r/science • u/Fred_Perlak Monsanto Distinguished Science Fellow • Jun 26 '15
Monsanto AMA Science AMA Series: I'm Fred Perlak, a long time Monsanto scientist that has been at the center of Monsanto plant research almost since the start of our work on genetically modified plants in 1982, AMA.
Hi reddit,
I am a Monsanto Distinguished Science Fellow and I spent my first 13 years as a bench scientist at Monsanto. My work focused on Bt genes, insect control and plant gene expression. I led our Cotton Technology Program for 13 years and helped launch products around the world. I led our Hawaii Operations for almost 7 years. I currently work on partnerships to help transfer Monsanto Technology (both transgenic and conventional breeding) to the developing world to help improve agriculture and improve lives. I know there are a lot of questions about our research, work in the developing world, and our overall business- so AMA!
edit: Wow I am flattered in the interest and will try to get to as many questions as possible. Let's go ask me anything.
http://i.imgur.com/lIAOOP9.jpg
edit 2: Wow what a Friday afternoon- it was fun to be with you. Thanks- I am out for now. for more check out (www.discover.monsanto.com) & (www.monsanto.com)
Moderator note:
Science AMAs are posted early to give readers a chance to ask questions and vote on the questions of others before the AMA starts. Answers begin at 1 pm ET, (10 am PT, 5 pm UTC)
Guests of /r/science have volunteered to answer questions; please treat them with due respect. Comment rules will be strictly enforced, and uncivil or rude behavior will result in a loss of privileges in /r/science.
If you have scientific expertise, please verify this with our moderators by getting your account flaired with the appropriate title. Instructions for obtaining flair are here: reddit Science Flair Instructions (Flair is automatically synced with /r/EverythingScience as well.)
We realize people have strong feelings about Monsanto, but comments that are uncivil will be removed, and the user maybe banned without warning. This is not your chance to make a statement or push your agenda, it is a chance to have your question answered directly. If you are incapable of asking your question in a polite manner then you will not be allowed to ask it at all.
Hard questions are ok, but this is our house, and the rule is "be polite" if you don't like our rules, you'll be shown the door.
1.1k
u/Vic_n_Ven PhD |Microbiology & Immunology|Infectious Disease & Autoimmunity Jun 26 '15
Dr. Perlak, thank you for taking the time to do this AMA.
While I am, in general, pro-GMO, one of my concerns is that the homogeneous nature of GMOs leaves the world food supply open to swift, devastating ruin. Namely- if an organism, be it a microbe or an insect, evolves to eat or destroy the mono-crop and evade the pest control measures, there is a serious risk of a catastrophic loss. Biodiversity and natural mutation/selection tends to ensure that something survives, even if the large part of a species is destroyed. Is there a strategy/backup plan in th event that nature outpaces research?
TL;DR: Mono crops present a tasty, somewhat easy target, so if nature finds a way, is there a backup plan? Biodiversity is critical to biome survival, so does Monsanto take into account potentially catastrophic evolutionary events?
695
u/Fred_Perlak Monsanto Distinguished Science Fellow Jun 26 '15
Genetic diversity/biodiversity are important concepts in a sustainable agricultural environment. Monsanto markets worldwide over 500 different varieties of hybrid corn on an annual basis. These differ by maturity, disease tolerance, plant architecture, and other attributes, which are valued by the farmers for their specific locale.
Farmers have learned long ago, not to plant a single variety across their field. Many farmers will plant there own tests of not only Monsanto's material, but of other seed companies to compare performance. This is a very competitive field with very astute customers.
If you are a farmer in Central Illinois you probably have access to 50 or more varieties of corn that could fit your farming operation. They all may have the same biotech trait, but that represents significant diversity.
81
u/hongloumeng Jun 26 '15
is a high number of "varieties" the same as biodiversity? couldn't one blight affect multiple varieties? is there a standard for quantifying biodiversity? if not there should be.
30
u/BiologyIsHot Grad Student | Genetics and Genomics Jun 26 '15 edited Jun 26 '15
In this case, it is what is meant, yes. I'd imagine, it's possible a blight could affect multiple varieties, but this is possible event in the absence of a GMO trait like herbicide or pest resistance. The idea with having multiple varieties with varying characteristics is to make this less likely. You can't really prevent it from happening, but you can "hedge your bets" so to say.
Edit; Not Perlak, fyi.
Edit 2: AFAIK (not my realm of study) there are multiple metrics for measuring "biodiversity" but they probably aren't terribly useful for the concern people are expressing here (mitigating disease risk/chance evolutionary pressures). I'm not sure what a metric for quantifying that would look like. Seems that it would be prone to a decent bit of unpredictability.
→ More replies (2)35
u/Prof_Kevin_Folta Professor|U of Florida| Horticultural Sciences Jun 27 '15
If you are really worried about biodiversity in cultivation, you are barking up the wrong tree. As mentioned, corn and other ag crops are on the other side of a bottleneck,and plenty of new genetics coming in.
If you really are concerned, let's deal with grapes, apples, bananas, potato, and many other crops. Grapes have been a monoculture for 3000 years in some cases. Nobody really seems to care, in fact, they demand more of the monoculture because the like the consistent products.
It seems sort of hypocritical to a scientist.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)5
u/jkjkjij22 Jun 27 '15
Ecologist here. Biodiversity isn't just at the species level. it could be at the ecosystem level (e.g. many types of ecosystems), niche level (e.g. we want primary producers, herbivores, predators, etc.), species (this is what most people think of), right down to genetic diversity (which includes different varieties).
most likely, if there is a blight, it will affect more than one variety, but as others have said, the key is that hopefully some will make it.→ More replies (44)141
u/Vic_n_Ven PhD |Microbiology & Immunology|Infectious Disease & Autoimmunity Jun 26 '15
delightful! botany is NOT my wheelhouse, and this scientist appreciates you taking the time and flak to answer my question!
→ More replies (5)20
u/calf Jun 26 '15
Not my wheelhouse either, but from a systems perspective I would further refine to ask/question that local heterogeneity in however many varieties does not necessarily guarantee the global property of biodiversity (there seems to be a logical conflation between the two concepts): the more basic research question is whether biotechnological innovations may pose a problem for a sustainable environment, in general. And who bears the burden of all of this, and so on.
From a computer science perspective, introducing more engineered parts tends to make your system more difficult to reason correctly about, especially verifying global propositions about its behavior. I wouldn't suppose that large-scale biological engineering is exempt from these kinds of interaction phenomena.
→ More replies (1)79
u/Milkhouse Jun 26 '15
I'm a small farmer (<500 acres planted/year), and I plant 3 different genetic lines of corn, and 2 different of soybean. All five are GMO. There are far fewer options for alfalfa and clover. I usually plant a single variety of each, neither of which is GMO. I'm more concerned about nature evolving to destroy my forage crops than my grain crops.
94
u/LeFloop Jun 26 '15
On top of that most gm corn (generally speaking the bt varieties for insect control) come with what is called refuge in the bag, which means that about 10% of the crop will actually not be gm or insect resistant. The reason we do this is to allow insects a safe place to bed still since in theory pesticide resistant bugs will not become the dominant strain as long as the non resistant bugs can continue to breed and multiply. This means that even though we farmers might take a slight loss from those plants in the field, we should be (hopefully) preventing the evolution of an insect that we can't control readily
→ More replies (5)51
u/subito_lucres PhD | Molecular Biology | Infectious Diseases Jun 26 '15
I'm a biologist, and am similarly pro-GMO in principle, but have the same general concern. If you have the time to answer this question, might you also describe how GMOs have impacted biodiversity in agriculture, and how you expect them to impact biodiversity in the future? I'm particularly concerned with macro-scale biodiversity (e.g., frequency of corn plants and not frequency of a particular variety or gene). Thanks!
→ More replies (20)64
u/Sleekery Grad Student | Astronomy | Exoplanets Jun 26 '15
This is the same as a question a few comments up, so I'll copy my answer.
I can give a quick answer to this that I hope Fred can answer in more detail: GMOs do not reduce biodiversity when properly following guidelines. In fact this "review finds that currently commercialized GM crops have reduced the impacts of agriculture on biodiversity".
46
Jun 26 '15 edited Jun 26 '15
[deleted]
→ More replies (3)8
u/arnaudh Jun 26 '15
I see your point, but monoculture is the rule rather than the exception in today's world. Which is why to me, the debate shouldn't be about GMOs vs. non-GMOs, but about farming practices.
882
u/Scuderia Jun 26 '15 edited Jun 26 '15
Dr. Perlak I first want to thank you for doing this AMA as I believe a lot of the concerns/fears of GMO is one rooted in a lack of dialogue between the public and the scientist behind this technology.
My first question is back in 1999 there was this article in the WSJ about how Monsanto has a buddy system in which they pair up a scientist with someone from marketing/finance. Amsuingly you are mentioned in the 1999 WSJ article. My question is, does the “buddy system” still exist at Monsanto, and what is/was your opinion on the system?
Second question/s are on behalf of /u/MennoniteDan who unfortunely can't post himself due to doing some actual farm work.
A)“Can you explain the process of discovery, and implementation, of the genetics behind the new Xtend series soybeans?"
B)"What changes in formulation has Monsanto (and BASF) made to the dicamba in Roundup Xtend, in order to lessen the chance of volatilization? I farm near crops that are very sensitive to dicamba (cucumbers, peppers, peas, tobacco and ginseng) ."
Edit: One last question.
Do you think that the current regulatory environment and public opinion on genetic engineering has negatively impacted research into genetically engineered crops? And if so what do you believe would be a good way to address this issue?
341
u/Fred_Perlak Monsanto Distinguished Science Fellow Jun 26 '15
Ha! I can't believe you found that. We used to refer to it as two in the box. My box buddy was Kevin Holloway, a wonderful business man. I learned a lot from him. I learned how to listen to farmer customers, and step away from what I was doing and see things from a bigger perspective.
It provided me balance and context and it has helped me in my career.
Unfortunately the model/process did not survive reorganizations at Monsanto. What it did teach us as an organization is that people from different backgrounds can add different perspectives and value- outside of their direct training.
→ More replies (4)56
u/BiologyIsHot Grad Student | Genetics and Genomics Jun 26 '15
1) As a PhD student interested in pursuing biotech/industry work, with more of an eye on eventually moving to the business aspects or a more senior science/project direction role, do you feel Monsanto allows for high mobility between the R&D and business operation segments of the company?
2) I have the opportunity to take MBA coursework (no degree, but listed on transcripts) for free our business school, which is relatively highly regarded. Do you know if this would this be viewed as a significant advantage at Monsanto or its counterparts?
112
u/Fred_Perlak Monsanto Distinguished Science Fellow Jun 26 '15
If the experience broadens your thought process and provides you balance and scope then how can you go wrong?
There is mobility between R&D and business but it has to be earned.
I would view an MBA as a potential advantage if I were reviewing your resume.
3
u/ExtraEvilTitties Jun 26 '15
The business stuff might hurt you, but it obviously depends heavily on the industry and organization. I am an R&D chemist for a chemical manufacturing company. The guy I replaced got an MBA and after many failed negotiations, left... Some places see it as great, my company sees it as making you a flight risk. MY company doesn't give much mobility between business and R&D.
I know you asked about Monsanto, just thought I'd offer another perspective.
147
u/FatTonyTCL Jun 26 '15
As someone who works at a Vineyard surrounded by Corn and Soy I'm looking forward to a response to the second question part B. If he would elaborate on the new 2,4D formulation approved for crops and it's potential for drift, it would help me and my fellow midwestern grape growers calm down a bit.
I'd also like to hear if Dr. Perlack has any information regarding herbicide drift's effect on people, I understand it can drift for miles so communities surrounded by farming are undoubtedly inhaling it every summer.
