. Translation by Øystein Heggdal and Marc Brazeau, previously published at Food and Farm Discussion Lab.
Wheat and wndmills. Credit: Idaho National Laboratory (INL) Wind Energy Program http://www.inl.gov/wind
Today, PLOS ONE has published a paper that I co-wrote with Randa Jabbour and Steve Savage titled “Commercial crop yields reveal strengths and weaknesses for organic agriculture in the United States.” In this paper, we describe our analysis of USDA data to compare organic and conventional crop yield data for 25 different crops. But is this just another organic yield vs conventional comparison for partisans to throw at each other in debates? We hope not. We’d prefer to throw that “debate” out the window – and instead focus on where each form of agriculture is doing best and start a conversation about how we can improve them all by learning from each other. Continue reading “Just another organic yield comparison?”→
Contents of 1 experiment kit. Note the ear numbers on the barcode stickers in each bag. Don’t mix up the ears!
Last fall, we launched our first Citizen Science experiment, the GMO Corn Experiment, to test whether squirrels and other wild animals avoid eating GMOs if given the choice. After a lightning fast crowdfunding campaign on Experiment.com, and an energetic week of assembling almost 1,000 kits, we shipped hundreds of kits across the country and science started happening right in everyone’s back yards. When we sent out the kits it was almost Winter, but now that Spring has come to a close it is time to end the data collection for this experiment so we can analyze all of your data! I would also like to share some of the other things that have been going on behind the scenes while everyone has been doing their experiments.
Finish your experiments before June 27, 2016 at midnight!
As of today, there are exactly twelve days left to complete the data collection for your GMO Corn Experiment kits. If you have one of these kits but have not yet completed your experiments, stop reading and go grab them right now! I’ll wait.
Now that you’ve got the kit in front of you, register on our GMOExperiment.com website so you can enter your data. Follow the directions in the experimental protocol and get your first experiment set up and placed outside in a good place for animals to visit it. Take your starting picture of the experiment and sign into the website to upload your picture and record your observations. You’re already halfway done with the first experiment! It’s that easy. One day later, you can take your second picture, enter your data, and close out the experiment. Then, set up the second experiment and repeat!
We already have more than 420 kits fully completed on the GMOExperiment.com website. This is fantastic! But the more data we can get – the better because it increases the statistical power of the experiment. This means that for each additional experiment you complete, the entire experiment gets that much better at determining whether wild animals can or cannot tell the difference between the GMO and non-GMO ears of corn. Your experiment kit can mean the difference between answering our research question to the satisfaction of the scientific community versus leaving it as an open question for people to debate. Let’s put the nail in the coffin on this question, and get those ears out on the nails of the your apparatus today!
If you have any questions about your own experiment, registering, and setup, feel free to contact us at support@gmoexperiment.com and we will get back to you right away.
Finally, make sure that when you enter your data on GMOExperiment.com that you fully close out your experiments. If you have not done so, please log in now and close them out.
What are the results?
Back in December, we asked our Citizen Scientists to decide whether they could complete their experiments before winter set in at their location, or if they needed to wait until the spring. We set an early data collection deadline for January 15 so we could take a look and do a preliminary analysis. We got about 360 experiments to look at (47 of them were repeated experiments) from 194 kits. All in all, it looks like everyone did very well and gathered some very useful data.
Many of our Citizen Scientists gathered excellent data on what animals were visiting their experiments, along with weather conditions, and more. In fact, some set up wildlife cameras to capture pictures of them in action! Above are a few of the test subjects whose preferences we are measuring.
What kind of results did everyone get? We can certainly see a lot of variation from experiment to experiment, where depending on the time of year, animal activity, and location, some of our Citizen Scientists had some ears fully consumed after 24 hours, some partially consumed, and some hardly touched at all. The onset of winter was most likely a huge factor, but some pictures showed that despite snow piling on top of the experimental apparatus, it didn’t stop some hungry critters! This is why we were in such a hurry to take the ears as soon as they arrived and get them into the kits and shipped out! When planning an experiment like this, there are so many unknowns about each future location, and when we planned this experiment we thought very carefully about how long the corn should be left outside. Too short and there will be nothing to measure, while if the experiments take too long they will be harder for everyone to complete and more can go wrong with it. In case there was no activity we added the option to repeat the experiment with the same ears, which was done 47 times in this first dataset. I’m happy to report that the length of time we chose for the experiment was overall very conducive to getting results we can use.
