Farmers vs. consumers and the public debate Blog Entry 3

Difference between Fortuna and Innate:

The main difference of this potato compared to Fortuna is obviously its consumer-friendly characteristics. This potato has two different generations, the first one has modified genes that induce a non-bruising effect and therefore fewer waste along with less acrylamide, which is believed to be a carcinogen [1]. The potato is therefore “nicer”, with less bruises and less waste and theoretically also ealthier for consumers. So we can easily say that the big difference is that this GMO potato focuses on consumers aspects instead of farmers probably in order to get more accepted by the former. The second generation of the Innate potato add two more characteristics: lowered reducing sugars and resistance to late blight (like the Fortuna). Furthermore they’re more efficient in their first traits (they reduce acrylamide up to 90%) [3].

As a farmer would I grow Innate?

As a farmer I guess I would react exactly as I did for the Fortuna, this means that it would depend on the costs associated with the growth of this GMO and my reluctancy to buy patented seeds for both ethical and economical reasons. However those are my opinions and of course, as a lambda farmer, certain wins are made by the lesser losses due to waste and therefore an economical gain. I guess then I would try to compare the prices of the seeds with the potential gains and see if it’s worth it.

As a consumer, would I buy it?

As a consumer, I’m sure that I would never buy such potato in full knowledge of the facts. Again this decision is lead by my very strong opinions on the GMO matter. The reasons are that first of all Acrylamide forms at elevated temperatures in cooking [2], i. e. especially in fried food so instead of changing genes, why don’t we change our cooking habits? Moreover, Acrylamide is carcinogenic in mice and rat when given through water or other means but “epidemiologic studies of workers for possible health effects from exposures to acrylamide have not shown a consistent increase in cancer risk” [1], i.e. probably that the concentration to be toxic for human is far beyond normal exposure, moreover compared to all other substances that might be carcinogenic. And even so I totally assume the risks encountered with the intake of Acrylamide. Many industries just play with fear of people to sell or develop things and this Acrylamide reduction is surely one of those. Human beings are absurds in their dealing of fears and desires. If you are afraid of dying, stop driving your car or smoking before buying potatoes with reduced Acrylamide. And, of course, I don’t care if my potato looks nice or not, since I know it actually has almost nothing to do with its nutritional quality.

What about GMO foodstuffs in general?

I wouldn’t buy any GMO plants. I do think that humans are part of the evolution of life on earth and that GMO is actually a way to quicken this evolution (in a way or another) but I also feel that we already have quite a few exponential matters to deal with (I don’t think I need to name them) so I’m not particularly in a haste to fasten evolution.

Do clear consumer benefits would have changed the debate about GMO?

I do think that, since consumers are easily influenced (me included), it would definitely have changed the debate if we had directly aimed them. However one of the strong argument against GMO would have still remain, which is the reluctancy of the common run of people to play with life or to play God, either because of fear, jealousy or belief.

What about new research plants? How to advertise them?

Eventhough it is a very fascinating subject I really intend not to work in that field. I guess I would agree to do some research just for the knowledge, but since I know that research is hardly done only for that it would prove difficult for me to find any convenient job, especially in Syngenta or Monsanto.

References:

[1] J. E. Klaunig, «Acrylamide Carcinogenicity,» Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, vol. 56, n° 15, pp. 5984-5988, 2008.

[2] E. Tareke, P. Rydberg, P. Karlsson, S. Eriksson et M. Törnqvist, «Analysis of Acrylamide, a Carcinogen Formed in Heated Foodstuffs,» Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, vol. 50, n° 17, pp. 4998-5006, 2002.

[3] https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/01/14/fda-approves-gmo-potatoresists-blight-caused-irish-potato-famine/

GMO as a mean to reduce late blight Blog entry 2

GMO as a mean to reduce late blight

There are different mechanical ways of reducing phytophthora infestans, such as controlling volunteer plants and destruction of potatoes wastes in waste heaps. The destruction of infested plants is of course crucial but means generally that it is already too late. Keeping a slow cultivation shift is also a way to avoid spreading through oospores. Chemical control through spraying of fungicides is one of the main control method in conventional agriculture. However this has a heavy impact on the environment. In organic farming, biological control could be a good way to avoid fungal infections as mentionned by Pal and McSpadden [1]. Finally growing resistant varieties is of course a good way to control the disease pressure of P. infestans.  

Among the different methods for conferring fungal resistance, or any kind of genes, in GM plants, one happens by the mean of soil bacterias, namely the Agrobacterium tumefaciens. A lot of different studies, such as the one by Fillatti et al. shows that A. tumefaciens is a good vector for gene transmission [2]. The fungal resistance is first inserted into the DNA of this bacteria. The DNA of the bacteria is then naturally transmitted to the plant DNA during plant infection, leading to the integration of the fungal resistance gene in plant tissue. Since not all the cells are infected by the bacteria, different selections are possible to isolate resistant cells. Another method is the high speed bombardment method where the specific gene is directly “bombarded” into the plant cells. This method was used for the papaya gene mutation.