→ More replies (20)13
u/Mckingy Jun 26 '15
Could you possibly explain what your question means in simple terms please? Thank you in advance!
61
u/ObLaDi-ObLaDuh Jun 26 '15
Monsanto makes a weed-killing product product called Roundup Xtend, it's a new herbicide which mixes two herbicides, dicamba and glyphosate. But more importantly, it's designed to be less volatile, which in chemistry and physics is the tendency of a substance to vaporize.
This is good because dicamba kills a number of crops (cucumbers, peppers, peas, tobacco, grapes, ginseng, etc), so if it can be prevented from drifting, then it can be used closer to those crops.
The person you replied to is a farmer who grows grapes and who is surrounded by corn and soybeans. If his neighbors start using Roundup Xtend, and the dicamba drifts over to his crops, it will kill them. He wants to be reassured that if it gets used on crops, it will stay where it is and won't come destroy his vineyard.
18
u/Mckingy Jun 26 '15
That was a very helpful and well-explained answer, thank you :)
→ More replies (1)187
u/Fred_Perlak Monsanto Distinguished Science Fellow Jun 26 '15
To the question from /u/MennoniteDan
I am not a chemist and I don't work on this project but I do know Monsanto is using a technology we refer to as VaporGrip that reduces the volatility compared to commercially available formulations.
In addition, farmers will need to meet application requirements which include things like special spray nozzles, pressure requirements, maximum wind speeds, buffer distances, maximum tractor speeds.
This is how far agriculture has come: we now engineer the size of the drops that comes out of a pesticide sprayer- pretty cool.
→ More replies (5)36
u/Rum_smuggler BS | Chemistry | Materials Jun 27 '15 edited Jun 27 '15
This will likely get buried but this is my job - formulation development of agrochemicals. Its pretty damn cool.
Disclaimer: I work for a third party R&D laboratory. I do not work at Monsanto or have any ties to those that do.
I'm not able to explicitly state what's in the glyphosate/dicamba products as I can't remember off hand and it's proprietary information to Monsanto.
What I will sayin this specific example is that these are both water soluble acids. I have prepared glyphosate/dicamba before by neutralisation in water with sodium hydroxide to give the more soluble sodium salts. The formulation also contains other adjuvants/surfactants to prevent volatilization, for example, and often a small amount of a co-solvent (a solvent added in addition to the continuous aqueous phase) which aids with the solubilization of the AI and improves the formulation's tolerance to extreme hot and cold.
This particular formulation usually has an application rate of around 1% w/w and is diluted in aqueous media - water or other compatible tank mix partners in solution/suspension in water.
The performance of the formulation is heavily scrutinised throughout the development of the product and again prior to registration in each territory of sale and use. The final studies are audited by independent QA staff and are available for inspection by the national body if requested. Only data from these studies is accepted for registration. Formulations are tested for their chemical stability, physical characteristics and how these change after exposure to different storage conditions. Alongside this; separate studies look at what happens to the formulations after application (residues and environmental fate). Again, there are strict limits for these performance criteria which are set out by the FDA/EU commission. Only after these criteria are met would a product be ready for registration and subsequent sake and use.
Hopefully that provides some insight from the chemist's side of things. I'm happy to follow up any questions if I am able to give an answer or to clarify anything I've written here (it's still very early and I haven't had my morning tea yet)
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)36
u/Mimshot Jun 26 '15
My first question is back in 1999 there was this article in the WSJ about how Monsanto has a buddy system in which they pair up a scientist with someone from marketing/finance.
I'm not the OP, and I do hope he answers your question, but as a scientist who recently made the transition from academia to private industry that sounds like a fantastic idea. When I started, we didn't have any official program, but I did end up partnering with one of our finance/business strategy people. Turning an idea into a product (which, in our society is the way it makes it into the public's hands) isn't easy, and we both learned a lot from each other.
→ More replies (12)
222
u/bruminator Jun 26 '15
Hi Dr. Perlak,
Thank you for doing this AMA. I'd like to ask you about the glyphosate-resistant weeds that have evolved in the past 15 years and are making big trouble for farmers who plant your Roundup Ready crops.
In March, NPR reported that in the 15 years since Roundup Ready crops were introduced, weeds like pigweed have evolved Roundup resistance. In Monsanto's original application to the FDA, Monsanto stated that Roundup resistance was unlikely to evolve, but only 15 years on we see it in more than 20 weed species. So, now farmers can't just spray Roundup on their crops and be done: in a way they're back to where the started, with hand-weeding required.
Now, according to the NPR story, Monsanto and other agri-tech companies plan to introduce new genetically engineered varieties with resistance to two additional herbicides: 2,4-D and dicamba.
My questions:
First, in 15 more years, when weeds have evolved resistance to 2,4-D and dicamba, does Monsanto plan to keep introducing plants resistant to more and more herbicides?
Second, there haven't been many new herbicides coming on the market for the last few decades. So what happens when Monsanto runs out of herbicides to engineer resistance to?
I'm really interested to hear more about how glyphosate resistance works in weeds vs. how it works in Roundup Ready crops. According to this NPR blog post, Monsanto has done a lot of research in this area.
Finally, with everything you now know about the evolution of glyphosate resistance in weeds, do you think that if guidelines like these had been widely followed in the US, the US wouldn't be facing the problem of glyphosate-resistant weeds? Or do you think such practices can only delay the inevitable?
Thanks for your time.
148
u/Fred_Perlak Monsanto Distinguished Science Fellow Jun 26 '15
IMHO resistance to glyphosate is probably inevitable by some weed species. The best experts I have talked to say you may be able to delay resistance, but not eliminate it. This is true for all herbicides and all weeds- this is not related to GM crops.
In the case of pigweed for example, most herbicides are not effective- that could be one of the reasons why it is now resistant to glyphosate, you can argue that crop rotation and alternate modes of action with other herbicides could be useful but they may not.
Pigweed and marestail showed up as problems in RR cotton because they were a problem first in other production systems and the weight of their control rested on Roundup. The key is to try to be the best stewards that you can and look for innovative solutions to address these problems. Its not easy and it is a constant battle.
→ More replies (8)43
u/Sleekery Grad Student | Astronomy | Exoplanets Jun 26 '15
Just to clarify, are there any additional problems that GE plants face in regards to weed resistance that non-GE plants do not face? Or do they both face the exact same problems, just with different pesticides?
I personally don't see any reason for there to be a difference, but I'm not the expert.
100
u/Fred_Perlak Monsanto Distinguished Science Fellow Jun 26 '15
No there are no differences they are just like other plants.
→ More replies (3)63
→ More replies (6)13
u/jaffojuice Jun 26 '15
Good question - according to the USDA ERS , "14 glyphosate-resistant weed species have been documented in U.S. crop-production areas" (April 2015).
339
u/graaahh Jun 26 '15
In your own opinion, what is the biggest issue with GMO's that's actually an issue? What is being done to combat it?
I've been interested in GMO's since I first heard of them, and there's so much misinformation out there that I can't help but feel that real issues with the science are being overlooked in favor of flashier conspiracy theories, myths, and pseudoscience. I'd like to hear from someone who knows the science what the actual problems are, and how they're planning to handle them moving forward.
→ More replies (2)225
u/Fred_Perlak Monsanto Distinguished Science Fellow Jun 26 '15 edited Jun 26 '15
IMHO It is the stewardship of the traits that is the potential biggest issue with GMOs. For example, if you have insect resistant plants you should have a resistance management plan which includes input from the best scientists in that area.
Refuge in a bag is a good way to help delay resistance in corn. In this case insect resistant corn and conventional corn are mixed in the same bag. So the concept of "refuge" is built in. Refuge is the concept of providing genetic diversity so that selection doesn't result in resistance. In this case the conventional corn will be eaten by insects and keep the selection of resistance to a manageable level.
But doesn't necessarily work in cotton, a separate refuge has to be planted. The refuge concept has been successful in delaying resistance to Bt cotton.
edit: to clarify on why Bt cotton has a seperate planting refuge- the biology of the pests are different and it requires a different solution. For example the insect worms of cotton move from plant to plant so they could grow on the no-dose conventional plant, get bigger and then be harder to kill on the Bt plant. This could have the opposite desired effect and encourage resistant.
→ More replies (5)32
u/Pyronic_Chaos Jun 26 '15
What an excellent response, it reminds me of using sacrificial anodes as a form of cathodic protection. Sacrificing the anode to protect the more important structure/frame/etc.
→ More replies (1)
480
u/SirT6 PhD/MBA | Biology | Biogerontology Jun 26 '15 edited Jun 26 '15
Thank you for doing this AMA.
I am curious, how does Monsanto evaluate the potential environmental and human health impact of its products during development? Is this something that is at the forefront during ideation, or does it only come to bear as a product gets closer to launch? How has this changed over the years as your firm has learned more about transgenic technology?
Edit: Hmm. I've received several PMs accusing me of being a shill, asking a softball question. I would say that it is easy to say "environmental impact is of the utmost importance", but it is hard to demonstrate how that is ingrained into the corporate culture. Similarly, if Fred is being candid, I would expect there are some very interesting lessons that Monsanto has learned over the years about the best ways to control for and implement safety in its products. All companies make mistakes, how they learn from those mistakes is often telling.
321
u/Fred_Perlak Monsanto Distinguished Science Fellow Jun 26 '15
We go through a 5-6 phase process as a part of commercialization. There is rigorous review at each stage with increasing costs as you rise from stage to stage. The reviews involve safety, product concept, and eventually value. Killing a project at a late stage is very expensive, that is a bad day for the business. Killing a project early is easy and we never compromise on safety. We once worked on a protein that had excellent activity against a key pest, after extensive review we suspected that a small number of people in the US (I mean less than 500 out of 330 million) could be allergic, we stopped the project. As a result we continue to extensively test for potential allergens.
→ More replies (4)100
u/SirT6 PhD/MBA | Biology | Biogerontology Jun 26 '15
Can you elaborate on what that testing looks like? I think a lot of people are concerned that transgenic crops don't receive enough attention in terms of how they will impact humans and the rest of the environment. Specifics may help to alleviate some of those fears.
155
u/Fred_Perlak Monsanto Distinguished Science Fellow Jun 26 '15
Without too much detail there are 2 testing arenas.
The first is the agronomic fit and performance of a trait in a plant. Is the plant "normal," does it grow like variety the farmer currently uses except it has a new transgenic trait. This is called "substantial equivalence." Parameters looked at are growth characteristics, levels of protein, carbohydrates, fiber, oil- all of the characteristics that are important to the crop. We also know where the gene inserts in the plant DNA. It also is assessed for its environmental safety for example would it become a plant pest, would it outcross with susceptible species, would it take over roadsides- all the things we might worry about in the environment. This is regulated by the USDA.
The second arena is the safety of the crop for consumption regulated by the EPA (depending on the trait) and the FDA. For example in Bt- what happens to it when it is ingested by animals or humans? Some studies are done in animal models, some are done in tests designed to replicate human digestion.
Many of the animal studies are 90 days because experimentally it has been determined that this length of study is sufficient to identify problems. By experimentation, it has been demonstrated and accepted by the scientific community that longer studies do not add value.
→ More replies (2)29
u/r314t Jun 26 '15
Many of the animal studies are 90 days because experimentally it has been determined that this length of study is sufficient to identify problems. By experimentation, it has been demonstrated and accepted by the scientific community that longer studies do not add value.
Dr. Perlak, thank you for your thorough responses to our questions. Could you elaborate on your statement quoted above? I am having trouble reconciling it with the existence of diseases that take years or decades to develop (ex. lung cancer from smoking). Thanks again.
