Issue link: https://read.dmtmag.com/i/787641
www.goodfruit.com GOOD FRUIT GROWER FEBRUARY 15, 2017 9 "Now we have this elegant process in which we can take one gene and insert it and voila … Now we have a pink pineapple and Arctic Apples that don't brown. So what?" McFerson said. "The question is, when do we deploy these resources and who is going to pay for it?" McFerson and many other scientists see GE tech- niques as neutral tools — not inherently good or bad. They see tools that can offer benefi ts or create problems, depending on the specifi c application. There are situa- tions where GE is ideal. You can add disease resistance to an already popular cultivar such as Chardonnay grapes or Honeycrisp apples. Or you can protect a species like papaya from a destructive virus when there is no known resistant relative from which to crossbreed. But in specialty fruit, innovation is focused on high quality fruit — unlike commodity crops where GE has focused on horticulture. Developing strong new varieties still depends on the art and science of cross-breeding. Genetic tools such as the ability to test for a specifi c trait are making the process faster and more strategic, but what makes an apple taste delicious appears too com- plex to be controlled by a few genes. That's why, despite the promise of biotechnology, McFerson says he's most excited about the work of RosBREED, the effort to use advances in genomics to inform better crossbreeding. "We still need to be humble and recognize that we don't understand the genomics of many traits," McFerson said. "The science (on GE) is clear that the benefi ts and the detriments are all overblown." In a major report on genetically engineered crops last year, the National Academy of Sciences pointed out that any new food crop — GE or conventionally bred — could have its own specifi c consequences on nutrition, the environment, or on the economic system in which it's grown. Moreover, the same novel trait, say increased resis- tance to pests, can now be introduced into a crop through both conventional and GE techniques. For example, the process of using radiation or chemicals to cause muta- tions and then selecting plants with benefi cial mutations for breeding has been done for decades and is consid- ered by regulators to be conventional and organic. But there's more unknown genetic changes created through this method than most GE techniques. That's one of the reasons why the National Academy of Sciences advocates for a regulatory process that focuses on the products — the crops themselves — rather than the technology that creates them because the scientists are innovating far faster than the regulators. And emerging analysis tools will also help assess the safety of new crops. Scientists are fi guring new ways to analyze everything that's different about a GE crop. Soon, they will be able to compare not just the DNA but every- thing it encodes that creates a plant: proteins, enzymes, metabolites. If the difference in the new GE crop is minor and unlikely to raise risks, that crop could be approved more easily than one that's substantially different, the National Academy proposes in its report. Currently, the use of some emerging GE techniques on crops may not fall under U.S. Department of Agriculture's purview. The agency's authority is based on old-school techniques that used plant viruses to deliver new DNA into crops. Today, gene editing techniques can be done with no foreign DNA. That's enticing to biotech companies but a big concern for GE opponents who want stricter regulation. The Food and Drug Administration also consults on the safety of new GE foods. It bears repeating that no human health consequences have been found in hundreds of studies on the handful of commercialized GE crops. But even as scientists do their due diligence to assess health and safety of new crops, social and eco- nomic questions will remain. Do growers and consum- ers want them? Vocal opposition from certain groups remains high — as comments on goodfruit.com stories about Arctic Apples have shown. But recent surveys show that while consumers want GE foods to be labeled, many may not really understand much about them. For example, a 2015 study found that while 82 percent of people wanted to see GE foods labeled, 80 percent believed that all food containing DNA should be labeled as well. That lack of understanding can be embraced as opportunity — educate consumers as to why your GE apples are safe and benefi cial and they'll buy — or inter- preted as a warning to steer clear until public perception improves. "Really on a practical level, it's a marketing question. You can argue until you are blue in the face about what's 'natural.' The products may be indistinguishable, but the process is important to some people," McFerson said. So what does this mean for growers? Will they be able to continue to dodge GE questions by growing conven- tionally bred varieties or will the power and precision of emerging tools mean that biotechnology will be creeping into all breeding? Some might say it already is. • "We've been having these discussions for decades, predictably, because of the continuum of these technologies. The current technology was unthinkable two or 10 years ago, and we can't imagine what the next technology will be." —Jim McFerson Results prove that applications of Stimplex increase tree fruit production and support the ability for young fruit to grow and better hold on to the tree. In fact, well-timed, regular applications of Stimplex are vital to maximizing the genetic potential of your crop. Get Stimplex in your mix today. Contact your local crop advisor or Acadian representative. 1 800 575 9100 | INFO@ACADIAN.CA | ACADIANSEAPLANTS.COM ©2017 Acadian Seaplants Ltd. Stimplex is a registered trademark of Acadian Seaplants Ltd. Here comes the Bloom. Get set with Stimplex. ®