So what were the results, you ask? Well, like we have said from the beginning we won’t be able to announce a conclusion until all the data was in, but we did see a lot of ears getting consumed, often completely, and often like a tornado passed through the experimental apparatuses! Total cornage. Sometimes the corn was even removed entirely from the apparatus, or the whole thing was dragged away. I fielded a lot of emails and calls from volunteers who ran into issues like this. If you find two empty cobs in the corners of your yard, then I think you can count those as 100% consumed. It was interesting to see how some ears were torn to shreds with shards of kernels everywhere, while others had been neatly picked clean. It turns out that one experiment that was subjected to such immaculate consumption was being visited by a bird (above), so even when we can’t see the can’t see the animal that visited the experiment, when we observe variations in the signs of eating behavior left behind we are likely seeing evidence of different species of animals.
While there were some ears fully consumed, the really interesting part I found were the ears that were not fully consumed. While our main research question is whether the animals will avoid eating GMOs, examining experiments where only one eat has been eaten, or both ears are partially eaten could give us an indication about preference for one over the other. It is possible that we could find that one genotype was more likely to be eaten first, and that once it was gone then they could have switched to the other one. While there were many ears like this in our experimental results, it is too early to form any conclusions about this until we have the rest of the data. Like the pictures of completely consumed ears above, don’t take these images as representative of all of the results. Our final conclusion will be made after carefully examining all the results. All the more reason for you to get your experiments outside today!
Behind-the-scenes of the GMO Corn Experiment
While our volunteers have been diligently gathering and entering their data, we’ve been up to a few things that you haven’t yet heard about. These are things I meant to tell you about sooner, but I just completed a 2,000 mile move back across the country to my home state of California, which as you can imagine was quite overwhelming. But before I moved, I found a great opportunity to get more of these corn experiments out to school classrooms. Thanks to the financial support of our Sustaining Members as well as the American Society of Plant Biologists, I took 120 of our corn experiment kits to the National Science Teacher’s Association (NSTA) conference in Nashville, TN, to hand them out at the ASPB booth. This was my first experience at a science teacher’s conference, and it was exciting to be able to tell educators about our project and sign them up to do the experiment with their classes. Thanks to our supporters who fully funded the creation of these kits, I was able to answer “I can have this for free?” with an emphatic YES! At the NSTA conference handing out GMO Corn Experiment kits. And wearing a corn shirt, of course! Credit: KJHvM
The conference was also a great time to have conversations about biotechnology with teachers, and on more than one occasion I was approached by an attendee who saw my sign about the experiment and said “I have an opinion about GMOs!” When they learned about the experiment and the idea that they could test some part of their opinion with a scientific experiment, all of them left with a kit. The conference also gave me many ideas about resources that could really help kids learn about the science and the technologies being developed. Why haven’t we been doing this sooner? – I’ve been asking myself that ever since. I couldn’t stay for the whole conference, so thanks to the help of Katie Engen, Scott Woody, Suzanne Cunningham, Suping Zhou and more, I’m happy to report that by the end of the conference there were only 4 kits left out of 120 – and they quickly made it into the hands of a few more teachers on the East coast!
Next, we also contacted Monsanto and worked out some new details with our corn. To make sure that we can trust our results – whatever they will be – we wanted to conduct some independent analyses of the corn that they grew and donated to the experiment. If you recall, the two varieties of corn are genetically similar except one has eight genetically engineered traits while the other has none. The two plots of corn were grown near each other to make sure that they were grown in similar conditions, but not so close that they would cross-pollinate with each other. If this happened then some of the ears of non-GMO corn would have some GMO kernels on them which could mess with our experiment. We also wanted to verify that the two varieties of corn have identical compositions – that the carbohydrates, fat, and protein levels are the same. If one of them is significantly different, it could affect the animals’ preferences! Finally, while we made sure that some of the results of the study could be presented publicly before the study was done, we wanted to add a proviso to make it explicit that student citizen scientists could present their own experiments at their local science fairs. So why did we have to contact Monsanto about this?
The genetically engineered corn in the experiment is patented by Monsanto, and in order to do research on their corn we signed a material transfer agreement (MTA) with the company that explained what our experiment was all about, and what we were going to test. This was discussed and drafted before the corn went in the ground in the spring. This MTA basically says they are giving us the materials for this experiment, and that we have the right to publish whatever we find, as long as we share the results with them. But if we want to do additional experiments we would need to add them to the MTA. As soon as we decided that we wanted to add these extra details, they were very understanding and accommodating, but it just takes time to discuss, draft, sign, etc. When the experiment is through, we’ll share our whole experience with the world so that you can see how this all went with its successes and pitfalls. Suffice to say, it has been a good experience and we will help provide a road map for others to follow who want to dig in and start their own research.