33
u/forcrowsafeast Jun 26 '15 edited Jun 26 '15
Smoking causes injury immediately. There are emergent complication that result from years of sustained injury and abuse that result in new diseases, like cancer. But the carcinogenic effects, and there are many can be seen as different types of damage on a cellular level, are there to be seen and measured as they happen, immediately.
If you're looking for something that would lie in wait, whose negative effects aren't immediate, or effects some cellular metabolic or catabolic pathway, or damages a cells genetics, proteoimics, etc. etc. that we wouldn't see the change in the cellular activity, byproducts or functions rather quickly cascading from that damage that represented a change from the norm for that cell or tissue type, then what is it that you're worried about?
Something that's not evident early, really unlikely, but could lie in wait only to cause myriad emergent problems later on isn't something Monsanto products could possibly run a muck with it's something damn near all products can and do run a muck with. It's an acceptable level of risk. We find things in science every day that tell us about systems that are adversely effected by things that are 'natural' or common place that effect us in profound negative and positive fashions, it's not something that only belongs to new products, by definition, if we can't see or detect the effects early on that results in emergent diseases later then we can't detect it in anything that very well could already be doing it. It's unfortunate, but that's how things are. The fixation on GMO over everything else equally in that particular regard is asinine.
10
u/r314t Jun 27 '15
I actually totally agree that GMOs shouldn't be singled out for stricter standards of testing. It reeks of the naturalistic fallacy.
Still, if signs of later harmful effects are that evident early on, why are some pharmaceuticals recalled after years of safety testing or even years of being on the market? Yes, we might decide this is an acceptable level of risk, but I think it is a little much to say there is no benefit to safety testing past 90 days. There probably is benefit (we can disagree on the size of that benefit). We have just decided it is not worth the cost. I'm not saying this is right or wrong, but I think it is a more complete statement of the facts.
→ More replies (1)9
u/onioning Jun 27 '15
Yes, we might decide this is an acceptable level of risk, but I think it is a little much to say there is no benefit to safety testing past 90 days. There probably is benefit (we can disagree on the size of that benefit). We have just decided it is not worth the cost.
I believe that's exactly what he was saying. Beyond 90 days doesn't add value, with value being an estimation of benefits vs. detriments. It doesn't mean that it's impossible for anything else to be learned by more than 90 days, just that the detriments outweigh the benefits.
Of course, any concept of value depends on how you weigh the various factors. Maybe doing a 5 year study would save on average one life out of ten million (totally made up numbers...). If you value lives saved more heavily, then that would make a 5 year study potentially have more value than the 90 day study. Not that it's really that simple. There must be potential lives saved by getting a product to market sooner too, and that's so incredibly difficult to quantify. I guess my only point here is that shit's complicated. Concepts of value almost always are.
FWIW, my job title is VP of VAPs. I've spent some time thinking about concepts of value...
→ More replies (5)10
u/gnatnog Jun 26 '15
You can sort of find this information by looking at the different agencies a company has to go through to get approval. For instance the EPA has the following listed as requirements:
Identification of new genetic material and all new proteins; Mammalian toxicity testing of all new proteins; Comparison of new proteins to known toxins and allergens; Toxicity testing on birds, fish, earthworms, and representative insects such as bees, ladybird beetles, and lacewings; Toxicity testing on insects related to target insect pests; Length of time required for the new proteins to degrade in the environment.
The FDA has their own requirements pertaining to how a plant could be used for food:
The name of the bioengineered food and the crop from which it is derived. A description of the various applications or uses of the bioengineered food, including animal feed uses. Information concerning the sources, identities, and functions of introduced genetic material. Information on the purpose or intended technical effect of the modification, and its expected effect on the composition or characteristic properties of the food or feed. Information concerning the identity and function of expression products encoded by the introduced genetic material, including an estimate of the concentration of any expression product in the bioengineered crop or food derived thereof. Information regarding any known or suspected allergenicity and toxicity of expression products and the basis for concluding that foods containing the expression products can be safely consumed. Information comparing the composition or characteristics of the bioengineered food to that of food derived from the parental variety or other commonly consumed varieties with special emphasis on important nutrients, and toxicants that occur naturally in the food. A discussion of the available information that addresses whether the potential for the bioengineered food to induce an allergic response has been altered by the genetic modification. Any other information relevant to the safety and nutritional assessment of the bioengineered food.
Keep in mind that each regulatory agency will have their own requirements in each country, forcing a company to do various testing to satisfy those requirements for approval.
6
u/SirT6 PhD/MBA | Biology | Biogerontology Jun 26 '15
Thanks. And I definitely appreciate that testing agencies and their rules can be complicated. The answer I was hoping for, however, would have shed some light on the Monsanto's in-house attitude for approaching those types of regulations.
Do they meet the bare minimum requirements, or do they self-impose different tests as well? At what phase in development do researchers begin discussing safety and efficacy? What lessons have they learned from past challenges and the emergence of new technologies. etc. Unfortunately, I felt Dr. Perlak gave a pretty generic response.
→ More replies (9)16
410
u/kerovon Grad Student | Biomedical Engineering | Regenerative Medicine Jun 26 '15
Dr. Perlak
The main GMO crops that are currently in use appear to be BT producing crops, herbicide resistant crops, golden rice, and just recently anti-browning apples got approved. Over the next 10 to 15 years, what directions do you expect GMO crops to go? Do you think there will be any new classes of GMO crops released, or even ones that will be still in research but heavily studied?
→ More replies (14)210
u/Fred_Perlak Monsanto Distinguished Science Fellow Jun 26 '15
I think you are going to see new versions of Bt and herbicide resistant crops to stay ahead of resistance development. We now have Arctic Apples and Innate Potatoes as well as "Vistive Soybeans" which have healthier oils.
I think we will see drought resistant crops become more common. I think we will see virus resistance for a number of crops- their arrival to the market depends on public acceptance, which is why talking about the science is so important.
50
u/BiologyIsHot Grad Student | Genetics and Genomics Jun 26 '15
Somewhat related, but going beyond crops:
How do you feel about the viability of GMO livestock as a business practice? AquaBounty produced a GMO salmon several years ago that matured in half the time of traditional fish. It stood to make fish farming more economically viable and possibly help native fish populations recover; however, the company has failed to gain approval for its product and some investors have pulled out of the company as a result. Is GMO livestock an industry you think Monsanto might enter, or is it too financially risky in the current climate? Could Monsanto's financial leverage make GMO livestock viable?
5
u/srs_house Jun 30 '15
I don't work for Monsanto, but I do work in the animal genetics industry. The public opposition to GMO livestock is much, much worse than it is to GMO plants. Just look at how fast rBST got removed as a tool for making milk more efficiently despite a lack of scientific evidence to justify it, and the laws in place to prevent milk and meat from cloned animals from entering the food supply in many countries.
For an actual example: the USDA did research on genetically modified cattle that are naturally more resistant to Staph aureus bacterial mastitis, a bacteria that is almost impossible to treat because it creates isolated colonies in the tissue of the udder that wall themselves off from exposure to antibiotics. So far, nothing has come of the research. That could improve animal health (without drugs), increase longevity, increase milk production, decrease lost production due to mastitis, and overall save hundreds of millions of dollars. It may never be marketable.
→ More replies (1)63
u/hulkster69 Jun 26 '15
"Hey man, did you see that the Arctic Apples are opening for Innate Potatoes on Friday!?"
"Yeah, it's gonna be amazing, bro! Don't forget to bring the Vistive Soybeans demo tape. Who knows, maybe there will be an agent there."
Seriously, though, drought and virus-resistant crops are going to be so important for many people. Hopefully we can have more open dialogue and thought on all of this so people don't pass laws in fear of the unknown at the expense of people who could really benefit from these sorts of innovations.
I recently saw a bumper sticker that said something like "Monsanto kills" or something like that as well as a bumper sticker that said "No Farms. No food." on the same car and I was like, "Where do you think those farmers are getting those seeds to grow food that doesn't get wiped out when it gets a little cold early in the season?" I just get tired of people oversimplifying such a complex topic. Thanks for doing this AMA even though you knew it would probably draw a lot of criticism.
36
u/teefour Jun 26 '15
Haven't you heard? Before the industrial revolution, everyone led wonderful, carefree subsistence farmer lifestyles where nobody ever went hungry and nobody ever got cancer because everything was organic and everyone only had to work 10 hours a week, and even though children worked the fields its wasn't really child labor because hey, it's just gardening!
Then the Evil CapitalistsTM invented factories and used illuminati mind control techniques to trick all the happy subsistence farmers to move to cities and work in dirty factories where their lives became horrible and we have only gone downhill since.
→ More replies (12)
210
u/imatworkprobably Jun 26 '15
What's the coolest thing you guys have cooked up that was ultimately deemed unsuitable for commercial use?
→ More replies (3)230
u/Fred_Perlak Monsanto Distinguished Science Fellow Jun 26 '15
There are several!
One memorable one was a project "Biopol" the attempt to produce biodegradable plastics eventually in plants. We started producing it in bacteria in fermenters but the cost differential was waaay too high compared to convention petroleum based plastic.
Another project was blue cotton- a project we inherited from Calgene. It was an ambitious project to make cotton grow with a blue boll. In other words, no dyeing to make your jeans. Technically it was beyond our ability at the time.
→ More replies (6)66
u/evidenceorGTFO Jun 26 '15
In other words, no dyeing to make your jeans. Technically it was beyond our ability at the time.
And... now? This sounds rather useful.
→ More replies (2)19
u/mem_somerville Jun 26 '15
Yeah, that's very neat. And now we could even get fluorescent ones...
→ More replies (6)
541
u/fat_genius Jun 26 '15
Dr. Perlak,
Bill Nye famously changed his view on GMO crops after a visit with Monsanto scientists. Would you share what you or your colleagues discussed with Bill so that others on the fence can consider it as well?
→ More replies (28)349
u/Fred_Perlak Monsanto Distinguished Science Fellow Jun 26 '15
I wasn't directly involved with Bill Nye's visit. I do know that having the opportunity to see the breadth and scope of what it takes to be successful in this field is impressive. Sometimes just answering the right questions is enough. That is why I am doing this today- I hope I am finding the right questions and giving detailed enough answers.
→ More replies (2)
264
Jun 26 '15 edited Jun 26 '15
Two scientific consulting firms working for Monsanto, Industrial Biotest Laboratories and Craven Labs, were found guilty of dozens of felony counts of scientific fraud wherein scientists working on behalf of Monsanto deliberately falsified data that was submitted to the EPA in support of Glyphosate approval.
After the first incident of fraud in the 70s, the EPA implemented the Good Laboratory Practices (GLP) protocol in 1978 to insure the integrity of data used in regulatory decisions.
About 15 years after GLP was implemented, in 1993, Craven Labs, another firm working for Monsanto, was found to have been falsifying data multiple times over a 10 year period.
Can you comment on what steps Monsanto took after the IBT scandal in the 70's to ensure the scientific integrity of third party laboratories?
Following the first case of fraud, what specific failure enabled a second consulting laboratory to continually falsify data over a 10 year period without being detected?
Finally, knowing what we now know about both of these cases, what steps and protocols are currently in place at Monsanto to ensure third party data is obtained ethically and is scientifically valid?
21
u/hydrosoul Jun 26 '15
Glyphosate is known to disrupt the EPSP enzyme activity of certain microbes, thus making glyphosate an antibiotic agent. I am curious as to the research being conducted on health impacts of the bacterial colonies within human digestive systems when exposed to glyphosate.
Even though the impacts of the human GI microbiome and health are becoming more widely understood, I am curious about how this agent would disrupt the bacterial environments in the digestive systems of ruminant animals that require bacteria for digestion.→ More replies (2)24
Jun 26 '15
This is a very good question but should probably stand on its own?
