Plant Biotechnology as Time Travel?

(This post first published on Science 2.0, 8/29/12)

In the last few months there have been two examples where we have seen brand new biotech crops that are tolerant to relatively old herbicides. It feels a little bit like time travel.  Dow AgroSciences is developing 2,4-D tolerance trait for corn.  That is an herbicide which was first released in 1946.  Monsanto is developing a dicamba tolerance trait. That herbicide was first commercialized in 1967. Both have recently moved to the USDA comment period stage for their regulatory status.

Ok, going back 46 or 67 years isn't as exciting as traveling through space and time in, say, Dr. Who's Tardis (above), but it is an interesting phenomenon for agriculture.

As a 57-year old, I'm gratified that technologies of my general vintage are still relevant for agriculture.  But what is the deal?  Why are we talking about such old products?  What does this tell us about biotechnology, chemistry, and science in general?  I'd say several things:

• Plant biologists are practical realists who anticipated resistance issues
• A more diverse weed control "Toolbox" is always a good thing
• Some old chemistry is actually very good chemistry
• Its hard to find good, new herbicides

Plant Biologists Are Practical Realists Who Anticipated Resistance Issues

In a bit of  "time travel" of my own, I recently found a clipping from the 10/24/1996 Wall Street Journal that a friend had snail-mailed to me as people did in those days.  It was a very comprehensive article about the first big year of biotech commercialization, and it included the following passage:

 "...some scientists worry that chronic use of these types of crops might hasten the evolution of even tougher insects and weeds."  

That was something already being discussed in the mainstream press in'96.  Weed scientists anticipated glyphosate resistance development in weeds well before that. This is because, as biologists, they understood that some weeds have become resistant to almost all control strategies over time.  That is just the biology of putting a selection pressure on a diverse genetic base.  The dicamba resistance trait story is a good example of this sort of awareness in action.

One of those scientists, Dr. Donald Weeks of the University of Nebraska, began looking for a solution long before there was really a problem in farmer's fields.  I first heard about his work seven years ago, and by that time he had already identified a gene from Pseudomonas maltophila which could allow rapid metabolism of dicamba, engineered it into soybeans, and demonstrated that it conferred tolerance in the field. This took many years of effort which was followed by years of additional work by Monsanto after they licensed the technology from the University. Monsanto has also collaborated with BASF, the German agricultural chemical company, to develop new formulation technology for the old herbicide to deal with its volatility issues.

There has been much written on the blogosphere implying that glyphosate tolerant, "super weeds" are some unexpected and terminally detrimental down-side of biotech crops.  Fortunately both the academic and business entities involved with agriculture understand the perennial struggle with weeds, and have been proactively innovating to respond.

A More Diverse Weed Control "Tool Box" Is Always A Good Thing

Last week I emailed several prominent weed scientists and herbicide resistance experts to ask what they think about things like the dicamba and 2,4-D resistance traits.  I promised that I wouldn't quote them individually specifically to see if they would want to express concerns that might be controversial.  They all said that these new herbicide resistance traits are potentially good options to add to a more sophisticated weed management system.  They acknowledged that there are some weeds already resistant to each herbicide and some limited cross-resistance between them, but their bottom line was that these could be valuable new tools for growers if used properly.  The grower community has a good appreciation of the need for new tools.  There are also plenty of warnings being sounded about the need to be careful not to mis-use the new options.  In these cases, the tool box is being expanded by allowing existing herbicides to have new uses.

Some Old Chemistry Is Actually Very Good Chemistry

There are scores of products from the pre-EPA era of dicamba and 2,4-D that have either been banned or voluntarily withdrawn from the market as we have made great advances in both the environmental and health risk assessment of chemicals.  These two products are from the short list of "survivors" of this process, which means that they have been repeatedly scrutinized and still found to be acceptable.  Both have low mammalian toxicity.  The fact that they are still useful herbicides also suggests that they have not, like some chemistries, selected for resistance too fast in too many species.  These are essentially old work-horse chemicals that have proven their value.  They are long-since off patent, but both have volatility issues that have since been addressed by new formulation technologies.  Even so, no company has a lock on these markets, so their upcoming use is not an example of a biotech trait that provides any biotech company with a monopoly on the sale of a related, chemical product.

Its Hard to Find Good, New Herbicides

It has been 22 years since I was directly involved in the discovery process for new, synthetic agricultural chemicals, but I know how much research investment it takes to find those leads.  Recently, I have been amazed at the number of new fungicide and insecticide classes that have been found which are amazingly "soft" from both an environmental and health perspective. I'm impressed with what the discovery companies have accomplished here.  There have been some new herbicides discovered over those years, and even of late, but not nearly as many as with insecticides and fungicides.  It just seems to be difficult to find new herbicides.  In any case, this is one of the reasons that old standards like dicamba and 2,4-D still need to play an important role in practical weed control.

Conclusion

So, it is a fascinating scenario that chemistry from the 1940s to 1960s might become an even more important part of weed control decades later.  The significant challenge of feeding a growing and economically advancing world population requires on-going research in many fields.  It also requires the all important role of the grower who ultimately integrates a wide range of tools to improve productivity and sustainability of the farming enterprise.