One of the advantage of using the gene of the close relative Solanum bulbocastanum is that those are cisgenes, which mean that they come from a relative with which the potato can naturally crossbreed. Also you don’t have to tamper them, the gene can come along with its native promoter and terminator [3]. Fortuna was genetically modified because with classical breeding it would have taken much more longer to develop the resistance and it would have come with other undesirable characteristics, such as poor agronomical properties (coming from the wild potato species). Bridge cross would also have benn needed, making crossbreeding challenging [3].

Apparently, BASF encountered a wide public opposition to their project of growing Fortuna in Europe. They had asked cultivation and marketing approval from the EFSA in Europe in October 2011 but they stopped GMO development in Europe in 2012 and moved to US, due to the tougher opposition and regulation in the EU. The fields were destroyed by activists and public opinion feared that it would harm health and biodiversity.

The swiss moratorium forbids to cultivate GMO in Switzerland until 2021 [4]. However if it was possible I’m still not sure I would cultivate Fortuna. Basically I find it good to avoid having to spray fungicides over potato cultivations and I’m aware that Fortuna is not a threat for the environment since potato plants don’t grow naturally here. However for ethical reasons and my unwillingness to share the patenting of life allong with the binding costs that I would have to pay to the agricultural industry I would refuse to build such potato.

References

[1]	K. K. Pal et B. McSpadden, «Biological Control of Plant Pathogens,» The plant health instructor, Ohio State University, 2006.
[2]	J. J. Fillatti, J. Kiser, R. Rose et L. Comai, «Efficient Transfer of a Glyphosate Tolerance Gene into Tomato Using a Binary Agrobacterium Tumefaciens Vector,» Nature Biotechnology, n° 15, pp. 726-730, 1987.
[3]	T. STORCK, T. BÖHME et H. SCHULTHEISS, «Fortuna et al. Status and perspectives of GM approaches to fight late blight,» Editor H.T.A.M Schepers, St. Petersburg, 2011.
[4]	O. f. d. l. OFAG, «Rapport sur les résultats de la procédure de consultation relative à la modification de la loi fédérale sur le génie génétique (Intégration des résultats du PNR 59 et des régions sans OGM) et à l’ordonnance sur la coexistence.,» Confédération suisse, Berne, 2015.

4.2 Growth media: Synthetic or natural compounds? Blog entry week 08-11/2017

-Which are the main impediments for Bamboo multiplication?

Bamboos propagate naturally in two different ways: either through seeds as sexual reproduction or by culms or rhizome as vegetative propagation [1]. One of the main impediments for bamboo is that sexual reproduction through seeds is not fix and can take place every ten years or more, making it very seldom [2]. Moreover is the reproduction followed by death of the plant and seeds have a short viability, therefore leading to precarious spreading conditions [1]. Vegetative propagation through offset cuttings of rhizome or culms can be used but are not efficient enough for extensive multiplication. Given those characteristics, an in vitro multiplication of Bamboo for a large scale production makes sense and studies on this matter have been undertaken, for instance by Venkatachalam et al.

- Which measures can be taken to establish an efficient in vitro propagation system?

To establish an efficient in vitro propagation it is necessary to have a good starting material, for example a proven seed of the chosen specie. This material must be thoroughly disinfected to avoid any bacterial or fungal contamination prior to cultivate it on a chosen media. To chose this media, systematic experimentations are made with different concentrations of chemicals, hormones and plant growth regulators to find the best media corresponding to each stage of desired growth (i.e. shoot bud initiation, multiplication, regeneration, etc…). After germination, nodal explants are used for shoot bud initiation and then multiplied on chosen media. Once the multiplication is successfully done, a hardening and acclimatization are necessary before transferring the plants to the field.

- Cocos milk or similar natural compounds seem to be effective ingredients for in vitro cultures. Are there any disadvantages too?

Coconut water contains among other substances cytokinines, auxines, leucoanthocyanines and bioactive enzymes which have growth regulatory properties, making it a very useful compounds to promote cell division and rapid growth during shoot multiplication [1, 3]. However at higher concentration it can have an inhibitory effect and can cause vitrification of the roots [1]. Therefore concentrations have to be measured to know the concentration that will vary from one plant to another.

References:

[1] P. Venkatachalam, K. Kalaiarasi, S. Sreeramanan, Influence of plant growth regulators (PGRs) and various additives on in vitro plant propagation of Bambusa arundinacea (Retz.) Wild: A recalcitrant bamboo species. Journal of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (2015) 13, 193–200

[2] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bambou

[3] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eau_de_coco