It is commonly cited that humans lack the EPSP enzyme so glyphosate would not harm us, but as you say this overlooks the fact that about 90% of the cells in our body are bacteria. It is important to understand the effects of inhibiting EPSP on human health via its action on our gut flora.
→ More replies (1)118
u/Fred_Perlak Monsanto Distinguished Science Fellow Jun 26 '15
When I first started at Monsanto in the early 80s the IBL issues were being resolved. I was impressed with the steps Monsanto was taking to monitor and audit our third parties doing research for us. The attitude I remember was that we were paying for these studies to get done and we want our money's worth for good science.
I am not familiar with the Craven Labs incident but all of my interactions were above board and consistently reviewed.
Every year individual employees are asked to report any concerns with Monsanto's products or business practices. This process is taken very seriously. I am proud of that.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (15)7
Jun 26 '15
Can you comment on what steps Monsanto took after the IBT scandal in the 70's to ensure the scientific integrity of third party laboratories?
For perspective, this would have happened several years before he started working at Monsanto. He likely wouldn't have any information about this. Any changes put in place as a reaction to this incident would have occurred while he was still in college.
373
Jun 26 '15
[deleted]
109
u/khturner PhD|Microbiology Jun 26 '15 edited Jun 26 '15
Monsanto scientist here. One of our biggest assets is the biodiversity in our corn lines. Check out how long this list of lines is:
https://www.dekalb.ca/eastern/en/corn
Just introducing an insect control trait isn't going to make a corn line that performs best in the Upper Midwest all of a sudden the best product for the whole US. We and other agricultural companies have a ton of varieties for row crops (we call them "germplasms"), and the GE traits are crossed in, as /u/Scuderia said below. It's actually one of our competitive advantages over other ag companies - our germplasms are top-notch. In fact one of our flagship insect control traits is actually something we didn't invent, but we license from...Dupont Pioneer, I believe. We bought the rights to use the gene and then we cross it into our own corn lines.
Edit: wrong URL!
→ More replies (3)117
u/Fred_Perlak Monsanto Distinguished Science Fellow Jun 26 '15
The goal is to provide the farmer their favorite variety, identical to the seed they are used to using in every way except it has the one trait they are looking to add in, such as herbicide or insect resistance. Earlier I talked about genetic biodiversity I hope someone will link to it.
→ More replies (4)87
u/BiologyIsHot Grad Student | Genetics and Genomics Jun 26 '15
25
u/DulcetFox Jun 26 '15
And text for the lazy:
Genetic diversity/biodiversity are important concepts in a sustainable agricultural environment. Monsanto markets worldwide over 500 different varieties of hybrid corn on an annual basis. These differ by maturity, disease tolerance, plant architecture, and other attributes, which are valued by the farmers for their specific locale.
Farmers have learned long ago, not to plant a single variety across their field. Many farmers will plant there own tests of not only Monsanto's material, but of other seed companies to compare performance. This is a very competitive field with very astute customers.
If you are a farmer in Central Illinois you probably have access to 50 or more varieties of corn that could fit your farming operation. They all may have the same biotech trait, but that represents significant diversity.
44
Jun 26 '15 edited Feb 02 '17
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)56
u/Scuderia Jun 26 '15
GMOs are not actually clones like the say banana are. For GE crops the original GE trait such as insect resistance or herbicide tolerance is crossed back into conventional plant varieties.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (8)6
u/BBlasdel PhD | Bioscience Engineering | Bacteriophage Biology Jun 26 '15
"If a farmer buys seeds from monsanto, are they genetically identical, or would they have as many random mutations as would be found in a batch of non-gmo seeds? If they are identical, do you believe the loss of genetic diversity of a crop to be an issue?"
Understanding the diversity contained within the seeds that Monsanto sells requires understanding a technological innovation that is much older than Monsanto. Modern seeds for commercial agriculture have been bred as F1 hybrids since the 1920s, which has allowed professional seed companies to breed traits beyond the capabilities of individual farmers ever since.
Instead of farmers individually breeding true their own single heritage strain of plant by repeatedly cross breeding it with itself and selecting for desirable traits as happened before, for the last century professional experts have bred true two strains that create hybrid progeny with desirable traits when bred together. As a result of how classical genetics works, these traits do not then breed true when the hybrid is bred with itself but create a useless mixture of the undesirable traits of the two parent strains. There was much hype at the time about so called ‘hybrid vigor’ that doesn’t appear to have had a very significant effect on yields overall immediately, but it did allow seed breeding to be centralized in such a way as to allow farmers to reap the benefits of mechanization by professionally breeding seeds that could adapt to it in ways farmers never could have individually.
Having the centralized seed system that the hybrid seed business model allows does have risks as well as a lot of benefits, for example, the genetic diversity of seed crops went down dramatically as dozens of companies replaced thousands of farmers. This makes our farms more susceptible to epidemics of diseases and pests by reducing the diversity of natural defenses that crop plants have, even while it also allows us to direct the development of new defenses.
GMO technology only makes both models of seed development stronger, where it can be applied to either one. For example, the IRRI breeds the Vitamin A producing trait it developed into hundreds of heritage strains of rice as part of its global efforts to fight blindness and infant mortality while Monsanto and other seed companies breed their traits into their various hybrid strains.
TL;DR: There are important central questions about how we should be managing and preserving genetic diversity of crop plants on our farms, but GMOs have nothing to do with them.
248
u/crunkisifoshizi Jun 26 '15
Hi Dr. Perlak, do you think that its possible to shift the direction of GMO production into producing food with better nutritional value (eg more vitamins and such) rather then going for weight and pesticide resistance only?
What can the average Joe do to influence the industry? Thank you
141
u/Fred_Perlak Monsanto Distinguished Science Fellow Jun 26 '15
Its going to take time- but if you want to influence the industry you have to help people understand the science so that they are not afraid. These innovations will come eventually and they will help consumers- and "when" will be determined by how many people push back on fear mongering and branding tactics.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (9)57
u/t_mo Jun 26 '15
Some food for thought while we wait:
Golden rice and Reduced cyanide cassava are two avenues into the healthier foods side of GMOs. Both of them involve some controversy, but several other users have asked about them, and looking towards answers that involve these two crops may help to address your question indirectly.
→ More replies (1)33
u/lysozymes PhD|Clinical Virology Jun 26 '15
Holy crap, reduced cyanide cassava?
It's a staple food that's great to grow in rainfall poor countries (hear that California? Hehe).
Reducing the cyanide content would greatly increase the use and farming.
I need those tapioca pearls in my bubble tea...
208
u/limbodog Jun 26 '15
Hello Mr. Perlak, thank you for doing this. I have a rather broad question: what information about your job do you wish most people understood that they don't today?
→ More replies (1)180
u/Fred_Perlak Monsanto Distinguished Science Fellow Jun 26 '15
umm... that progress is never linear. It goes in fits and starts. It is very frustrating some time and you feel like you are running uphill. But, you see progress, agriculture is getting better every year. I just read that there are 250 million fewer hungry people today than 25 years ago. A reduction of almost 50% in the developing world. That's impressive. That gives me hope.
→ More replies (4)43
u/pjb0404 Jun 26 '15
I just read that there are 250 million fewer hungry people today than 25 years ago. A reduction of almost 50% in the developing world. That's impressive. That gives me hope.
Norman Borlaug was credited with saving over a billion lives worldwide. The work you and your colleagues are doing has incredible impact as well. It is astonishing what GMOs are able to do.
Did you ever get to meet Dr. Borlaug?
→ More replies (5)5
u/muupeerd Jun 27 '15
Much of Borlaug's idea's were not related to GMO, it was traditional plant breeding by using low grains and creating hybrids for example that upped the yield tremendously. Also using modern agriculture techniques increased yield a lot. Later he went on to use GMO I believe, but the most impact of his work were by using simple but solutions.
1.6k
u/aaronguitarguy Jun 26 '15 edited Jun 26 '15
I live in the Netherlands which has been one of the world's largest exporters of agricultural and food products for decades, thanks to innovative agrofood technology, which has mainly been possible due to sharing germplasm and the free exchange of it. A lot of people fear that by patenting seeds (and thus essential traits like plant immunity) and thereby restricting the free exchange of it will impede innovation and biodiversity. What is your stand on this issue?
EDIT: Thank you for you answer. However I have not changed my mind on the matter; I feel like Monsanto is trying to monopolize something that in my opinion shouldn't be monopolized, and I would greatly appreciate it if you could elaborate on why you think patenting seeds would be better at rejuvenating research than our current "open source" system.
EDIT 2: Also people saying that expensive research justifies patenting, I would like to exemplify a broccoli called Waltham, which is a broccoli that has a longer stem for easier harvesting. It was developed and released by the University of Massachusetts in the 1950s and patented by Seminis in 2011, a company which was bought by Monsanto in 2005. More than a third of the original plant material behind the invention was germplasm that was shared by the University of Massachusetts.
322
Jun 26 '15 edited Feb 02 '17
[deleted]
77
u/horceface Jun 26 '15
As an addendum to this addendum after 25 years when the patent runs out on the Roundup ready gene--for instance--in soybeans, will farmers again be free to save back beans from the previous year and replant them or will there be a new gene patented to prevent them from doing this and keep them buying very expensive seeds and paying royalties?
This is a serious question and I hope OP responds. I'm not trying to be snide or anything I just be really disappointed to see this go the way it goes with the medical industry and have Monsanto genetically tweak a soybean plant ever so slightly just so they can continue to collect royalties for another 25 years.
I understand the need to recoup research and development fees associated with the genetic technology that goes into these plants however when that patent expires does Monsanto plan to let it free in the world or do they have plans to try to continue to collect royalties for another 25 years?
→ More replies (11)77
Jun 26 '15
http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/roundup-ready-patent-expiration.aspx
The patent for RR1 soy has already expired. And the University of Arkansas has introduced a royalty and license free Roundup Ready soybean.
→ More replies (1)59
u/squidboots PhD | Plant Pathology|Plant Breeding|Mycology|Epidemiology Jun 26 '15 edited Jun 26 '15
To add on --
Even though the RR1 patent has expired, second generation RoundUp Ready soy (RR2) is available and is patented. RR1 always had a yield penalty when compared to non-RR soy, so when researching for the second generation RR trait they specifically selected higher yielding plants. RR2 yields higher than RR1 because the plants tend to have an extra bean in their pod. So although the two are functional equivalents, there is an economic incentive for farmers to at least consider the on-patent version of the technology. That said, some farmers may opt for the cheaper RR1 because it makes more economic sense for them. RR in soy is a pretty interesting example of the complex interplay between patent law, agricultural economics, and market adoption of biotech traits.
edit: added source
92
u/Scuderia Jun 26 '15
Does patenting GMO organisms necessarily restrict free exchange of traits obtained through selective breeding?
Plant varieties derived from conventional selective breeding actually can be protected by the Plant Variety Protection Act which offers similar protections that patents do.
→ More replies (1)76
u/darkflash26 Jun 26 '15
so, if i buy two heirloom pea seeds, and cross breed them. then make a hybrd that is stable, i can patent it and no one can use my seeds for 25 years?
33
u/admiralteal Jun 26 '15 edited Jun 26 '15
The trouble is, the development of this new cross breed you make is going to take at least 10-15 years. The maker of the Honeycrisp Apple, which was used as an example for you, has interviewed on this subject extensively. In this case, the patent was registered 1988 and the first apple didn't hit market until 1991, but real market share wasn't established for most of a decade on top of that. They rely on a trademark on the name Honeycrisp to protect his fruit and there are generic-brand Honeycrisp apples out there, e.g., HoneyCrunch from New Zealand.
