Modern genetic tools continue to improve. Breeders are using technologies such as marker-assisted breeding, biotechnology and genomics to better measure and understand DNA alterations and thus increase the precision with which changes are achieved. Insect or disease protection through biotechnology are being successfully employed in a number of commercial species, including cotton, papaya, corn and soybeans. Several seed development programs show promise for reducing water requirements and improving nitrogen utilization (to reduce fertilizer need) in established crops such as corn and cotton, as well as in new crops such as switchgrass and miscanthus that are desirable, nonfood feedstocks for biofuels.
Some critics assert that the DNA alterations achieved through biotechnology present unique health, environmental or social concerns that are not posed by the DNA alterations that result from other breeding techniques. But the accumulated experience of having safely cultivated and harvested more than one billion hectares of crops that have been improved through biotechnology indicates otherwise. Further reassurance can come from the development of sound science-based regulatory approaches that focus on the proteins generated by DNA alterations, not the mechanism by which the alterations are created.
It is doubtful that Orville and Wilbur Wright stood on the sands of Kitty Hawk, N.C., and contemplated space travel, yet a mere 66 years later a human nonetheless stood on the moon. With modern genetics, increasing crop yields can provide more food, feed, fiber and fuels without necessarily increasing the need for land, water or fossil fuel, and we should reflect on what the next 66 years might provide. Perhaps with the right funding and incentives, perennial grain crops that would not require sowing each year or nitrogen-fixing grain crops that could drastically reduce fertilizer use might become a reality. More federal funding for plant biology research—currently dwarfed by biomedical research funding, for example—would help. As computer pioneer Alan Kay once famously remarked, “The best way to predict the future is to invent it.”
Note: This article was originally printed with the title, "Breeding Better Crops."
This article was originally published with the title Breeding Better Crops.
See what we're tweeting about
29 Comments
Add CommentHybrid vigor in corn, from what I've read, only appears in the first generation, so seed corn always has to be bred. It would be nice to 'fix' that problem.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is room for improvement by better irrigation and more judicious use of fertilizer, and for the most affluent to rely less on animals fed with grain (as opposed to grass), and make good use of vegetable protein sources. I like the perennial crop idea. We should also try to breed a greater variety of crops as insurance against crop pests and diseases. We should try to make good use of the genetic library that is natural biodiversity.
Natural (epi)genetic changes usually leave genes somwhere within one of the DNA sequences of the parent. There is some natural lateral gene transfer - by viruses (so far as I know) - but presumably this occurs at a slow rate (?).
I think it is reasonable to have some concerns about changing DNA in such ways that leave genes outside the chromosomes (is that how it sometimes works?) or in general to use lateral gene transfer - especially with plants, which generally have a reputation (correct?) for being promiscuous with their pollen - we don't want to put stuff out there without being quite sure that we won't have to recall it at some point, because that will be hard. When a gene finds a new location it could spread to other new locations. Even though, through gene duplications, many different genes (even in the same species) themselves could probably be traced back to ancestral genes, that took time and there has been coevolution over that time.
Some people have concerns about potentially triggering new allergies. (PS off on a tangent, but why are we roasting our nuts so much? (It certainly doesn't do anything for almonds (aside from almond butter), in my opinion.) My understanding is that roasting nuts makes them more likely to trigger allergies - or is that just peanuts?)
I'm not saying I think such direct genetic modification 'is wrong' just because it is 'not natural', but I would have to know more before embracing it in general.
PS There has been concern that some efforts in crop breeding has been to adapt the crops to agricultural practices which themselves are problematic, perhaps not because of lack of other options (??)
