DroughtGard – The Green Revolution Goes On

A Perfect Coincidence

Just three years after Norman Borlaug passed away in 2009, I was excited to read an article in the Wall Street Journal by R. Paul Thompson titled “Seeds of Hope for the Dry Midwest—and the World/Monsanto's DroughtGard corn and other genetically modified food may also be an environmental boon.” (Subscription necessary) published on 9/9/2012.

This article coincides with one of the severest droughts since the Dust Bowl in the Midwest of the US. I think, I also read there were so far few farmers who used this product at the time of this drought.

An Exciting New Development Of The Green Revolution

As Mr. Thompson writes “Rising world-wide affluence, particularly in countries such as China and India [ca. 2.2 billion population together], will place ever greater demands on food production and, in turn, on water resources.  … [a] gene from the bacterium Bacillis subtilis is inserted in the DNA of corn; the resulting plants tolerate drought more effectively and require less water in non-drought conditions.   . how to produce food using less water, fewer pesticides, herbicides, and synthetic fertilizers.” (Emphasis added). [This is what this is about, more food with less water, drought tolerance is only a welcome side effect.]

What the author did not specifically say in this article, but which I have read elsewhere is that there are unmodified plants in nature which have the natural capability to resist droughts. So why should we not copy or apply this capability to other crops?

As the author points out in his article, this is a brand new development at the very beginning. Thus, I am sure, this new technology will be improved and made safe like so many others before.

In my opinion, humans are perhaps only decades away from producing our daily food without planting and harvesting plants like humans have done for several millennia.

Union Of Concerned Scientists Reacts

This article by Mr. Thompson has immediately elicited critical responses by this Union of ‘independent’ scientists. On 9/16/2012 a letter to the editors of the WSJ titled “Drought-Resistant Corn Is Oversold” appeared written by Doug Gurian-Sherman.

Same person also wrote a blog post titled “A Less Thirsty Future Through Engineered Crops?” regarding the above WSJ article on the blog of this Union published on 9/13/2012.

He is also the author of study published by the Union titled “High and Dry/Why Genetic Engineering Is Not Solving Agriculture’s Drought Problem in a Thirsty World” published June 2012. I think, based on the subtitle of this study, the author is confusing something: the purpose of genetic engineering is not to solve a drought problem.

Mr. Gurian-Sherman is listed as an Expert and works for this Union and he previously worked for among others for EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) and FDA (US Food and Drug Administration). “Dr. Gurian-Sherman holds a doctorate degree in plant pathology from the University of California at Berkeley.” I wish that Mr. Borlaug, a Ph. D.  in plant pathologist himself, and Mr. Gurian-Sherman could have had a little chat.

So much attention from this Union, there must be something good about Monsanto’s DroughtGard.

Mr. Gurian-Sherman writes in the last paragraph of his above letter “While Monsanto and its competitors have struggled to overcome inherent technical difficulties with genetic engineering—such as unintended gene interactions that can make crops less valuable—more mature farming practices and technologies, including organic and other ecology-based farming systems and advanced breeding techniques, have delivered far more with far less investment. These promising but often neglected technologies, not genetic engineering, deserve increased support.” (Emphasis added). Do I detect that this ‘independent’, concerned scientist has some kind of bias?

He also warns us in blog post that biotechnology like “The backers of nuclear power claimed it would become “too cheap to meter” after it was rolled out more than half a century ago. Nuclear power is still expensive, and still faces big technological hurdles such as the disposal of nuclear waste. And after Fukushima, we are less sanguine about its safety as well.” (Emphasis added). Well to compare biotechnology (or more specifically Monsanto’s DroughtGard) and Fukushima is cheap demagoguery. Was it not this Union and other so called concerned scientists who have for decades vigorously fought against civilian use of nuclear power?

In the above blog post, the author writes (just a few selective excerpts):

1.       “Thompson ignores the part of our report [“High and Dry”] that examines why the technology faces significant challenges in addressing drought. These include unanswered questions about complex and unpredictable interactions of engineered genes with the rest of the workings of the crop that may result in undesirable tradeoffs in crop properties.” (Emphasis added).
[Uh, sounds scary! That is what ‘independent’, concerned scientists do for a living, scare the s**t out of us, right? Had humans always been so scared we would still be living in caves.]

2.       “… we also need to understand whether it [biotechnology, genetic engineering] may be compatible with justice and fairness.”.
[Well, when scientists get near “justice and fairness”, we have to pay extra attention. Is this a study by the Union or an opinion piece by an individual?]

3.       “Finally, he compares GE [genetic engineered] food to GE medicine, expressing exasperation at the greater acceptance of biotech drugs. But these two applications of biotechnology present very different benefits. Medicine is a choice, and we may accept serious side effects because the alternative may be more dire. Food is a daily necessity, and when our food supply is inundated by GE, our choices become limited.”
[Now, that is an interesting argument. So what if GE medicine is partially based on plants? So he does not mind the risks potentially involved with GE Medicine, but is opposed to GE food? Starving for hunger is a choice too, right? The author and his followers are free to plant any food free of GE to have more choices. In short, this argument is bizarre.]

Don’t Trust Concerned Scientists

These scientists are perhaps concerned, but these are most likely not your concerns.

Why did I waste so much effort writing about the responses by the Union of Concerned Scientists? Simply, to demonstrate how biased scientists operate and that we all should take the words of so called ‘independent’, concerned scientists with a huge grain of salt (“The phrase [cum grano salis or correctly a addito salis grano] comes from Pliny the Elder's Naturalis Historia, regarding the discovery of a recipe for an antidote to a poison.” according to Wikipedia).