Music

>> My name is Pam Raymon assumed spelling I'm a professor at the University California Davis and I study the role that genes play in the response to the environment.

Music

>> I am very interested in the natural world and very interested in food and the world's food supply so rice is a very important staple food for half the people on this planet. 25% of the worlds rice is grown in areas that are very prone to submergence and we think of rice as growing in water which it does but if it's completely submerged for more than 3 days most rice varieties will die. My laboratory works on tolerance to stress and disease and so we have many different plants in the greenhouse, most of them are genetically engineered rice plants that carry different genes that we have identified that we believe can help the plant be tolerance to stress and disease. We use modern molecular approaches to isolate the gene encoding that trait and then the group in the Philippians used breathing approach to introduce that gene into varieties that are favored by farmers in Bangladesh and India. So those new varieties that were developed survive for 2 weeks under water and this is very important and it's expected to affect the livelihood of millions of farmers in these areas. We certainly need to radically rethink agriculture as it is today. We are still using too many toxic inputs and we still do not have fantastic ways of controlling losses to diseases, pests, and stresses so really the future of food is to provide seeds and farming practices to those farmers that are going to be feeding the world.

Music

==== Transcribed by Automatic Sync Technologies ====

 
Reply to Story

SmartPlanet TalkbackShare your ideas and expertise on this topic

Subscribe to this discussion via RSS

  •  
    1

    mjxguerra

    02/01/10 | Report as spam

    RE: Radically rethinking agriculture

    While I applaud the zeal to feed the world, the reality of genetic modified crops is that they are produced by comapnies that wish to control seed, and hence control the market. It is appalling to think that before the big agrochemical companies moved in there were many thousands of locally adapted rice and wheat varieties grown. Now there are only dozens, and nearly all of those require chemical fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides to produce a decent yield. The promise of higher yields are never delivered, as the farmer is effectively made dependent on the poisons pedalled by the corporations, while his net yield (yield minus costs) plummets. Everyone loses except the corporate shareholders (and bankers!). Well done Pamela, for developing underwater rice, however I doubt it is a technology that underwater farmers will ever be able to afford.

  •  
    2

    littletony11208@...

    02/02/10 | Report as spam

    RE: Radically rethinking agriculture

    This country was a strong international producer of wheat, sorghum and other cereals; Chinese entrepreneurs visited farms there and paid exceedingly well for present and future soy harvests with which they?d feed their cattle; immediately most of farmers dedicated to soy; result is that now the country has to import wheat for their bread. Could you kindly ask Pamela to invent some tolerance for the Argentine pathologically sunken intelligence?

  •  
    3

    sambalamex

    02/04/10 | Report as spam

    Some parts of the world would experience the opposite problem!

    Longer drought seasons affect other staple foods like maize in Mexico. What could be done about this?
    I like the approach of the Land Institute because with perennial crops the soil is protected from erosion and the root system is able to develop further! I reckon a deeper and intricate root system will be able to manage more efficiently water and nutrients from the soil.
    Could we engineer our food to grow on trees, or engineer the plants into tree like organisms?? How did trees evolved to become trees?

  •  
    4

    co-eddy

    02/09/10 | Report as spam

    carlinuxlearner

    "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is."

    Now, even though this sounds great, we need to know what effect does it
    have on the actual rice?

    Is it any less nutritions? Can our bodies still digest it and use it
    like they do "normal" rice? What are the side effects? Just because it
    is "stronger" and is able to resist water for longer doesn't mean it's
    good for US.

    Those are the things we need to know, because if the rice is no longer
    what it used to be, growing tons and tons of it, won't help.

  •  
    5

    moxion

    02/09/10 | Report as spam

    Congrats for the prowess but skeptical

    Can Africa afford this new rice?
    Is it garanteed that this new rice won't replace "regular" rice in Western markets? (GM sugar beet did replace regular sugar beet in N. America which is utterly outrageous and dangerous).
    Are we sure this GM rice won't affect our own DNA over time (over generations of feeding from same rice)?

    Until these questions don't get scientifically-backed independant answers, I'll remain very skeptical.

  •  
    6

    aware_ofyou

    02/09/10 | Report as spam

    RE: Radically rethinking agriculture

    So far all GM products were designed with the idea to monopolize the market. These presentations are show-off to delude you with "good" intention to feed the world, but what they are indeed you will know when you get a bunch of side effects labs cannot see yet, or simply do not to see at all.
    Look at their focus. Monsanto sued and pressed farmers who refused buying thier GM seeds. Once seeds are GMed they are patented. No single farme is allowed to keep GM harvest for next year, they are forced buying all the time for next seasons.
    Look how wins here?
    That is all conditioning of what people have to eat. With the food they will control your health=future. Think what you eat and what you choose twice. Wake UP!

  •  
    7

    mikifinaz1@...

    02/09/10 | Report as spam

    The human race is too smart to survive...

    Short term smarts... long term too stupid to survive.

  •  
    8

    ddgeekgrrl@...

    03/02/10 | Report as spam

    RE: Radically rethinking agriculture

    I would love to see independant<\b> scientists given access to these gentically modified seeds (any and all of them, not just the rice). Co-eddy's questions echo those of a good chunk of the world, and those questions deserve answers.

    While feeding the world is a laudable goal, foodstuffs that turn out to be toxic in the long-run must be avoided at all costs. It is my understanding that no controlled, independant, long-term human health study has ever been done on the impact of GMO foods. Seems foolish when all our lives may depend on it.

    I also agree with the posters who pointed out that these seeds are used to monopolize markets, and drive out competition (read up on Percy Schmeiser versus Monsanto).

    I think we have taken the wrong approach. We assume these modified organisms are safe, until proven otherwise ... then prevent the research to allow proof to be made. We should assume these GMO's are dangerous, and force proof of their safety.

    ... And label each and every one, so that people in the grocery store can vote with their wallets!

  •  
    9

    Dr_Zinj

    03/11/10 | Report as spam

    Direct genetic modification of food plants is a bad thing in the long run

    Only because the business men and women in charge of the companies rush to deploy without sufficent testing and careful consideration of undesireable side effects.

    Case is point is Montasano and their wheat and corn products. They failed to account for spread of their product through normal fertilization and destroyed many farmers by their thuggish, Orwelllian and totally unfair prosecution of those farmers. Additionally, these genetic manipulations are crossing over into the wild, producing super weeds which even the enhanced plants can keep up with.

  •  
    10

    softwareFlunky

    03/12/10 | Report as spam

    All you're doing is helping to over populate the planet.

    These people need to be re-educated to make less babies before increasing their food supply.

The following tags are supported in Smartplanet comments:
<b></b> <i></i> <u></u> <pre></pre>

Leave a Reply

  1. Name: You are currently: a Guest |
advertisement

Quick Poll

advertisement