"plants, which generally have a reputation (correct?) for being promiscuous with their pollen"...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this... well, that was my impression, anyway. Of course, if this extends among groups of species, then the issue is not with all lateral gene transfer but with transfers across groups that would not normally be expected to have such transfers with much frequency. Unless...? (not enough time to continue with that)
Wow, thanks for the great article, Monsanto! Can we also get Exxon explaining that more carbon in the air will actually improve the climate?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor anyone who cares to get an alternative point of view, watch the documentary "The Future of Food"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.thefutureoffood.com/
@pgoetz Same thoughts here. SciAm, shame upon you. This article contains misstatements the likes of which are inexcusable. The attempt to persuade readers into thinking that modern agriculture needs only a quantitative shift to solve our problems is reprehensibly irresponsible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs this an article, or an advertisement?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Richard Hamilton... is CEO of Ceres, an agricultural genetics company in Thousand Oaks, Calif."
Ah, that answers my question.
I am truly sad to see this article coming from Scientific American. I implore SciAm to issue a retraction on the grounds of the extreme bias and scientific inaccuracies that the other comments have mentioned, or at least quickly write another extolling the virtues of organic and biodynamic farming without the use of industrial chemicals and genetically engineered crops.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease, someone at SciAm, simply search google for "organic farming yield." Among the first several results, there is only one link that agrees with this article, and that one link is to the libertarian extremist site "reason.com" (don't take my word for it, look at some of the other viewpoints reason.com espouses). Unless you believe that google is biased, this suggests a consensus that organic farming is better both in the long run *and* the short run.
If you want an unbiased view of critics of organic farming. See the "controversy" section of the "organic farming" entry of Wikipedia. Two of the most outspoken critics of organic farming are Norman Borlaug and Alex Avery. Borlaug's entire career consisted of developing industrial monoculture practices and promoting them throughout the world. He would be loath to repudiate his life's work at age 95. As for Avery, according to Wikipedia, his employer receives funding from Monsanto, DowElanco, and the Ag-Chem Equipment Company, so it is unlikely he would ever criticize the people who fund his paycheck.
Just saw HydroGeo's comment. Nice catch. Now, everyone email or call Scientific American and get them to retract this article, or at least put a note in it about the author's conflict of interest.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPersonally, I think SciAm should issue an apology to readers for allowing the author's claims to slip through without being fact-checked.
LOL, the author has 137 million reasons to dismiss organic farming. From the author's company's website (http://www.ceres.net/AboutUs/AboutUs-CompOvw-OtherCrops.html):
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Since 2002, we have leveraged our capabilities into traditional row crops, such as corn and soybean, through a multi-year, $137 million agreement with Monsanto."
...oops, I didn't see the fine print that SciAm added about Hamilton being the CEO of Ceres. Still, this is really bad. I worry that people will read this article and not see the fine print at the end and assume that this article has no bias.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seem that this article came out over a month ago, yet only now is the extent of the author's conflict of interest coming to light (the first two comments are from June).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI worry that all the people who read this article directly off of SciAm's website rather than through an RSS feed (which seems to have received the article only just today) may have assumed that the article was unbiased if they didn't see the fine print at the end about the author's financial ties to the industry.
It seems that genetic manipulation of plants and animals is a red flag for some of the commenters to this article. Let us not forget that our pets, garden veggies, landscaping and in fact, ourselves, are the result of human biological engineering. I have no problem with the author's logic and conclusions. I do not see this as an advertisement as some readers do. Until we can control our population, we need to collectively get serious about multiple approaches to producing food, fuel, goods & services while simultaneously nurturing diverse environmental habitats.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisENVME, your argument sounds reasonable on its face. However, animals in the past were "engineered" via selective breeding, and never were raised in vast industrial monocultures. The type of genetic engineering expounded in the article is a vastly different process from the process of selective breeding.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou sound like a reasonable person, so it worries me that you are accepting the author's premise that chemicals and genetic engineering are necessary to achieve high yields. This appears simply not to be the case (just google around and see what people with no financial stake in conventional farming have to say).
I actually used to have the same opinion you had, thinking that people that worried about genetic engineering and conventional farming were a bunch of wackos. I used to mock people like the new me by saying things like "who wouldn't want to eat a cow that's being genetically designed to taste good??"