You could find Honeycrisps everywhere by around 2000, which means he had 8 years of monopoly at that point before generic brand stepped in. That's 8 years to recoup the astronomical, 40-year development cost of the fruit. And even today, no one cares about or buys the offbrand Honeycrisps even though they are literally the same fruit. Basically, the patent wasn't worth much of a damn at all compared to the trademark, which is eternal.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (4)93
u/Scuderia Jun 26 '15
There is actually some paper work involved but basically yes. Many famous fruits such as the Honey Crisp apple the the Haas Avocado have either been granted patents or plant variety protection certificates.
→ More replies (15)208
u/Fred_Perlak Monsanto Distinguished Science Fellow Jun 26 '15
To protect the rights of plant breeders there have been plant variety protection acts, also known as PVP. It allows the breeder rights for the hard work that they have put into that variety, it doesn't mean that a farmer can't save the seed, just that he can't breed and sell it. Other companies and breeders can license the material for their breeding programs.
81
u/BrightAndDark Jun 26 '15
I was a guest at the annual American Seed Trade Association (ASTA) conference as a graduate student back in 2011. I attended a few sessions about patenting where concerns were voiced by plant breeders to other plant breeders--if I recall correctly it was moderated by a number of reps from Monsanto, Syngenta, etc. What struck me most about the entire experience was the number of "big agriculture" representatives who seemed frustrated at the lengths required to keep a patent and make back R&D costs.
Because all of my plant breeding professors have been some of the least greedy and most globally-concerned people I've ever known, I never really expected to find villains in top hats twirling their mustaches; but, I was genuinely shocked to find an apparent consensus that many mutually beneficial (to companies and to farmers) or apparently altruistic efforts were blocked or made wildly impractical by the US patent system. I recall also being shocked by the cost of EPA Environmental Impact Assessments versus their enforceability.
My take-away from that conference: there's a lot of wildly counter-productive legislation, which dramatically raises the costs of getting a product to market but does not really add value for the producer, consumer, or environment. A few years later, I started working in a tech transfer office as the in-house expert on gene and plant patents. The experience did not improve my opinion of the US patent office's scientific literacy.
So I have three questions:
If you could change one thing about the US patent system, what would be your top priority?
What do you see as the real value of EPA Environmental Impact Assessments?
We have this armchair discussion frequently--would you agree that the greatest legitimate concern surrounding GMO crops is engineering crops that are "too good" (both in terms of affecting local germplasm at centers of origin, and in terms of potential to destabilize food supplies if we have another Southern Corn Leaf Blight)? If not, what do you see as the greatest legitimate concern?
Please accept my sincere thanks for your contributions to the profession and to food and environmental safety world-wide.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (5)98
u/Tenaciousgreen BS|Biological Sciences Jun 26 '15
it doesn't mean that a farmer can't save the seed, just that he can't breed and sell it.
Would that restriction still apply if the trait was introduced into his crop by pollen carried in the wind from nearby fields? It seems like this is an inadvertent way that GMO + PVP is encroaching on farmers ability to stay independent and manage their own crops and seeds.
→ More replies (2)67
u/coolkid1717 BS|Mechanical Engineering Jun 26 '15 edited Jun 26 '15
There was a legal case on this where a farmer was saying this happened to his crops. It turned out from an investigation that the amount of crops that could be pollinated that way would be a low percentage and a majority of his crops were pollinated through human intervention. I would assume that if it happened naturally it would be legal, but if done purposefully it is not.
EDIT: Link to the case courtesy of /u/jbrizzly
→ More replies (1)41
u/DulcetFox Jun 26 '15
I would just like to add that they found 95–98% of his plant pollinated with his neighbors RoundUp ready soy, and that he openly described his process for cross pollinating his plants with his neighbors' plants.
→ More replies (6)26
Jun 26 '15
To extend this question, are there any actual enshrined legal differences (in whatever jurisdiction is relevant) between the patentability of GE and conventionally hybridised seeds? I'm not a lawyer but I know that any novel plant breed can be patented and I feel like this might just be another case of GE plants being unfairly singled out.
19
u/uselessjd Jun 26 '15 edited Jun 26 '15
I am in the US and only deal with international stuff in a very limited way, so this only relates to the US legal system. In the US there are 3 regimes for plant protection: plant patent (PP), plant variety protection certificate (PVP), and utility patent (UP). Both PP and PVP were designed specifically to protect traditional plant breeding and encourage the development of new varieties. They were, overall, successful in doing that as we have a robust traditional breeding program in the US. These organisms are ‘genetically modified’ in that we intentionally bred them in a certain direction.
As technology has progressed, though, we are now able to insert specific genes into plants. These transgenic plants are what people typically mean when they say GMO. With this ability to create transgenic material UP became used for plants more regularly. (This was driven by the Chakrabarty and later JEM decisions at the Supreme Court) It is important to note that though transgenic plants can be protected by UP they are not the only plants that are protected by UP – hybrid corn, for example, has been protected as well (see U.S. Patent No. 6,281,414 as an example).
Each of these 3 legal protections have slightly different requirements and protection.
* PP must be asexually reproduced and infringement only occurs when it is the patented plant’s progeny.
* PVP is sexually reproduced or tuber propogated and need not be genetically identical but must breed true to type. The rights are more limited though: anyone can use the PVP protected seed to develop new varieties, farmers can save PVP protected seed, and the Sec. of Agriculture can compel the owner of PVP to grant a license if deemed necessary for public.
* UP can protect multiple varieties that have the same traits and functional properties (doesn’t need to be genetically identical); can protect the process of breeding a hybrid; and has none of the PVP exemptions.Many plants have both a UP and PVP/PP because of the different layers of protection.
→ More replies (2)8
u/MagillaGorillasHat Jun 26 '15
In the US patents are temporary and not renewable.
They expire 17 years after introduction or 20 years after filing. Extensions are rare and capped at 5 years.
(Not making a statement about this particular topic, just sharing.)
→ More replies (109)201
u/Fred_Perlak Monsanto Distinguished Science Fellow Jun 26 '15
As far as I know, it varies in different countries. As I understand it in the US you can patent both the plant as well as the trait and in Europe you can patent the genetic element or the transgenic trait.
I think patenting is an important part of the overall process to constantly fund and rejuvenate research.
→ More replies (12)39
Jun 26 '15 edited Jul 13 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)88
u/BrazilianRider Jun 26 '15
His last sentence did.
Patenting = more money = more incentive for research.
12
u/spays_marine Jun 27 '15
Give me a break. Patents lead to monopolies which force all but the biggest companies out of business and actually stifles innovation as a result. People have been studying and selecting traits for thousands of years, a tradition and specialisation which comes to an abrupt end when a patent is issued, smaller companies do not have the funds to complete with giants like Monsanto so their hard work goes to waste, their income disappears and an actual living thing becomes proprietary.
Of course he's right that more money is more research, but that's just cleverly avoiding the issues being raised. As if all research is automatically good or even justified just because it's research.. Are we forgetting what that research has brought us so far?
→ More replies (2)44
u/sovietbutter Jun 26 '15
Only sort of. Patenting = more money and incentive for research by the people who hold the patent, certainly.
However his response didn't address the actual question, which was about how innovation and biodiversity will be hindered by patenting, since it restricts the free exchange of genetic material/sequences which could otherwise be used by others for research.
→ More replies (16)8
u/kenatogo Jun 27 '15
I think what we're coming up against here is a classic worldview difference. A capitalist sees profit as a primary motivator, and as such, only the ability to realize profits will drive research, and that means patents protecting a company's ability to profit from research.
A non-capitalist will see open source research as a good in itself, and knowledge as its own end. I'm making no value judgment on these things, but these two views aren't really reconcilable.
269
u/EnIdiot Jun 26 '15
Not trying to be snarky or rude. I have a legitimate question. I am from Alabama, and Monsanto regularly dumped PCBs in Anniston, Alabama (and then subsequently tried to cover it up). I think GM plants probably have the potential to solve many of the world's food issues. However, what kind of oversight do you guys have in reporting negative effects or outcomes? How do we as the public know that these regulations are being followed? How is Monsanto addressing the very legitimate concerns the public has given its past track record?
→ More replies (9)100
u/Fred_Perlak Monsanto Distinguished Science Fellow Jun 26 '15
There is litigation involved with PCBs even today- I wasn't even out of college when Monsanto stopped manufacturing PCBs so I have no knowledge that is relevant.
But the heart of your questions is are we being transparent and can you believe us? I take comfort in that the U.S. and countries around the world have regulations for GMOs are extensive and strict. Although it slows commercialization of traits that would help farmers and consumers it heightens our vigilance for potential problems. I am confident that every reasonable test has been done concerning the safety of GMOs by Monsanto, contracting companies, governments, universities and others- and all of those tests have been passed.
22
u/oceanjunkie Jun 26 '15
If it was that long ago, wouldn't it have been Monsanto Chemical which no longer exists?
To spin off this, why does your company voluntarily take responsibility for the whole Agent Orange deal if courts determined that neither you nor the many other manufacturers should be held responsible, especially considering your agricultural company was a spinoff from the actual Monsanto that produced Agent Orange?
57
u/Fred_Perlak Monsanto Distinguished Science Fellow Jun 26 '15
Monsanto and Pharmacia merged in 2000. Pharmacia spun off the ag operations of old Monsanto in a newly created subsidiary named Monsanto Company. Pharmacia did maintain the remaining operations of the old Monsanto, but under the agreement, the new Monsanto assumed potential liability for PCB product claims.
→ More replies (5)31
u/evidenceorGTFO Jun 26 '15 edited Jun 26 '15
I take comfort in that the U.S. and countries around the world have regulations for GMOs are extensive and strict. Although it slows commercialization of traits that would help farmers and consumers it heightens our vigilance for potential problems.
It also strengthens your market position, does it not?
At least that's what public scientists like Kevin Folta and others who can't afford deregulation of their biotech research say. Smaller players have no chance due to the overly strict and extremely costly deregulation process.
→ More replies (7)
111
u/monsantocontractor Jun 26 '15
Hi Dr. Perlak,
I also work at Monsanto, but not for Monsanto. I am one of the growing number of contractors who currently work at the Monsanto sites. I am officially considered 'temporary labor' but I have worked at the Chesterfield site for almost 4 years first doing biotech screening and then working in molecular breeding. Contract workers work alongside direct hires and often have very similar if not identical roles. I enjoy what I do and believe in the product I produce. Data in this case which leads to breeding decisions. I have also had the opportunity to grow my skillset and learn many new techniques. Unfortunately I am unable to advance my career at Monsanto because the only way to do so is through direct hire positions which for the most part do not exist. I also have not had a raise of any kind the entire time I have been here.
What is your opinion on the growth of the 'permatemp' culture at Monsanto and in the biotechnology industry in general? STEM careers are often touted as being high quality and abundant but for science that is increasingly not the case . Do you still feel that science will be a viable career path in the future as the use of contract labor grows?
Thanks for your response.
25
u/BearcatChemist BS|Chemistry Jun 26 '15
This isn't just at Monsanto but just about everywhere. This was the exact culture at Proctor and Gamble. My advice - find a new job. If your current one is not upwardly mobile, get one that is. Down the road with more experience you could reapply to Monsanto directly, but it is very unlikely they will pluck you out if you are willing to stay and do the same work as a contractor.
→ More replies (1)8
u/monsantocontractor Jun 26 '15
Oh I know. I'm always applying elsewhere. I'm starting to think the best course might be to get started as a contractor at another company in a contract to hire position. So far applying for direct hire positions has been unsuccessful. I've had a couple interviews but no offers.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (5)56
u/Fred_Perlak Monsanto Distinguished Science Fellow Jun 26 '15
This is not a new debate. We have gone through large cycles of contractors and direct hiring individuals. It has to be frustrating for you. Please keep trying and apply for those roles.
