Two long write-ups in top-tier publications this week not only provide intriguing information in a solidly neutral tone but do it in dramatically different and instructive ways. The topic is development of crops with novel and distinctly improved genetic traits. Monsanto comes up in both. But the central topic is not that old standby – genetic engineering or GMOs – for starting fierce, spittle-blowing arguments among usually civil people. Nope, it's about the discovery of traits that one prefers in various strains of a given crop and breeding an improved, distinct combo the old fashioned way – by cross breeding them and selecting for further breeding the ones that come closest to the goal.
- Wired – Ben Paynter : Monsanto Is Going Organic in a Quest for the Perfect Veggie; Snappy headline – too snappy. True, Monsanto is expanding its crop selection and breeding program that is basically old fashioned except for all the technology it uses to spot and identify desired characteristics in starter stocks and intermediates as they go through generations of lab-optimized reproduction. But it is not inherently organic, not in the manner of the greenie-talk "chemicals are bad" world that never internalized what chemistry is, not to mention what organic chemistry is all about. The story is a solid and stylish look at a controversial corporation's strategy to create commercial seed lines without resorting to the transgenic GMO maneuvers that repel many customers and regulatory agencies around the world. This story hits one false note up high, but one in keeping with the sensibility of the market place. The author writes "But here's the twist: The lettuce, peppers,and broccoli … aren't genetically modified at all." Of course they manifestly are genetically modified by explicit design. That's what old fashioned breeding does. It alters genomes. Paynter's text by the way refutes that headline – he specifically writes that the results could be called organic and locavore too but only if one kept them "away from pesticides and transport[ed] them less than 100 miles."
- Scientific American – Ferris Jabr: Creating Tastier and Healthier Fruits and Veggies with a Modern Alternative to GMOs ; Jabr starts his yarn off in much the same intimate vignette style as Payner did at Wired, but steers clear of Monsanto until well deep into the story. So while this one may not get the instant response from readers, the one that says "read me," it is a stronger piece and deals far better with the aspects that matter in the long run. Which is to say that by harnessing modern biotech and genomics tools to identify gene markers tied to traits one wishes to manipulate in the greenhouse, some pretty wizard crops are coming along and without the political-emotional baggage that, for many, consigns all GMOs to the devil's market basket.
Anybody interested in modern agriculture, food supply, and good eats should read them both.
Synchronicity Dept: Mr. Jabr's story picks the breeding of hot peppers for his opening vignette and recurring narrative line. That includes hopes for a flavorful, totally mild habanero aimed at the market as the habanada, ka-ching. As it happens, the piece has come out just as an international consortium announced sequencing of the hot pepper. It is in Nature Genetics (see UC Davis press release). We'll see who makes the faster work of turning this into better, spicy (or not spicy) condiments – the modern plant breeders, or the free-spirited gene jugglers who live under the cloud of GMO skepticism.
By the way, the tip to these two stories came from Jabr at Scientific American, where he is on staff as an editor. But he just said, in effect, take a look at these stories on similar topics in Wired and SciAm. He didn't tilt the pitch – it took me awhile even to realize he wrote one of them.
TBjorkman says
This article contains one communication problem that I’d like to warn my fellow scientists about and alert science journalists to. When GMO opponents use the term “genetically modified” it means “transgenic”. If your first response changes their meaning to the literal scientific meaning, then you have effectively ended the conversation. You have to engage with what they mean (and indeed the most conventional definition of “GMO”.)
That is, if someone expresses concern about GMOs, and you have information your would like to share with them, one of the worst things you can say is “We have been genetically modifying plants for a long time.” While you are literally correct in saying that, you have also ended the conversation and reduced the likelihood of any productive exchange. Here’s why:
First, the person expresses fear or concern about something that you are involved in, and you have just told them that the situation is far worse than they realized. The concern will only intensify. Second, you can’t engage someone by changing the issue at hand; it is your responsibility to find out what the nomenclature means to them and engage that idea.
Third, claiming that transgenic technology is not different from conventional breeding is hypocritical after two decades of plant scientists touting the awesome power of genetic engineering to revolutionize crop improvement. The two processes are different in many ways, and it is necessary to be honest about that.
I spoke with Mr. Jabr for the online SciAm article, and we discussed some of these points. I really appreciate of his work on this subject. The print article appears in the July 2014 issue of Scientific American.
Thomas Björkman, Dept. of Horticulture, Cornell University