However, as a computer scientist, I have come to have a deeper appreciation for complexity, such as that which is found in ecosystems. After being exposed to the 'alternative' viewpoints (e.g., The Future of Food, Michael Pollan's books, and numerous interviews with scientists elsewhere), I have concluded that it is vastly more prudent to experiment with these new forms of genetic engineering on a very small scale over hundreds of years or more, and gradually increase their use while keeping a watchful eye out for unintended consequences (e.g., soil depletion, ecosystem disruption, mass extinction, medical problems, horizontal transmission of engineered genes, etc.).
We must remember that the Earth contains a vast variety of different genomes that are necessary for maintaining robust ecosystems. We as humans evolved within these ecosystems, and presumably any drastic changes to them will likely harm us in the long run.
With the current trend toward vast monocultures of designer crops, we are throwing away billions of years of parallel computational work that has effectively been seeking a sustainable solution for life on Earth, as genetic diversity is rapidly being eliminated from our environment.
Brought to you by your 'friends' at Ceres and on behal of the entire industrial ag community Monsanto, Cargill, Pioneer and Ceres .... devoted to, well, their own profits and commercial stability. Scientific American care to divulge any rationale for corporate contributors?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo who in the Scientific American organization works for the Rockefeller Foundation, who funded everything having to do with the obliteration of the American farmer, the South American farmer, the African farmer, the Central American farmer, the Indonesian farmer, the Canadian farmer, the Southeast Asian farmer, the East Indian farmer aka; "the green revolution" and most recently the Iraqi farmer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article is an appeal for more funding to keep this guy from going under. GM must come to an end. It has destroyed our ability to control our own food sources. Now Monsanto, DuPont, ConAg, Novartis, and all the other eugenicists, oh excuse me, geneticists, control what we ingest. Remember what Kissinger said, "Control the food and you control the people" Bravo EU, continue fighting against GMO, don't let these agribusinesses convince you that anything genetically modified is safe.
IT'S NOT! And the biggest lie is that it's saving the world. Its America's turn to do the same can do the same, stand up and speak out against them. Real science and real scientists know that the reductionist theory of Descartes, the distilling of life down to its basic building blocks of DNA, starting over and building it back into whatever shape or form that will make money,for agribusiness and wall street. under the veil of world good is already haunting us. The "ferrying" bacteria, Agrobacterium tumerfaciens, which transfers the herbicide resistance or disease resistance into plants, is now being found in humans creating new disease for eukaryotics, and I mean us What was once thought of as impossible by irresponsible scientists is now probable. Whether its corn, cotton, soy, sweet potatoes, its not natural, its unreal, and its going to come back to haunt us.
linmvy
So who in the Scientific American organization works for the Rockefeller Foundation, who funded everything having to do with the obliteration of the American farmer, the South American farmer, the African farmer, the Central American farmer, the Indonesian farmer, the Canadian farmer, the Southeast Asian farmer, the East Indian farmer aka; "the green revolution" and most recently the Iraqi farmer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article is an appeal for more funding to keep this guy from going under. GM must come to an end. It has destroyed our ability to control our own food sources. Now Monsanto, DuPont, ConAg, Novartis, and all the other eugenicists, oh excuse me, geneticists, control what we ingest. Remember what Kissinger said, "Control the food and you control the people" Bravo EU, continue fighting against GMO, don't let these agribusinesses convince you that anything genetically modified is safe.
IT'S NOT! And the biggest lie is that it's saving the world. Its America's turn to do the same can do the same, stand up and speak out against them. Real science and real scientists know that the reductionist theory of Descartes, the distilling of life down to its basic building blocks of DNA, starting over and building it back into whatever shape or form that will make money,for agribusiness and wall street. under the veil of world good is already haunting us. The "ferrying" bacteria, Agrobacterium tumerfaciens, which transfers the herbicide resistance or disease resistance into plants, is now being found in humans creating new disease for eukaryotics, and I mean us What was once thought of as impossible by irresponsible scientists is now probable. Whether its corn, cotton, soy, sweet potatoes, its not natural, its unreal, and its going to come back to haunt us.