Last call to get your name on a scientific paper!
Ok, now for my final pitch for our citizen scientists to get their experiments outside right away. Everyone who participates in this experiment will get their name on the final paper. That’s right, we are going to have one of the biggest acknowledgements section of any research paper on GMOs, and you will be able to have your name along with the donors, helpers, and everyone else who has been involved in this one-of-a-kind experiment. I can’t think of a better way to reward everyone for all their hard work than permanently recognizing their contributions in the scientific literature itself. That’s my final pitch – let’s get this done!
(In case anyone wishes to get another experiment kit, while we can’t promise that there will be much time left to be included in the paper when you get it, we have a few left which you can get here.)
Several months ago, a paper was published about sweet potatoes being “natural GMOs”. It got a lot of coverage in the press. I thought that it was high time that I read the original paper to see what it was all about.
The paper is freely available in PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences). The paper starts by defining horizontal gene transfer. This naturally occurring process is when a gene goes from one species to another, and has been studied quite a bit in bacteria. Scientists are starting to identify instances of horizontal gene transfer in non-bacterial organisms: sometimes the gene that gets transferred ends up being non-functional, but sometimes it continues performing its original function. Consequently, horizontal gene transfer can be important in the evolution of species.
When individuals oppose GMOs claiming that these are not natural since scientists are taking a gene from one species and adding it to another, it is often pointed out that horizontal gene transfer happens “naturally” without any human intervention. To understand this point (and the importance of this paper), it is necessary to explain one of the more common methods that scientists use for transgenesis: Agrobacterium-mediated transformation.
The Agrobacterium genus has many different bacteria that cause different plant diseases. For genetic engineering, the species used is Agrobacterium tumefaciens which causes crown gall disease. Crown galls are growths on plants, similar to tumors (when reviewing this piece, my husband informed me that many of the gardening books that he’s read highlight the fact that you’re not supposed to use pruning shears on plants that have galls without cleaning them, so that you don’t transfer the bacteria from one plant to another).
Galls develop when a chunk of DNA from the bacteria, known as Ti-DNA (Tumor inducing) gets added to the plant’s own DNA. For this to happen, the DNA needs to get cut out of the bacteria, transported into the plant cell, and integrated into the plant’s genome. This process is carried out by proteins that are made by the bacteria known as vir genes (virulence), and there’s quite a few of them that perform different tasks in the transformation process.
The vir genes get activated by sensing compounds that are released when a plant is injured. Think of the injury as an alarm bell that suddenly alerts the Agrobacterium to the fact that infection is now possible. Once the vir proteins are active, they process the bacterial DNA that will be transported into the plant cell. This DNA is flanked on both sides by a very short segment of DNA that acts as a recognition site for vir proteins which then cut the DNA. Think of the short DNA segments as neon lights flashing “CUT HERE”.
Once the vir proteins cut the DNA, it is transported by proteins across a channel in the plant’s cell wall. In this process, different vir proteins transport the DNA, protect the DNA from getting degraded, and also form the channel to get the DNA into the plant cell, so there are many players in this process. Once it’s in the plant cell’s nucleus, the bacterial DNA gets integrated with the plant DNA, and several mechanisms have been proposed as to how this may happen. Once the DNA gets integrated, it can activate gall-causing proteins using the plant’s own cellular machinery. The DNA that gets transferred from the bacterium to the plant is known as T-DNA (Transfer-DNA. Remember this one, because the abbreviation will be used in the paper).
In genetic engineering, the Agrobacterium has been engineered such that the bacteria no longer causes tumors. Additionally, the T-DNA consists of the gene that scientists want to transfer into the plant, such as the gene that confers Round-Up resistance, or a gene that may confer drought resistance.
Fear inducing meme from GMO Inside. Rebranded by David Avocado Wolfe.
Many anti-GMO websites will use emotional phrases such as “GMOs use bacteria that cause cancer in plants” (see the image from GMO Inside! that I’ve shared here). Although the statement is correct, it’s a half-truth because the bacteria has been engineered to no longer cause tumors in plants. So the intent is to evoke fear by combining scary or emotional phrases and terms. So now we’ll get back to the paper.
