" GM " Potato trials!

[Two_Sheds]

GM isn't meant to help feed people or any other noble pursuit. It's patent-protected ownership of food itself.

I totally agree. It is also of great concern that countries & companies are buying up large parcels of land in Africa: they aren't doing it to feed Africans that's for sure

" international agribusinesses, investment banks, hedge funds, commodity traders, sovereign wealth funds as well as UK pension funds....attracted by some of the world's cheapest land... Since 2008 Saudi investors have bought heavily in Sudan, Egypt, Ethiopia and Kenya. Last year the first sacks of wheat grown in Ethiopia for the Saudi market were presented by al-Amoudi to King Abdullah"

source: How food and water are driving a 21st-century African land grab | Environment | The Observer

[matthew2riches]

I say go for it and see what happens. It is all enclosed and if the worst happened, I think there would be minimal risk. Its not like they are making robots that could take over the world

[Flummery]

As a person who is using the old fashioned breeding methods with vegetables, I really wish there were enough plant biologists left who knew how to do this. It seems they all work in labs and do stuff with microscopes now.

About 12 years ago Himself and I went with a couple of botanists, one from Hull and one from a Scottish university, to do some surveys in Scotland. The two very highly qualified botanists were hot on pollen identification in the lab on microscope slides. What they couldn't do was look at a parch of land and tell you what the plants were! They collected mud from the bottom of small tarns to tell, from pollen, what the landscape was like thousands of years ago. They needed two amateur field botanists to tell them what plants were growing there now. I think it's sad and potentially dangerous.

[Guttata]

Yep, that's what they've done with the spuds: Prof Jones said: “We've taken ...blight resistant genes from wild relatives of potato. We're going to put them into the field to see if they're still resistant.”

Thanks TS with no link in the first post I was going by what is said in this thread. Sounds interesting and atleast is not in the same league as some of the splicing stories we have heard.

It's those that worry me not those hat could be done through selective breeding but only more slowly than splicing and cloning..

BS that is also of concern. Especially when they put a type of sterility coding into the crops so poor farmers can't save a percentage of their seed for the next years sowing as they can with current varieties.

TS that is a different topic in itself. They are buying the land to feed their people as they don't have enough farmable land themselves. It's not something I agree with, but it is a separate issue to the GM one.

Did anyone see the things about global food supplies with Jammie from the farm series? What is done for us in the name of the supermarkets is pretty much the same. Food that is edible is thrown away, yes thrown away the people working there can't take it home to eat, because it doesn't look perfect. The only upside atleast the land wasn't being bought by our government.

Watch the food factory thing on iPlayer and you will perfectly edible bananas are thrown away because they were considered too ripe. Some of them were still green.

This is a chicken or egg situation. Do the supermarkets follow our trend for "perfect" fruit and veg or do we go for it because they decided it is what we want?

[shirlthegirl43]

I think the Sarpo varieites prove that proper breeding methods can provide blight resistant crops so why bother with the GM trial.

[Capsid]

I think the Sarpo varieites prove that proper breeding methods can provide blight resistant crops so why bother with the GM trial.

They are too floury for me.

[BigShot]

Guttata... very true. The prevention of seed-saving is a major reason why I argue GM is about the wholesale ownership of food.

Capsid... from the article I linked earlier:
"When Sarpo was first trialled as a members experiment by HDRA (now Garden Organic) some people reported that the spuds were flowery; we have never found that and think it is down to over cooking! We find that Sarpo is an excellent all rounder, steamed, baked or roasted so do not be put off by what you hear."

That's not an attempt to comment on anyone's culinary talent but it's a thought.

Tastes in flouriness aside, the point is that incredible blight resistance is very much achievable with selective breeding. GM is completely unnecessary (true in general, but especially so with spuds versus blight) even without getting into food patenting and health/safety concerns.

I was going to pop in a Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall quote here as I think he summed up the argument against GM in a very clear and convincing way, but instead I'll give a link to the 2003 article I originally read (in his Hugh Fearlessly Eats It All book - which you should read - because it is brilliant).
Genetically modified crops? Not in my backfield | Life and style | The Observer

[Guttata]

I think the Sarpo varieites prove that proper breeding methods can provide blight resistant crops so why bother with the GM trial.