linmvy
So who in the Scientific American organization works for the Rockefeller Foundation, who funded everything having to do with the obliteration of the American farmer, the South American farmer, the African farmer, the Central American farmer, the Indonesian farmer, the Canadian farmer, the Southeast Asian farmer, the East Indian farmer aka; "the green revolution" and most recently the Iraqi farmer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article is an appeal for more funding to keep this guy from going under. GM must come to an end. It has destroyed our ability to control our own food sources. Now Monsanto, DuPont, ConAg, Novartis, and all the other eugenicists, oh excuse me, geneticists, control what we ingest. Remember what Kissinger said, "Control the food and you control the people" Bravo EU, continue fighting against GMO, don't let these agribusinesses convince you that anything genetically modified is safe.
IT'S NOT! And the biggest lie is that it's saving the world. Its America's turn to do the same can do the same, stand up and speak out against them. Real science and real scientists know that the reductionist theory of Descartes, the distilling of life down to its basic building blocks of DNA, starting over and building it back into whatever shape or form that will make money,for agribusiness and wall street. under the veil of world good is already haunting us. The "ferrying" bacteria, Agrobacterium tumerfaciens, which transfers the herbicide resistance or disease resistance into plants, is now being found in humans creating new disease for eukaryotics, and I mean us What was once thought of as impossible by irresponsible scientists is now probable. Whether its corn, cotton, soy, sweet potatoes, its not natural, its unreal, and its going to come back to haunt us.
linmvy
I agree with the other commenters--this is disgraceful! The article should be withdrawn with apologies. It drastically undermines any "scientific" credibility SciAm possesses.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho wants to ingest "Roundup-ready" crops that have already caused a 15-fold increase in the amount of herbicide used in the US since 1996? "Roundup-ready" means that the Roundup, absorbed by the plant, is IN YOUR FOOD.
GMO crops have been found to have significantly reduced male fertility in Africa, leading locals to conclude that the US is conducting biological warfare against Africans.
Fight back--buy organic. Our children's lives are at stake.
Does it make you angry that SciAm let this article through, and allowed the author to state false premises as a matter of fact with no proof?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs my earlier comment slowly gets buried, I just want to reiterate my request.
Everyone who is upset that SciAm published this article, write the editor an email to tell them how you feel. I have already written them myself.
History tells us that human agriculture creates deserts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn a world less populated it was possible to desert a beautifully built city and move on to build another one in a more favourable environment. Of course the fertility of new farms decline and we have to move on again.
Then we invent fertilisers, capture and kill dozens of foreign people sacrifice them to a deity and use their blood to improved soil quality and enhances output - it worked for a while.
Then we invented chemical fertilisers, greater food output for a while, but they kill off all the worms, bacteria and fungi in the soil, more deserts and foods lacking in essential minerals, normally released from inorganic soil by bacteria. Don't forget to take your mineral supplement.
Now we come up with a new genetically modified crops to prop up an unsustainable population of homo sapiens. More human sacrifices.
Sixth extinction here we come.
It appears to me that we have the fanatical right who do not believe in evolution, and the fanatical left who do not believe in modern agriculture. I think fanatics tend to mislead themselves, but often they raise concerns that should be addressed. We all have biases, even scientists. Trying to get at the truth despite our biases is hard work.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisImproving agricultural yields leaves us more land free for environmental causes. Sustainability will be a constant concern, but sustainability is tricky to determine. I suspect that organic production will prove less sustainable than modern agricultural practices, but objective data is scarce on this subject.
Everette, I can't really respond to your argument when you simply refer to us organic farming proponents as 'fanatics', compare us to people who don't believe in evolution, and then somehow use that assertion to claim that we don't have our facts straight.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThink about the logic of your argument. You claim without proof that we are fanatics, and you conclude that what we say is wrong because we are fanatics. First, cautioning against widespread ecosystem destruction is not fanatical, thereby negating your premise. Second, even if we were fanatics, the conclusion that this implies our facts are wrong is a non-sequitur, thereby negating your causal link as well.
