And where are the foodies on this one? I did a search for this on the site with the name of the winner, Dr. Gebisa Ejeta, and not a word from the regulars.
Do you wonder why? You should.
Let me tell you about the life and work of this scientist that you probably haven't heard yet. This is someone who is responsible for a remarkable success in African agriculture.
Ethiopian scientist named 2009 World Food Prize Laureate
Gebisa Ejeta of Purdue University developed drought- and weed-resitant sorghum, enhancing food supply in sub-Saharan Africa
With a hat tip to the Agricultural Biodiversity Weblog, I learned about the selection of Gebisa Ejeta for the World Food Prize this year. Ejita is a plant geneticist from Purdue. This video isn't particularly informative (scientists are not great at video production, I'm afraid), but you can see Dr. Ejita involved in this work.
Born in Ethiopia and educated there and in the US, Dr. Ejeta has been working on the problems of agriculture in Asia and Africa for decades. One of the major problems he tackled was associated with sorghumfarming. Sorghum is a major crop with many uses for those who grow it. However, drought was a huge problem for yields. From the summaryat the World Food Program we find a variety he developed by conventional breeding was very successful:
His Hageen Dura-1, as the hybrid was named, was released in 1983 following field trials in which the hybrids out-yielded traditional sorghum varieties by 50 to 100 percent. Its superior grain qualities contributed to its rapid spread and wide acceptance by farmers, who found that yields increased to more than 150 percent greater than local sorghum, far surpassing the percentage gain in the trials.
So this is someone who understands the needs of farmers and deeply understands plant breeding.
Another major problem for sorghum, though, is nicknamed witchweed--but is officially called Striga. This is a dreadful plant that can be devastating to farmers--here's how Ejeta described it in a recent paper (Ejeta, Crop Science, 47:S-216-S-227 (2007):
Striga infestation is most severe in eastern Africa where invasion by the parasite is expanding at an alarming rate, often resulting in total crop losses annually on many farms. Expansion of Striga infestation has also increased in West Africa. The Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) of the United Nations estimates that annual crop production in the savanna regions of Africa alone accounts for US$7 billion with significant negative impact on the food supply of over 100 million people (Mboob, 1986). The impact of Striga in these regions is compounded by its predilection for attacking crops already under moisture and nutrient stress, conditions very acute in these regions and getting to be prevalent in much of the semiarid tropics. There is growing evidence that the Striga problem is worsening raising it to a growing pandemic and presenting a desperate problem to small subsistence farmers.
So it was a bad problem and getting worse. With increasing stress from climate change--what direction do you think that was going to go?
This is someone who gets plant breeding. He did it successfully before, right? But Striga resistance was intractable in that way. Some people will tell you all plant problems can be resolved with conventional breeding. Those people don't know what they are talking about.
Using the techniques of biotechnology, a solution for the Striga battle was developed. Again, let's hear from Dr. Ejeta in that Crop Science paper:
The LGS gene mapped between two flanking markers, ISSR617 g and the restriction fragment length polymorphism marker PIO20025BamH1, at 7.9 cM and 5.7 cM, respectively. To map the LHF gene, a subset of 122 F2:3 families from a cross involving P78 and Shanqui Red was used for phenotypic and genotyping characterization. Simple sequence repeat (SSR) marker TXP358 was identified to associate with the LHF locus at a map distance of 7.5 cM. A large set of advanced backcross progenies from a cross involving P47121, the hypersensitive response parental wild sorghum line with a susceptible sorghum cultivar were used to map the HR factor. The HR locus was found to be at 7.5 cM and from SSR markers TXP96 and 12.5 cM from marker SBKAFGK1 (Ejeta, 2005).
You don't need to understand the details here--but techniques of biotechnology were used in this research. In fact, a nice collection of many of the strategies around this problem were compiled in this book edited by Ejeta and Gressel: Integrating New Technologies for Striga Control.
The good news is this (also from the World Food Program Laureate page summary):
With financial support from the Rockefeller Foundation and USAID, they developed an approach integrating genetics, agronomy, and biochemistry that focused on unraveling the intricate relationships between the parasitic Striga and the host sorghum plant. Eventually, they identified genes for Striga resistance and transferred them into locally adapted sorghum varieties and improved sorghum cultivars. The new sorghum also possessed broad adaptation to different African ecological conditions and farming systems.