Speed. Conventional selective breeding is time consuming before it goes to trial, GM is faster and gets you to the trial stage quicker too.

It is when they go to completely unrelated species GMing that I have a problem, along with the previously mentioned sterility thing, as it is just wrong. When it is to do with related species that could be cross bred conventionally it is fine in my opinion.

[BigShot]

Guttata, what if the patented species breeds out with a conventionally bred one? The hybrid will contain patented genes and the biotech company will in all meanings of the word "own" it.

Also on the safety front - if you're not familiar with it, read the GM Potato Controversy section on this page Árpád Pusztai - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It concerns a cross-breed between unrelated plants but the relevant bit is this... (control) Potato, (control) Potato mixed with Lectin and (test) GM Lectin-producing Potato. The latter caused severe gut problems in rats while the controls did not. In short, GM crops are not merely the sum of their parts.
He was publicly discredited for his work, but the paper had been peer reviewed several times before release. It was a top-down smear campaign which came from some very powerful biotech and political figures.

Biotech scientists know about as much about genetics as I knew about fireworks when taking them apart and trying to make new ones as a kid. They've got the basic understanding of what does what, but when putting them back together again they are making it up as they go along.

[Bramble_killer]

Guttata, what if the patented species breeds out with a conventionally bred one? The hybrid will contain patented genes and the biotech company will in all meanings of the word "own" it.

Interestingly, Craig Venter tried to patent his sequences and he's not being allowed. I'm not sure it would apply to plant species too.

I'd start a debate about what you've been saying about scientists but I fear you have already made up your own mind and won't be open for discussion.

[SimonJFoster]

Hi everyone,

I'm a scientist at the Sainsbury Laboratory involved in this project. Very nice to see our work getting some discussion here. I'm very happy to answer questions anyone may have about our field trial and the development of the potatoes.

We have a Q&A sheet about the trial available here: Late Blight Q&A (pdf version also available from that page)

If you're interested we have also just posted up a YouTube video describing how a GM potato is developed: YouTube - GM potato to reduce agrochemicals

I'm happy to discuss here (although accept apologies if I can't get back to you straight away) or you can always email any questions you may have to this email address: blight-trial@tsl.ac.uk

Simon.

[BigShot]

BK - What Venter is coming up against doesn't change the fact that biotech companies such as Monsanto have patented modified species and filed lawsuits against farmers when those modifications have shown up in samples stolen from their fields regardless of how they got there. The arguments around this issue are done to death and far too long for a forum though.

I'm not saying anything about scientists but plenty about our abilities in gene manipulation. Scientists have brought us things as simple as handwashing in hospitals (thanks especially to Holmes, Semmelweis and Pasteur there) to the understanding of nutrition, anesthesia, the powerful medicines that allow us to combat both physical and mental illness and much more besides.
My problem lies with those (scientist, businessman and politician alike) who advocate GM in spite of the ill effects on health, food security, biodiversity and the lack of knowledge about long term effects.


Simon - Could you start by explaining why there's a need to use genetic modification when selective breeding is capable of producing extremely high levels of blight resistance as demonstrated in Sárpo varieties Una, Shona, Axona and Mira and the moderate to high resistance in varieties like Blue Danube and Kifli (also from Sárvári)? If the Sárvári family have been able to produce such robust varieties as these in 40 odd years (much of that post-communism), why aren't we putting our energies into that rather than into the potentially dangerous and politically fraught arena of GM? In this thread accusations have been made about greed, I find it difficult to see another motivation. If you could shed light on that issue it would be a good start.

I think it's time I stepped out of this thread though, I don't think much will be said that I'll be able to respond to without repeating myself and so I'll continue to read and take a back seat.

Cheers folks (not bad, getting stuck into the GM debate with so few posts to my name).