I will note that you, like a few other commentors, are accepting the author's false and financially biased premise that organic farming has lower yields. This premise is simply not proven, and in fact most evidence suggests that it is wrong. It's just a claim that is promoted by people with interests in conventional farming. I think your comment shows that these special interests have unfortunately succeeded in making many people believe that we can't live without conventional agribusiness.
Please do some research about organic farming yields. I think you will find like I did that the few studies that impugn organic farming are tainted by financial bias. Additionally, I feel that you don't fully understand the threat of conventional farming practices.
Please at least watch the Future of Food and read the Omnivore's Dilemma. Both are very entertaining, and I think quite fair.
What about that recent report that claims traditional plant breeding has increased crop yields much more than bioengineering? http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/science/failure-to-yield.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was once told by an Indonesian agronomist that the GreenRevolution was a disaster for many rice farmers, as the new breeds lacked �food value�. A nebulous concept? Soon after, I experienced what he meant: I used to go to workshops at Susun Weed�s farm in upstate NY. I was astonished at the immediate reduction in food that I, and most of the participants, ate during our stays. The reason, according to Susun, was that all her food was from near-by organic farmers and thus rich in �food value�. Now, I grow my own food, and check its ripeness/readiness with a Brix meter. I use both organic and non-organic methods, both heirloom and hybrid seed. Never GM junk .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe answer is better, not BIGGER, crops.
Everette Hartzog:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen you talk of increasing crop yields are you suggesting the use of chemical fertilisers?
If you are here are the side effects of using chemical fertilisers. They kill off all the worms, bacteria and fungus in the soil. Initially the decomposition of these creatures increases yield, but once the carbon has been consumed, we need to use more fertiliser. Go to any field where chemical fertilisers have been used and try to find an earthworm. The worms and micro-organisms in the soil release mineral and other trace nutrients which we need. You have to eat a lot more of these foods and never feel satisfied, you just develop into an obese individual.
Fertilisers are also water soluble compounds, they sink into the soil and eventually the roots of the crop cannot access them, but they keep sinking and eventually end up in the water table and cause salinity.
So called modern agriculture also ploughs fields and leave the soil exposed to sunlight, now sunlight instead of being photosynthesised into sugars is heating the soil and oxidising its carbon. Don't you think it would be better to allow anything to grow on that soil and then slash it and grow your crop on this natural fertiliser?
The land used for agriculture must also remain sustainable, you can not demarcate bits of land for unsustainable use.
Finally the primary cause of all our problems is the current population explosion. Control population and everything will fall into place. We will even become better Homo sapiens since our interactions will be less abrasive. Population pressures make us aggressive. Now you know why country folk are nicer people than city smarts.
Biotech firms here yet again claim that they are working mainly to feed the world's 976,000,000 starving. This is hard to believe as the US and EU agricultures both get massive subsidies which ruin third world agriculture. To feed the world's poor requires no massive investment in agricultural technology. All that is needed is for individuals in developed countries to reduce their consumption of beef by 75%. That will liberate enough cereals and plant proteins to totally eradicate starvation. We eat too much meat for our own good anyway.....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisManipulating the genetic material of plants sets the stage for an infinite number of unintended consequences which will accrue to our descendants who are not here to defend themselves. Why can't all this research go into figuring out how to find a balance of life in agriculture? Why not pursue organic agriculture? Why stay with monoculture, which has been discredited for so long, as anyone who has ever grown roses too close together in one garden knows first-hand? There's no money to be made by encouraging sound agricultural practices. There's only money in fertilizers and pesticides. I guess I just answered my own questions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a brilliant overview of world agriculture, which discusses both problems and prospects of agricultural production..However, it does not address the issues of the developing world, how they get deprived of the fruits of the highly commercilaised agricultural research and how best this isssue be addressed.....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a brilliant overview of world agriculture, which discusses both problems and prospects of agricultural production..However, it does not address the issues of the developing world, how they get deprived of the fruits of the highly commercilaised agricultural research and how best this isssue be addressed.....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this