Basic HTML Version
Concernsof a biotechnology advocate
GMOIssues2.0
By stan blade, p.ag.
from lab
to field
This is not another article
about whether GMOs (genetically
modified organisms, otherwise known
as “transgenic” crops) are likely to save
the world or destroy it. The basis for this
article is that using molecular biology is
appropriate as another tool that can be
used to improve crops.
At Alberta Innovates Bio Solutions, we
invest in many research programs that
employ a range of biotechnology tools to
improve western Canadian crops. I serve as
vice-chair on the board of the African Ag-
ricultural Technology Foundation, which
supports African and global partners to use
biotechnology to address disease resistance,
nutrient use and water efficiency in cassa-
va, banana, rice and corn.
There are still many issues that concern
me (a supporter of using biotech) when I
think about how biotechnology is being
used for crop improvement in Canada
and around the globe. They fit into five
categories:
1) Who will determine which traits receive
attention?
First-generation traits have
been input traits such as herbicide
resistance. This makes market sense
since companies can sell both seed and
inputs. But who is going to work on de-
veloping transgenic disease resistance or
enhanced nitrogen use—traits that will
benefit all producers without an obvious
method of recouping research costs?
Clearly, this is where the public research
system can play an important role.
2) How will public biotechnology research be
funded?
Plant biotechnology costs mon-
ey. As new technologies become avail-
able, the cost of the people and equip-
ment necessary to take full advantage of
new opportunities continues to increase.
This is happening in an environment of
reduced public-sector research budgets.
If biotechnology is going to focus on
“public good” opportunities, do govern-
ments have the appetite to provide the
necessary resources? Producers (and
end users) need to continue to advocate
for the appropriate investment of both
their own money (via organizations they
control) and public funds.
3) How do we maintain a system where
everyone learns from new discoveries?
We have made progress over many
centuries through scientists learning
from one another. As private companies
dedicate significant resources to crop
improvement, issues such as “freedom
to operate” limit researchers’ capacity
to collaborate. When companies control
specific gene constructs, it restricts the
ability of others to make progress.
4) Where will new science come from?
Technology success stories from the
past 30 years often start with someone
having a great idea in his or her garage
or basement. But when it comes to
biotechnology, reports suggest that it
costs life science companies between
$40 million and $140 million to place
seed of a single-trait transgenic crop in
the hands of growers. This means that
lots of great ideas may never see the
light of day unless we develop systems to
support “blue sky” work.
5) How do we reduce the cost of bringing
transgenic crops to market?
One of the
main factors for the expense associated
with seeking approval to sell transgenic
cultivars is the regulatory burden placed
on companies by governments that often
use rules that are not based on plant
biology or scientific evidence.
As users of biotechnology, producers
need to ask these questions, and use their
economic, political and industry influence
to get answers to benefit their operations
and the entire agri-food sector.
There are many interesting opinions
published recently on how transgenic tech-
nologies should be viewed. Two suggested
sources from opposite ends of the spectrum:
Mark Lynas spoke at the 2013 Oxford Farm-
ing Conference and detailed his “conver-
sion” from being one of Europe’s leading an-
ti-GMO campaigners to a supporter of using
molecular biology to improve crops. Mean-
while, food journalist Nathanael Johnson
addressed aspects of plant biotechnology in
26 thoughtful, well-researched installments
for the environmental magazine
Grist
.
My observation is that the thousands
of blogs, articles, papers, books and
speeches on transgenic technologies have
done very little to change how people
view biotechnology. I suspect this is
because neither supporters nor detractors
address the concerns that motivate the
opposition. Bottom line: As with most
important issues there are many shades
of grey when addressing the issue of
plant biotechnology. If you hear anyone
taking a hard line on either side of the
discussion, consider looking elsewhere
for a more nuanced view.
Stan Blade is the CEO of Alberta Innovates
Bio Solutions.
Spring
2014
grainswest.com
45