BS

[Hilary B]

I don't like anything about GM, not least because of the number of wonderful scientific discoveries of the past that have turned out to be two-edged swords. If anything GM has such drawbacks, it's genie that won't go back in the bottle, and is liable to directly impact the environment. We haven't got a spare one of those!
Spuds are on a shortlist of least hazardous things to modify, because while they do produce flowers, we don't grow the seeds (except when trying to produce new varieties) so growing them for field crops is a bit less dubious than most.
I'd still rather get resistant varieties the old way!

[SimonJFoster]

Hi BigShot,

There are many facets to this so apologies in advance for the lengthy post.

Firstly I just want point out that as scientists we are certainly not of the opinion that it should be a case of 'the GM-way or no-way'. We are fully supportive of the work that David Shaw at the Savari trust has done in bringing the Sarpo varieties to market and we follow it with great interest. As home gardeners ourselves we are very aware of the value in the diverse potato varieties available and almost all of us involved in this project have a keen interest in growing some of the heritage varieties that are thankfully available due to the interest and efforts of home gardeners. As consumers ourselves we are also keenly aware of the value of breeding new cultivars to offer variety in taste, cooking quality etc. However, with respect to blight resistance, there are different ways of achieving the same aim and we believe that every tool available to use should be employed to achieve this aim.

Yes, breeding can produce resistant varieties - indeed this is what happened over 50 years ago when breeders identified blight resistance in the wild South American potato Solanum demissum and spent many many years crossing this into cultivated potato to produce many of the varieties that are available in supermarkets today. The Sarpo varieties arose from a similar breeding strategy although the exact source of the resistance has unfortunately become unclear in the process.

Obviously it is therefore also possible that the resistance we have identified in another wild South American species called Solanum venturii could be bred into a European-adapted potato in a similar manner. However, even with repeated backcrossing to the original cultivated variety (say Desiree), we would not end up with a potato that resembled Desiree, it would still retain some characteristics of the wild species (be they skin colour, tuber shape, size, texture, taste, earliness, lateness etc etc).

The potato market is very conservative, most industrial processors and potato handlers have equipment that is geared up to handling tubers of a fairly narrow range of size, shape, texture etc. Herein lies the problem, it would cost these industries huge sums to change their plant to accommodate varieties with different physical characteristics (and the same applies to the food producers who use particular varieties for their final product, McCains, BirdsEye etc.). Similarly, consumers are conservative in their tastes, the potatoes with the largest market share have the largest market share because they are favoured by consumers. It's a matter of taste, if Sarpo was to the taste of everyone it would be a huge success (not that it isn't a success, I believe its market share in the domestic market is increasing).

What the GM option offers is the ability to transfer the single gene which confers the valuable resistance into whichever variety the market desires, without changing any other characteristics of that variety. So following the Desiree example to its conclusion, you end up with a potato that is in every other respect the same as Desiree, tastes the same, cooks the same, can be handled by processors the same, but is also resistant to late blight.

Should the resistance in Sarpo eventually breakdown (will happen, late blight is a very adaptable pathogen) it would be possible then to use GM techniques to transfer the resistance we have identified into Sarpo, thereby not wasting the huge efforts that have gone into breeding a potato that people do like. I'm not claiming that our resistance is the be and end all either, this also will eventually be overcome by late blight. However, if we have a handful of blight resistance genes available in our 'armoury', we can simply deploy another resistance gene without reinventing the wheel again and breeding another variety each time.

[SimonJFoster]

In this thread accusations have been made about greed, I find it difficult to see another motivation.

Greed is a strong word to use. I don't think there is anything wrong in companies wishing to make a profit from their activities. Increasing late blight resistance will benefit many; farmers will be able to produce a crop more cheaply (and yes, more profitably, would anyone deny them that?), consumers will benefit from cheaper produce and the environment will benefit from less chemical being applied to the crop and lower carbon emissions arising from fewer tractor trips to apply sprays.

If the accusation of greed is levelled at whichever company markets the potato, don't forget that farmers are amongst the most savvy people out there, they will not buy a potato that does not provide them with cost benefits. If the cost of the resistant variety is not substantially cheaper than the cost of growing their existing variety and simply applying fungicide every week, then they will not buy it.