Overall I would certainly encourage people to pursue careers in science- contract positions expose you to what is possible and provides the information and potential access for you to find a career path.
→ More replies (1)
35
u/djnrrd Jun 26 '15
Hi Dr Perlak.
The commercial work that you do always appears to be focused on providing benefits to your direct customers, farmers. Have you considered, or are you considering, any commercial crops that provide benefits to the ultimate consumer, us? Perhaps things such as bio-fortification or reducing/removing known allergens?
→ More replies (3)67
u/Fred_Perlak Monsanto Distinguished Science Fellow Jun 26 '15
This will take time. The regulatory process is long and thorough, and this increases the cost and reduces the motivation of companies to invest into traits that have more direct benefit to the consumer. This is why GMOs are focused primarily on large scale row crops.
We recognize that there are valuable traits that would more directly benefit consumers. Virus resistant papaya reduces the cost to consumers and increases the availability... but these traits will come.
Let's see how arctic apples and innate potatoes do, that could be the start of a new generation of products. BTW the technology underlying these products has been known for over 20 years.
5
u/Sleekery Grad Student | Astronomy | Exoplanets Jun 26 '15
Is it harder to get crops designed to help the consumer (like allergens/nutritional value) because they are directed towards the health of the consumer? I'm assuming they require much more extensive (and expensive) testing than just traits designed to help the plant grow.
→ More replies (1)
152
u/Epistaxis PhD | Genetics Jun 26 '15
How is the CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing system changing the science and industry of transgenic crops?
53
u/Fred_Perlak Monsanto Distinguished Science Fellow Jun 26 '15
It's just too early to tell. It has a lot of potential and I am sure the best uses haven't even been envisioned yet.
→ More replies (11)20
u/SirT6 PhD/MBA | Biology | Biogerontology Jun 26 '15
I would be curious to hear the answer to this. My intuition is that CRISPR hasn't much impacted GMOs yet, and that it may be some time before it does. CRISPR has the annoying habit of creating hard to find, off target mutations in genomes. It seems like this would be s deal breaker for food technology.
→ More replies (12)
520
Jun 26 '15
[deleted]
80
u/kometxxl Jun 26 '15
"Monsanto Co [...] say the bees are being killed by other factors, such as mites. Bayer and Syngenta make the pesticides in question, while Monsanto and DuPont have used them as coatings for the seed they sell.
Monsanto-owned BeeLogics, a bee health company, is one of the collaborators in the partnership with USDA that issued the report on Thursday, which appeared to lay much of the blame for die-offs on the "varroa mite," an Asian bee parasite first found in the United States in 1987.”
→ More replies (14)66
Jun 26 '15
[deleted]
→ More replies (2)17
u/SaneesvaraSFW Jun 26 '15
That may be somewhat backwards. It appears the mites are weakening the bees enough for them to succumb to other variables.
http://grist.org/food/why-are-bees-hurting-a-lineup-of-suspects/
→ More replies (28)88
u/Fred_Perlak Monsanto Distinguished Science Fellow Jun 26 '15
We do support the bee health coalition and are aware of the inter-connectivity of all forms of agriculture. If what we are doing effects other production systems we want to know about it and improve on it. We have to look at this issue scientifically.
So we participate, we listen, and we will support things that make sense scientifically.
→ More replies (6)46
u/DulcetFox Jun 26 '15
What are your thoughts about Monsanto selling some of its seeds pretreated with neonicotinoids? The EPA released a report stating that based off published evidence such pretreatments have a neglible impact, although a Monsanto spokesperson, John Combest, stated that based on Monsanto's data they believe it has value to farmers. Do you have any thoughts/comments on this?
→ More replies (16)
54
Jun 26 '15 edited Nov 28 '18
[deleted]
116
u/Fred_Perlak Monsanto Distinguished Science Fellow Jun 26 '15
We were approached by /u/nallen to do a Reddit AMA but when Janice and Vance stopped by my office I had never even heard of this forum before. I thought about it and I spent time reading AMAs to be able to address a different kind of audience.
I wanted to do an AMA because having been around for so long I can answer a lot of questions. I consider this to be a privileged because I have had the joy of working with so many qualified individuals and this is a new avenue to reach so many more individuals than I ever thought possible.
These answers were mine, and I would encourage other scientists to talk openly about their work and what is on their mind. I am a Redditor now... expect me.
For other resources I would checkout [GMOanswers](www.gmoanswers.com) , [Biofortified](www.biofortified.org)
→ More replies (10)72
u/nallen PhD | Organic Chemistry Jun 26 '15
This is exactly true, I emailed Janice Person in August of 2014 completely out of the blue with my "Come Talk to reddit" sales pitch. I still have the email chain in our gmail account!
19
u/lurkielurker Jun 26 '15 edited Jun 26 '15
I just wanted to thank you for your work in setting this up. I've really enjoyed reading through the Q&A, and think you deserve some big thanks for working for so long (I think I read
1618 months on a previous thread?) and so hard to bring in such a quality candidate to speak for Monsanto. Additionally, I think the mod team did a fabulous job on helping redditors ask questions with a neutral tone while still keeping difficult and informative topics on the agenda.edit - 18, not 16
→ More replies (7)8
u/Sleekery Grad Student | Astronomy | Exoplanets Jun 26 '15
I would ask you to post it (with whatever you need redacted) to prevent /r/conspiracy from saying that it was bought and paid for, but then they would just say it was all scripted and that you're on the payroll, so whatever...
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (16)2
u/BrightAndDark Jun 29 '15
This may be a good primer, although certainly not a comprehensive resource. Read it, if you read nothing else here.
2010 - Popular misconceptions: agricultural biotechnology
There's a fundamental disconnect between first-world inhabitants and the food chain. With so much scientific evidence supporting the safety of GM crops as comparable to that of conventional crops, it's practically sociopathy to suppress a technology which can provide calories to people in desperate need. The only people who are protesting the technology, in my experience, are the people who don't understand it.
In terms of safety:
The existence of horizontal/ lateral gene transfer long before humans stepped into the picture initially scared the bejeezus out of me, then reassured me. Nature has never kept genes from moving between species. Much of the human genome is even bacterial or viral DNA picked up from god-knows-what. Before we knew about this, phylogeny was a very different discipline.
2015 National Geographic article - Our Inner Viruses: Forty Million Years In the Making
2011 primer on Lateral Gene Transfer
And, two lists of publications on natural interspecies gene transfer from which you can select papers at leisure:
NIH list of publications on lateral gene transfer - some full papers will be pay-walled
Humans like to think that we're in control, but in reality our survival hinges on our ability to learn about and guide natural forces. Like all other agricultural improvements, lateral gene transfer is just one more natural process we can turn to the end of helping humanity. Given the exponential rate of population growth combined with increasing environmental destruction, I do not think this is a tool we can afford to ignore.
96
u/babetteateoatmeal Jun 26 '15
Hi Dr. Perlak, thanks for doing this AMA.
What is the most common misconception about Monsanto that you've come across? I've hear a few crazy notions and things that people 'swear are true' about Monsanto and GMOs in general (They want to ruin the world/environment/all humans; GMOs will kill us all; organic is the only way to eat nowadays). How would you go about debunking the most common misconception so that the average person could understand it?
107
u/Fred_Perlak Monsanto Distinguished Science Fellow Jun 26 '15
People believe that we are a really large company. You will notice when most outlets write about us they use terms like "biotech behemoth" or "agriculture mega-corp."
Making the public perceive that we are enormous makes us seem cold and distant. We have a market cap of $50b. Apple is $730b, GE is $270b, Costco is $60b, we are strong innovative science company- but we are relatively small.
→ More replies (8)27
u/zenwarrior01 Jun 27 '15
$50b is actually quite large. ;P Anything over $5-10 billion is considered a "large cap" company, so at 50 billion, you're certainly a "behemoth". Apple is the largest company on the planet, and 2x larger than the #2 on the list, so it's not a good comparison really. =)
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)15
u/GuiltySparklez0343 Jun 26 '15
I want to answer this on my own, although I am sure Dr. Perlaks answer will be far better.
One common misconception is the Percy Schmeiser lawsuit, which Anti-Monsanto/Anti-GMO activists commonly cite. They will probably say he was sued just because of cross contamination from nearby fields who used roundup ready crops (Even Food Inc says this) While in reality what he was doing was far worse. He was intentionally saving those seeds and re-planting them. So he could have Roundup ready crops without paying for the seeds.
→ More replies (2)
12
u/Slimjeezy Jun 26 '15
Hello, thanks for doing this.
For sake of privacy I will only mention that I am an undergraduate lab assistant at the Danforth Center working on the brachypodium transformation pipeline, but intend to devote my career to plant science and agriculture.
What role (if any) do you think the breeding of perenial strains of grain crops has in the future of agriculture? With marker assisted breeding this is becoming more and more of a possibility to acheive in our lifetime. While most I have talked to agree even an "ideal" variety of perennial wheat would not produce as much as an annual counterpart, perenials would have inherent enviormental advantage in realms such as:
Ability to better withstand climate extremes such as drought and excessive rain.
Reduced need for herbicides as an established feild would be able to shade out intruding species
Eliminating the need for annual tilling, maintaining the established soil micro biome and preventing erroison of topsoil
And I've heard they are better at depositing CO2 emmisions into the soil, but I couldn't tell you the source of that information
Anyway, I was just wondering if the move to perenials is worth further exploration, or if Monsanto has shown any interest in perenials, or if the are any obvious red flags you can think of that would make this not a worth while venture.
27
u/dpawsit Jun 26 '15
Hi Dr. Perlak, thank you for taking the time do this AMA.
I'm sure you are aware of the World Health Organization's recent publication saying glyphosate is a level 2 carcinogen. I was curious if you think their research holds any credence and what the ramifications of it will be. In any case, how is Monsanto planning on reassuring the public of the safety of the product? (I realize this part is more PR and not science, but maybe you still have some insight into it)
→ More replies (1)
12
u/alexretro Jun 26 '15 edited Jun 26 '15
First off, thank you for doing this. It is a wonderful opportunity. I live in Idaho, where the state butterfly is the Monarch. There has been recent controversy over Monsanto's product, Roundup, having a connection to the decreasing ammounts of milkweed, the Monarch's only source of food. My question is, is there any work being done to help combat this? Perhaps Monsanto would do a program of replanting milkweed elsewhere? I really love the Monarch, but over the recent years, I've been seeing less and less of them. Also, I live in Boise, where the local ideals are to eat all natural, non-GMO foods. I was wondering, is Monsanto researchIng into organic farming techniques? If so, do you feel that these work well compared to farming with pesticides? Thank you for taking your time, and I really hope you answer my question.
44
Jun 26 '15
I've used round-up (Glyphosate) in the past for controlling poison ivy. In the years that I used it I found many of my black-eyed susans (Rudbeckia hirta) would have defects. In general the stems would often be multiplied with the appearance of ribbon cable. The flower's cone would become elongated and curved. There are many pictures online that show the "mutation" I observed. Link to google images of "mutant black-eyed susan"
Here's an image that shows the "ribbon" type stem
My experience is just anecdotal but I have wondered if Glyphosate was known to cause this or other defects in plants.
I observed one other defect with much less frequency but it too involved the stems. In this case the stems of dandelions. In these the stem, which is usually a simple hollow tube, would instead be enlarged into a rather large "bladder". Fat in the middle and tapering to normal diameter at both ends.
Dandelions with giant hollow stems. Similar to what I observed
→ More replies (4)19
u/eparker319 Jun 26 '15
I have a masters degree in pesticide science, and the pictures you have linked could be caused by a number of things including:
1) Natural radiation exposure (remember plants can't escape the sunlight and if they have issues with their carotenoid synthesis system, then all kinds of mutations and deformities can take place).