Sweet potatoes are natural GMOs
The paper outlines that the sweet potato is “one of the oldest domesticated crops in the Americas”. Archaeological studies have found it in caves dating back as far as 8,000-10,000 years. There are 13 known species and 2 naturally occurring hybrids. The authors explain that in a previous study that was studying short RNA molecules in sweet potato, they had found RNA molecules that were similar to Agrobacterium, so they decided to investigate this further by looking for Agrobacterium T-DNA sequences in the genome of the sweet potato. First, they took the snippets that they had identified in their first study and confirmed that they were real using a different technology. This is important, because it highlights that their findings weren’t due to contamination or some issue related to the methodology they chose. Once this had been confirmed, they went on to identify the entire T-DNA sequence in the sweet potato genome. They found two large regions of Agrobacterium rhizogenes DNA: this bacteria is from the Agrobacterium family and it creates galls in plant roots. The two regions of Agrobacterium DNA that they identified in the sweet potato genome contained the code for potentially 9 different proteins. Again, these findings were confirmed using a different technique.
They found that one of these large DNA segments had gotten inserted into the sweet potato genome at a site where there was a gene, thereby interrupting the gene. They found evidence suggesting that the gene that was interrupted was active before the large DNA segment interrupted it.
The authors went on to determine if the genes in the large DNA segments that were inserted into the sweet potato were turned on. They did this by checking to see if the inserted DNA had been transcribed into RNA. Sure enough, the inserted genes were turned on; not at very high levels but still detectable in most tissues.
The authors decided to check to see if the genes that had been inserted into the sweet potato they were studying were also present in other sweet potato varieties. They selected a wide variety of plants from different continents. They found that one of the large DNA segments was present in nearly every domesticated sweet potato plant examined, but wasn’t present in wild sweet potatoes. The second large DNA segment wasn’t present in every sweet potato variety. The authors hypothesize that the widespread presence of one of the large DNA segment in domesticated sweet potatoes suggests that it caused a trait that we (humans) selected for.
The paper concludes with this paragraph “Agrobacterium-mediated transformation has been the method of choice for the development of genetically modified crops. Despite their cultivation on more than 170 million ha, the growth and consumption of transgenic crops still faces societal opposition. This has impeded their use in efforts to contribute to a more sustainable agricultural future. Our data reveal that T-DNA integration, the interruption of an F-box gene, and the subsequent fixation of foreign T-DNA into the sweet potato genome occurred during the evolution and domestication of this crop, which is one of the world’s most consumed foods. This finding could influence the public’s current perception that transgenic crops are “unnatural.” “
Why this paper is important
I think it’s important to highlight the key features of the paper, with respect to genetic engineering:
Thousands of years ago, a bacteria closely related to the bacteria used to create GMOs, inserted a bunch of genes into the sweet potato. The GMOs currently on the market add fewer genes than what was naturally introduced into the sweet potato.
The introduction of these genes into the sweet potato generated an “unintended consequence”: namely, that a sweet potato gene was interrupted.
The fact that these changes are present in domesticated sweet potatoes and not wild sweet potatoes points to the strong possibility that they were selected by artificial selection.
In natural selection, it’s the survival of the fittest where the genes that give reproductive and survival advantages usually win. So a mutant plant that creates a more toxic substance may propagate its genes because fewer predators will eat it.
In artificial selection, it’s the genes that are most convenient for humans that win out, and we see it most commonly in agriculture and animal breeding. That means that we might select for genes that create cuddly dogs. Or we might select for genes that give rise to sweeter fruit. But that does not mean that the Chihuahuas that we’ve created and the oranges that we’ve bred are the strongest to survive out in the wild.
If the genes examined in this paper did in fact give the sweet potato selective advantage out in the wild, then odds are that the wild sweet potatoes would have the gene, too. So this point, that we humans selected for a mutant that arose through transgenesis, defies the anti-GMO argument that nature has created what is naturally best over the course of evolution. The incredible irony is that what we selected for was transgenic in origin.
I think the example of the sweet potato can make the legal definition of the term “GMO” more difficult. If it’s defined as a crop where genes have been added by Agrobacterium, then should the sweet potato be excluded?
This is a great example for individuals who think that genes from viruses or bacteria in crops are “unnatural” (or what I call “The Ick Factor”).
Organic GMO-Free Sweet Potato Cakes from Costco. Photo by Layla Katiraee.
In conclusion, I usually don’t use the argument that “everything we eat is a GMO”. But, in the case of the sweet potato, the genes added arose by Agrobacterium-mediated transgenesis, which is a method used in modern-day genetic engineering. So next time you’re shopping, remember that the “Organic, GMO-Free, Sweet Potato Cakes” that are for sale at Costco have bacterial DNA and proteins in them.
Biofortified 