You are welcome to comment here and/or to email me at savage.sd@gmail.com

Tardis image from Duncan Hall (Cradlehall)

6 More Reasons To Vote No On California Prop 37

I’ve posted a blog about why GMO labeling is basically illogical.  If you take the time to read the actual proposition, there are at least six more reasons that proposition 37 on the California ballot this fall is a really bad idea that voters should reject.  

1.    This is asking for something that is a great deal harder than it sounds.

Almost all GMO crops are commodity grains.  To understand what labeling these crop ingredients means means, think of a river.  When it rains, little rivulets of water begin to run off of the ground, and then combine into small creeks.  These combine to make streams that eventually combine to make a river. By the time the water is in the river, it is so mixed that you could never know which drop came from where. The commodity grain industry is much like that river.  Many fields are harvested using the same harvesters and grain wagons (see first image above). That grain then goes either to a grower's silo or to a local elevator, which combines the harvest from many farms and fields.  

The grain is later moved in things like 110-car freight trains or giant barges or ships, which again mix various sources. Along that path, some of the grain is processed into ingredients for human food, while most of it goes to animal feed. 

Along this complex, but highly efficient path, there is so much mixing (“co-mingling” in grain-speak) that a question like, “did this come from a GMO or non-GMO field,” is impossible to answer.  In all those steps, keeping GMO and non-GMO grain separate is inefficient (e.g. different harvesting equipment, partially filled trucks, dedicated bins, paperwork…).  That makes it costly.  It would also be very difficult to prevent a little bit of onetype of grain out of the other because a little can be left behind in a harvester, truck, bin, etc.  In theindustry that is known as “adventitious presence.”

The 0.5% threshold specified in the legal text of prop 37 would be highly problematic from a practical point of view. Considering that biotech traits are used in a very large percentages of the soybean, corn, canola and sugar beet crops, it makes much more sense to allow something that has been expensively segregated to be labeled “non-GMO,”as is already the case. 

2.    This initiative would create a field day for lawyers.  If this initiative is passed, anyone who wants to can take acompany to court if they think they are selling unlabeled GMO foods.  They don’t need to go to any governmentagency with oversight  - just straight to court.  There don’t have to be any damages in question.  The courts are also allowed to award the accusing party compensation for courtcosts and for the costs of investigating the food in the first place.  Given the practical challenges described above, this initiative would create a thriving litigation industry for exactly the kind of lawyers who wrote this proposition in the first place.

3.    This initiative would effectively restrict the use of the marketing term, “natural.”

Any foods which are even minimally processed (e.g. milling of wheat to make flour) cannot be marketed as “natural” under this potential law unless they are either specifically tested for GMO status or come from a highly segregated channel complete with an audit trail and sworn affidavits.  That would even be true for foods made from crops that don’t even have commercial, biotech traits.  Thus, unless a food is certified Organic (specifically exempted in this initiative), it becomes expensive and legally risky to call it “Natural.”  Arguably, the marketing term “natural” is over-used, but the answer to that isn’t to create an uneven playing field through a proposition that is promoted for a completely different reason.

4.    It will be virtually impossible to fix any unintended consequences of this law.  This initiative is designed to be difficult to change.  It says that if any part is stricken in the courts all the remaining sections are in force.  Even worse, it requires that any changes require a 2/3 majority in both houses of the legislature –something that is highly unlikely based on the extreme polarization of California politics.  If we pass this initiative, we will likely be stuck with it no matter what expected, or unanticipated problems it creates.

5.    This is another example of the California initiative system being gamed by special interests from out of state.  It is common for special interests to use the Californiainitiative system by paying people to collect signatures and then buying advertisements.  This has nothing to do with the original concept of a grass-roots, citizen-driven process.   In this case the major fundingcame from the notorious food-fear merchant, “Dr.” Mercola, and also from some of the Organic food companies that employ distorted, negative descriptions of non-Organic food topromote their products.  It was also driven by activist lawyers who stand to gain financially.  The initiative is being promoted as a common sense requirement for consumer benefit.  Common sense should actually drive California voters to follow the money.

6.    It is worth asking, “why do farmers like these crops so much?” There is a bit ofa spoiled child flavor to statements like, “hey, I’m the consumer so I shouldget any information that I want.” We who actually depend on farmers for something as non-optional as foodshould at least ask, “why are GMO crops so overwhelmingly popular with any group of farmers with who has ever been given the opportunity to grow them?”  Farmers that manage to stay in business in that risk-laden enterprise do so by making rational economic decisions.  Biotech crops are something that has made good business sense for them, and by extension, a less costly and more reliable food supply for consumers.  If this initiative has the disruptive effect on the food system that its writers are hoping, we may discover the downsides of ignoring the interests of people on whom we depend.

 If you are a scientist, you can add your name to a petition against proposition 37 that has been organized by university and foundation researchers.  Its not just industry scientists (like myself), who are opposed to prop 37.  Its people who understand the science and its benefits.


You are welcome to comment here or to email me at savage.sd@gmail.com

Credits:

Corn combine image from bohnsack

ship image from 62518797@NO4

Train image from RoyLuck

Silos image from spiesteleviv