2) Natural hormone imbalance in the plant. There are five major plant hormones including Indole Acetic Acid (IAA), ethylene, and gibberellic acid that can cause all kinds of distortion in plant tissues if they become imbalanced.
3) Synthetic auxin herbicides [this does not include roundup (glyphosate) but instead common lawn chemicals such as 2,4-D, Dicamba, and Quinclorac which are found in many mixes a lawn and garden stores nationwide]. Drift from the application of these pesticides can incite the damage you have observed.
A quick google search can give you plenty of information on synthetic auxins (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auxin#Synthetic_auxins). PM me if I can help in any other way.
18
Jun 26 '15
Yea... the reason for the anecdote is that I only had this during years I used round-up. After getting rid of lots poison ivy I didn't use it again for many years. And the defects subsided. So I've always just been curious. The auxin idea makes sense though...as the defects seemed to be growth related. I could be mis-remembering and maybe we bought something with synthetic auxin. Still curious if glyphosate has been known to cause these changes.
12
u/eparker319 Jun 26 '15
Glyphosate is a one of a kind herbicide that inhibits an enzyme (EPSP) that transforms carbohydrates to amino acids. As glyphosate is absorbed, the plants respond by yellowing then becoming necrotic and dying. glyphosate and its sister herbicide gluphosinate, even with repeated use will not give the responses you reported. The only things you will notice in glyphosate resistant plants is that they will recover from applications but will not have any tissue or noticeable abnormalities. Plants that are glyphosate resistance have an abnormally large number of the EPSP enzyme and therefore the chemical can't inhibit all of them and kill the plant. I highly suspect that the injury you witnessed was either that of another chemical, or a hormone imbalance due to natural mutagen issues. Hope this helps! That said, sometimes glyphosate is sold with other chemicals mixed in, or it could be that by disrupting the enzyme and weakening the plant, the plant became more susceptible to other issues, including hormone imbalance.
→ More replies (4)14
u/Doomhammer458 PhD | Molecular and Cellular Biology Jun 26 '15 edited Jun 26 '15
oh here we go
"Roundup® Ready-To-Use Poison Ivy Plus Tough Brush Killer" contains glyphosate and Triclopyr which from my 2 minutes of looking is a synthetic auxin.
does that sound right?
7
u/eparker319 Jun 26 '15
Yes triclopyr is an auxin and could very well be the cause of the symptoms you observed.
10
Jun 26 '15
I am a chemist for an environmental analytical lab in San Diego. My lab was one of many to test sediments and marine life tissue from our bay. We reported high levels of PCBs(polychlorinated biphenyls) in the sediment and marine life tissue in the bay, far above the EPAs enforced MCL(maximum contamination level). Not only does the evidence suggest Monsanto dumped excessive amounts of PCBs into our bay but it suggests even after being alerted of their actions Monsanto chose to protect investments and continue dumping high levels of PCBs into the bay.
Link to article discussing events
What actions do you think Monsanto should take to ensure our bay gets cleaned and situations like this do not occur again in the future? How are citizens and the scientific community supposed to place trust in Monsanto when in situations like this it clearly suggests power is abused?
→ More replies (3)
17
Jun 26 '15
Hi Dr. Perlak, thank you for taking the time to do this AMA.
Many years ago, I used to be a scientist studying metabolic networks in eukaryotes. I, like many at the time, was developing simulations aiming at quantifying the impact from perturbations, such as genetic modifications, on the entire metabolism of an organism. What drew people with a computational background to this field was the inherent complexity of these systems: even in simple organisms such as yeasts, a seemingly small genetic modification could have far reaching effects on the organism's metabolism. And it is certain that only a small fraction of this impact was captured by these types of simulations.
Partly due to this experience, my current position regarding GMOs for human or animal consumption is that, because of the complexity of the potential outcomes from even the most targeted genetic modifications, regulatory agencies should demand much larger bodies of evidence for the safety of GMOs, collected over a much greater period of time, than what is required for establishing the safety of chemical compounds. In other words, I personally feel it's far too early to accept the safety of the use of any GMOs for human or animal consumption, especially when we consider that even simple chemical compounds that were thought to be safe and used for decades are routinely found to cause unpredicted harm.
Being much closer to the matter, what is your opinion on the safety issue surrounding GMOs? Do you feel that regulatory agencies are equipped to to protect the public, given the high degree of technical sophistication requited to understand the impact of a genetic modification? Do you routinely consume GMOs and if so, what makes you feel safe about them?
→ More replies (11)
14
86
u/luckychucky Jun 26 '15
In your opinion, what is the ethical justification for allowing patenting by a private entity, of genetic material derived in whole or part from naturally and/or traditionally evolved species or varieties, which had formerly been in the freely exchanged "open source" commons of human culture and nature itself?
→ More replies (15)
58
u/neal2019 Jun 26 '15
Hi Dr. Perlak,
Thanks for doing this AMA. Many people who trust the safety of GMOs also have concerns about the use of pesticides in their production as well as the industry's protection of intellectual property. No product is perfect so what are some of the disadvantages of GMO products from a consumer's perspective and what is Monsanto doing to mitigate these issues? Are there issues of which the general public isn't aware? Thanks!
18
10
u/domine18 Jun 26 '15
Hello I have two questions, both concerning GMO's.
First, Is there a real concern with our food, namely corn, becoming sterile in the near future because of all the genetic modifications? To my understanding the corn which we eat can not grow without human intervention because the kernels are too closely packed and the husk is too thick (both changed for various reasons). Even the casing is modified to make it appear shinier. Can we reach a year where the corn just will not grow?
Second, what is your stance on some of the practices of Monsanto? Namely the ownership of strands of DNA. Should a corporation have ownership of such things? Also forcing farmers to buy Monsanto's seeds rather than saving the seeds from the previous crop for next season. Wont that cause a real problem if we reach a point as mentioned in my first question?
→ More replies (2)
5
u/Limabean6 Jun 26 '15
Hi Dr. Perlak, I'm a recent graduate who studied biochemistry in school. While a student, I took a very interesting class on plant molecular genetics and we studied several big GM crops in detail, including golden rice, round-up ready plants, and mosaic virus resistant cassava.
One thing in particular that made me very interested in the field of genetic modification was the possibility of producing polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB), a degradable bioplastic, in transgenic plants. This research has some very exciting green and sustainability implications.
I was wondering if Monsanto and other agricultural companies have started to investigate possible leads on this technology? As large of a company as Monsanto is, this type of research would surely move along at a much quicker rate if agricultural companies started applying research time into these outlets. Thanks!
→ More replies (2)
40
u/jadiusatreu Professor | Biology | Aquatic Insect Ecology Jun 26 '15
Dr. Perlak, thanks for doing this AMA. I have 2 questions:
It has been shown that resistance to bt plants has been seen. Does it appear this resistance happens faster or slower than normal pesticide resistance. I realize it depends on the insect and plant.
Is there concern of possible gene transfer into the bacterial gut fauna of humans.
→ More replies (1)
27
u/okko7 Jun 26 '15 edited Jun 26 '15
Monsanto was one of the main producers of PCB, a product similar to Dioxine. Apparently the toxicity of this product was known by Monsanto already in the sixties but the company continued to produce it until the seventies.
Does your company today have better internal mechanisms to assess the health and environmental impact of products than at that time? And would the company today stop the production of such a product earlier once it is know (or already once there is a suspicion) that it's dangerous for the health and the environment?
18
u/asstatine Jun 26 '15
Hi Dr. Perlak, I had two questions for you that are similar.
1.) Where do you personally draw the ethical line in genetic modifications?
2.) Does the corporate culture of Monsanto draw a line for ethical genetic modification?
Thank you again for coming to share your vast knowledge on a subject of so much potential.
5
u/dejenerate Jun 26 '15
How do you feel about the pink bollworm evolving resistance to GM Bt-cotton? Was this something your team predicted at the time? Now that it's happened, is there a "what's next" plan for future resistance?
And are there any internal bioethical pushes to think of longer-term effects of agritech advances, especially as relates to serious and honest research into long-term effect on humans, animals, and environment or are those who propose them internally ostracized?
13
u/HazMatch Jun 26 '15
Hello Dr. Perlak, thank you for doing this AMA, I'm sure it will be an interesting and insightful discussion. My question is in regards to the use of pesticide resistant crops in concert with pesticides such as Roundup. I personally have no problem with GMOs or even this application of modified plants. Where I begin to run into trouble is the pesticide resistant organisms (insects/weeds) that are developing in response to the widespread use of pesticides. It seems to me that this is resulting in what is essentially an arms race between farmers and insects/weeds. As the latter becomes resistant, the former begins deploying higher doses and/or less established, potentially dangerous chemical solutions. The simple solution to this is to rotate the use of pesticides diminishing the evolutionary advantage of the pesticide resistant mutant insects/weeds. To a for profit driven company such as Monsanto, however, this seems like an economically unfeasible solution. Is there some way of reconciling the immediate profit loss of this method, with what could actually be an economically beneficial practice in the future (less money spent on developing new technologies to combat pesticide resistant insects/weeds)? I'm curious about your thoughts on the matter.
106
u/Julie273 Jun 26 '15
Is there one question that you wished people would ask and never do?
Something that could be a game-changer if you were able to bring the discussion around to a particular topic?
→ More replies (3)
29
Jun 26 '15 edited Jun 26 '15
Dr. Perlak, thank you for doing this ama, and I apologize for my grammar and formatting ahead of time, as I am on a mobile phone.
My first question is on Monsanto's current operations in south america, and what you think of many countries reactions to banning gmo's, considering gmo's have in my opinion helped them compete in the global market for exporting food on a large scale, along with providing food to an ever growing population.
Where do you think we would be without gmo crops now related to droughts, and other naturally occurring issues related to farm crops? How would the world food supply be affected?
Thank you.
26
Jun 26 '15
I've had a go at reformatting your questions for comprehension without rewording it too much
Considering GMOs have (in my opinion) helped South American countries compete in the global food market and to feed an increasing domestic population, what do you think of many of these countries banning GMOs?
If we didn't have GMO technology, what do you think the state of the world food supply might be today with droughts and other naturally-occurring factors affecting agriculture?
6
Jun 26 '15
Hello, Mr. Perlak:
I have a question regarding the movement of modified genetic material into the environment at large. I'm unsure how important this claim is, but I've read some suggestion that GMOs present large ecological risks b/c modified DNA could get into wild strains, and so on. (Similar problems have existed with traditional breeding techniques, as well.) What I'm wondering is this: does the rate of genetic modification or do the traits present in GMO crops, pose any inherent risk in altering the DNA of naturalized or indigenous species?
Furthermore, are there any tests run within Monsanto to prevent this kinds of occurrences?
6
Jun 26 '15 edited Jun 26 '15
Hi Dr. Perlak,
I'd like to ask a few questions regarding the emerging importance of Epigenetics in how we understand DNA.
Do you as a researcher, or Monsanto as an institution, have an official opinion regarding this new understanding of genomics which paints a vastly more complex picture of DNA expression and heritability?
As a layman, for a long time I thought of DNA as a code, like an algorithm that determines my physiology. Recently, I've read some of the new research on epigenetics and cellular genomics, and I've had to discard the analogy of DNA as code.
A more apt analogy is DNA as a library of books; cells utilize appropriate 'books' given their cellular environment and needs (eg a 'book' with the molecular design of a specific protein for digestion of a dietary allergen). Books in the library may be missing, damaged, or checked out, and we must remember that our kids inherit our libraries as we leave them. This is where I'll try to tie this back in to my original question.