Some people will argue whether or not this means it is technically a "genetically modified organism" or GMO, or Genetic Engineering (GE). However, scientists in this field believe that it is genetic modification. But for this discussion, it doesn't matter. The point is that the techniques of biotechnology are clearly used to solve these problems.
What does the winner of the World Food Prize think about the value of science on the problems of agriculture in the world? From his recent testimony before Congress we have this (PDF):
Science and Technology: It is essential that science be affirmed as the primary vehicle of change for economic development. The successes of U.S. agriculture, the Asian Green Revolution, and the few nuggets of change in Africa are evidence that science-based development offers not only a way out of hunger and poverty, but also leads to prosperity. Life altering changes will continue to require scientific innovations that raise productivity and income. Recent advances made in the biological sciences offer exciting opportunities for addressing some of the most intractable agricultural problems prevalent in the tropics.
This excellent testimony has much more information that would help you to understand the issues around agriculture in Africa. Like all responsible scientists, Ejeta does not say there is only 1 solution--despite what anti-GMO activists want you to think. He lists many issues from education to infrastructure that contribute to the problems as well, as progressive scientists understand too.
However, anti-technology activists want you to prevent scientists like Dr. Ejeta from getting support for this work. Here are some examples of that:
Blog posts like those and other articles floating around the blogosphere are absolutely misrepresenting the legislation at issue, S.384, Global Food Security Act of 2009 (PDF). The statement in the bill that has bees in their bonnets is that this bill shall:
include research on biotechnological advances appropriate to local ecological conditions, including genetically modified technology.
A few points here:
- "biotechnological advances" is broad. Some anti-science forces will use this as an excuse to attack any modifications that came via lab techniques--like those you saw above.
- "appropriate" is stated. As I mentioned, no responsible scientists think there is 1 solution for everything. Only activists who want to polarize the debate make those claims--that everyone will be forced to buy GMOs from which only come from Monsanto. This is flat out false.
- "genetically modified technology" could include Ejeta's work. Do you really want to stop that? Do you think you understand the scope of the work in this field enough to prevent this type of work from proceeding? Who makes that call? Jindal? Palin?
In a comment thread recently someone asked me why we aren't hearing about this kind of research by academics. There are several reasons. Anti-GMO activists want you to believe that all GMOs are evil and all belong to Monsanto. Of course this is false. Further, researchers in this field are often reluctant to talk about their work because theyor their projects can be victims of violence because of it. Additionally, plant research is dramatically underfunded compared to human navel-gazing research, IMHO. More barriers to this research would not be in the best interest of the planet.
But you don't have to believe me. Let's hear from the bill's author:
Bill doesn't mandate use of GM technology
People quoted in Philip Brasher's May 17 column, "Biotech Portion of Foreign Aid Bill Draws Criticism," make incorrect allegations against the Lugar-Casey Global Food Security Act, namely that the bill requires that U.S. foreign assistance go for genetically modified (GM) agricultural technologies and that the provision was designed to benefit U.S. agribusiness.
The bill does not mandate the use of GM technology by any farmers, implementing partners, or government agencies. It does not condition the receipt of food aid on a recipient country's adoption of GM. The use of any technology is left to individual farmers based on their particular circumstances....
The bill permits the use of science. It does not mandate it.
You may be asked soon to call your representatives to protest this legislation--please consider the full story before you do that. And you may decide that you don't want any biotech science supported--that is your call. I would ask you to consider whether you really want that. Many of us were pleased to see science returning to it's proper place in an administration.
You may weigh the evidence of professional food bloggers and that of professional scientists and decide. I encourage you to ask for the evidence, of course. Don't believe everything that is written on the internet.
+++++++++++++++
Disclaimer: I do not know Dr. Ejeta and he has no knowledge of this diary--this work is my own based on publicly available information sources. I do not now--and never have--worked for Monsanto, Cargill, or any of the other players considered to be BigAg. I am not deriving any income from traffic to any of the links within this diary.
+++++++++++++++