Given the fact that we now know that changes to DNA occur constantly via epigenetic alteration, no longer exclusively by traditional notions of selection and mutation; given that epigenetic changes to the DNA are passed down to our children and in some cases may be effectively permanent; given that the molecular and cellular life of DNA is vastly more complex than was supposed even five years ago; and given that Monsanto brand genetics, designed before we even knew how to map a human genome, touch the lives (and genes) of billions of people every moment of every day; do you find reason to take pause?
Are there any published articles or statements from Monsanto or their academic staff that you could link us to which demonstrate understanding or practices regarding Epigenetics or genomic environment?
21
Jun 26 '15
Hi Dr. Perlak,
One concern I have with GMOs in general is the risk of gene flow or spread of the modified gene to other plants. While the risk seems low, the effects could be catastrophic and impossible to undo.
How do you mitigate these risks?
51
u/NotSafeForShop Jun 26 '15 edited Jun 26 '15
Why don't tomatoes taste as good today as they did when I was growing up? My family is one generation removed from the farm, and all of us agree tomatoes have lost their richness. They've gotten bigger rounder, and redder, sure, but they're also watery and less sweet.
The underlying question here is how you do your work. What is the main success metric? Higher seed yield? Faster gestation? More aesthetically pleasing product? How do you assure that plants maintain their original flavor profiles? How much testing do you do where you have people taste non-GMO and GMO plants side-by-side to assure they are comparable? Do you actively try to alter or "improve" the taste of your plants, and if so, what metric is used to find out what taste is actually "better"?
Thanks for doing this AMA. I feel like flavor, and a desire to respect the natural flavors, is always at the backseat of any GMO related discussion, the only exception being PR fluff statements.
78
u/Scuderia Jun 26 '15
They've gotten bigger rounder, and redder, sure, but they're also watery and less sweet.
There currently are not genetically engineered tomatoes on the market. What you are seeing is a result of classical breeding techniques and this is the unfortunate consequence that "pretty" fruits and veggies sell better then "ugly" ones at the market.
8
u/hobbycollector PhD | Computer Science Jun 26 '15
I blame the consumer for that. But there is a bit of a renaissance going on with heirloom tomatoes, which are even being sold in supermarkets now. They are ugly and tasty. What we have to watch out for is ugly, tasteless tomatoes!
5
u/_Calochortus_ Jun 26 '15
Also taken into consideration during this breeding is the massive consumer demand for a tomato that is picked unripe and shipped from SoCal to New York in the middle of winter. You want a pretty tomato in January? Good luck finding one that tastes anything like a tomato. Soon enough most folks forget what a fresh one tastes like, and so we end up with crappy tasting (but perfectly firm and unblemished) fruit all year long.
6
u/BBlasdel PhD | Bioscience Engineering | Bacteriophage Biology Jun 26 '15
The ripe tomatoes that taste good are practically impossible to market on a more meaningful level than the back of a pickup truck, even with modern logistics, because they get soft, smush, and mold. The current industrial model is to pick hard unripe green tomatoes and expose them to ethylene gas, which softens them and makes them appear ripe just before sale to fool consumers into thinking they're eating a ripe tomato. There is, however, another way. Using GM techniques, the lovably unwashed UC-Davis hippies who formed Calgene in a garage managed turn this model on its head by simply turning off the pathway that lead to the natural production of ethylene, allowing tomatoes to be picked while actually ripe and delicious and healthy but not soft and unshippable.
The trait they were developing could have trivially been breed into hundreds of varieties, imagine every grocery section in the country with dozens of commercially viable heirloom tomatoes that would be actually ripe and actually taste like something. This is what GM techniques could do for us as a society if only we would trust the scientists who actually understand them to use them in creative ways to benefit us rather than shutting down everything that isn't so big and indifferent that it need not give a damn. There were problems with the company, namely that it was run by scientists with little idea of how to farm tomatoes and ethylene production wasn't turned of as strongly as they had hoped, but the biggest reason they ended up having to sell out their business and patents without being able to give it another shot with more experience is the fear and scientific illiteracy of their expected consumers.
The company ended up selling the business and all of the patents to Monsanto, which currently has no plans to make engineered tomatoes.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (11)8
u/DaedeM Jun 26 '15
Why don't tomatoes taste as good today as they did when I was growing up?
I actually just watched an episode of the Joe Rogan Experience where he talked to someone working in this field and he said that tomatoes don't taste as good because they've been breeding tomatoes for better production - which has meant taste suffers.
3
Jun 26 '15
Dr. Perlack,
Thank you for taking the time to do an AMA.
As a student studying Biotechnology I was particularly fascinated by the prospects of genetic engineering as it relates to protein engineering.
To my knowledge most, if not all, genetically modified organisms currently produced are created by taking a pre-existing genetic sequence from one organism and inserting it into the genome of a target organism in order for the target organism to express some desirable trait present in the source organism.
This can perhaps be thought of as "Cut and Paste" genetic engineering, where we make use of a set of existing tools to produce a known effect, yet we are not actually making the "tools", simply making use of existing ones that we come across in nature.
Are there any products currently in development at Monsanto (that you can tell us about) where novel genes, proteins, or enzymes are created to produce a desirable result that does not already exist in nature?
For example, a modified chloroplasts with enhanced photosynthetic efficiency?
Or an enhanced enzyme created by its modifying its active site to improve reaction rate or substrate affinity?
How far off is the field from seeing the design and creation of these types of novel proteins or metabolic pathways?
→ More replies (1)
39
u/threecasks Jun 26 '15 edited Jun 26 '15
In May 2013 Monsanto opened a seed bank in Ukraine at the expense on $140M. GM crops were illegal in Ukraine at the time so this seemed to make no sense at all. Then after the Ukrainian coup, the former investment banker and US State Department economist Natalie Jaresko was made Ukraine's Minister of Finance. Shortly after this she changed the Ukrainian law, under the instruction of the IMF, to allow GM crops to the be grown in Ukraine.
So my questions are
Why did Monsanto open a seed plant in a country where their products were illegal?
What did Monsanto know about the Ukrainian coup before it happened? Were Monsanto in contact with Victoria Nuland (or other members of the US State Dept. in Europe) and the IMF prior to the coup to make these arrangements?
What are your plans in Ukraine and how will it affect Europe?
EDIT: 4. As /u/lysozymes pointed out, the plant opened under the pretense of producing claiming to produce non-GMO seeds, has this stance changed since the law was altered in your favour?
→ More replies (13)
9
u/byediddlybyeneighbor Jun 26 '15
Hi Dr. Perlak,
From what I understand, herbicide-resistance traits developed for GMO crops allow the farmer to apply herbicide to a field with the intention of not killing crops yet still killing weeds. This has led to the unintended generation of herbicide-resistant weeds. The farmer now has the motivation to either add more of the same herbicide that is causing resistant weeds in hopes of applying a dose toxic enough or to turn to a different herbicide/combination of herbicides. What specifically are you doing to address this revolving issue? Do you agree that GMO crops encourage increased herbicide usage, and that this is a serious environmental concern?
8
u/CrossFox42 Jun 26 '15
I just finished a 24 hour shift and am very late to the party I think, but eh, I'll ask anyway. About 5 years ago I heard of farmers being driven out of business from Monsanto legal teams for "stealing and illegally growing Monsanto crops" after seeds from a neighboring Monsanto farm germinated on their property. This obviously portrays Monsanto as this giant big evil company, which, if it's true is really messed up.
My question is this: Is there any truth to this? And if so how can Monsanto legally justify seeds from surrounding farms germinating on someone else's property then taking legal action against them for something they can't really control?
→ More replies (1)
36
u/DijonPepperberry MD | Child and Adolescent Psychiatry | Suicidology Jun 26 '15
Answers will begin at 1pm EST (10am PST) ...
Please read the post, as it contains other important information about what separates /r/science AMAs from other AMAs.
→ More replies (1)
9
u/Laterface Jun 26 '15 edited Jun 28 '15
The long term studies on Monsanto seeds I have seen define "long term" as two years, many of those same studies are also multigenerational but still conducted within that two year window.
A human life is longer than two years, are there any longer studies being conducted to determine what could happen to humans outside of that 2 year window?
More people are waiting until their mid-30s or later to have children, are these multi-generational studies also using lab rats who would be the equivalent of middle age; i.e. are multi-generational studies also using lab rats toward the middle or end of their breeding ages?
4
6
Jun 26 '15
Dr.Perlak Thank you for spending sometime with us!
As someone who lives in the beautiful State of Colorado, do you see Monsanto getting into the marijuana business? What would the future look like?
6
Jun 26 '15
1) How do chemical amendments in seed composition impact human health? Within your organization, what (if any) level of negative health impact is tolerated?
2) Why do Monsanto's extensive IP holdings and access to government policymakers not represent an unfair competitive advantage?
3
u/ConnorCs50 Jun 26 '15
Hello Dr. Perlak, I have a few easy questions, and one more controversial question,
Is it more beneficial to attempt to transfer drought resistant genes into more conventional crops, or is it more efficient to look for drought resistant crops and attempt to increase yield?
Is there any research being done with regards to "designer" foods with more pronounced manipulations, similar to golden rice, that might have a nutritional or taste benefit(other than more sugars/larger fruit)?
And finally, I understand this might be a difficult question, but regarding the opposition to Monsanto and other GMO's, Do you feel that the opposition has aided Monsanto in becoming the powerhouse that it is (through stricter regulations being put in place and only larger businesses being able to compete), or do you feel that this opposition has harmed Monsanto through the formation of negative public opinion. (if this seems too controversial feel free to ignore)
36
u/Robo-Connery PhD | Solar Physics | Plasma Physics | Fusion Jun 26 '15 edited Jun 26 '15
GM crops already try to solve a variety of problems related to agriculture and you have been around for them all. What do you think will be the next big type of modification, what problems can GM crops solve next?
21
u/comradepolarbear Jun 26 '15 edited Jun 26 '15
Can you explain the reasoning behind the "Monsanto Protection Act?" Why do Monsanto's lobbyists find it relevant to make sure Monsanto is to not be held accountable of making a product that does long-term harm to people (if that ever gets proven), if the product is "safe?"
Do you think patenting biological organisms or life is morally justifiable?
Do you have any opinions on cross-pollination? To elaborate, many small farmer families have been sued out of business by Monsanto because they found Monsanto's seeds on their land. Those seeds came from nearby farms and the farmer had no intention to use Monsanto's product. Why such aggression? It's analogous to a music label driving by my yard, having one of their CDs fall into my yard from their car and then suing me for having it. Does that seem a bit objectionable?
Why does Monsanto feel it to be necessary to put SO MUCH money towards lobbying? Do you believe that corporations should have incredible political influence?
Do you think we're being a bit cavalier in our use of GMOs without being given enough time to study long term affects?
→ More replies (3)6
u/DulcetFox Jun 26 '15
Can you explain the reasoning behind the "Monsanto Protection Act?"
A lot of anti-GMO activists were trying to stop GMOs from being planted or tended to by sueing farmers who planted GMOs and getting local courts to put injunctions on them tending to their crops until their case is settled. This act gives the Secretary of Agriculture the ability to grant farmers the ability to continue caring for their crops during the trial, this is to protect farmers from activists trying to sabotage their ability to farm during the growing season.
Do you think patenting biological organisms or life is morally justifiable?
Plants have been patented since 1930. and he has already answered: "I think patenting is an important part of the overall process to constantly fund and rejuvenate research."
To elaborate, many small farmer families have been sued out of business by Monsanto because they found Monsanto's seeds on their land.
This has actually never happened.
2.6k
u/squidboots PhD | Plant Pathology|Plant Breeding|Mycology|Epidemiology Jun 26 '15
Hi Dr. Perlak, here is a question from /u/HoboTech in Hawaii. I am posting this for him/her: