Scientists at the John Innes Centre, Norwich have been awarded nearly $10 million (£6.4m) to develop genetically modified cereal crops over the course of a five year project. The grant was awarded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; a philanthropic organisation run by the former Microsoft CEO.

The research will investigate whether “it is possible to initiate a symbiosis between cereal crops and bacteria [that] could help cereals access nitrogen from the air to improve yields.” Research will focus on maize, but also examine wheat, barley and rice and attempt to reduce their need for nitrogen fertiliser by “associating with nitrogen-fixing bacteria”.

The John Innes centre said the research will benefit subsistence farmers and could reduce the environmental impact of cereal production. Professor Giles Oldroyd explained, “During the Green Revolution, nitrogen fertilisers helped triple cereal yields in some areas, but these chemicals are unaffordable for small-scale farmers in the developing world.”  He said that, as a result, yields are 80-85 per cent below their potential in poverty-stricken areas and that this work could tackle the issue whilst potentially reducing the need for environmentally damaging nitrogen fertilisers elsewhere.  

image expired

The researchers hope to engineer cereal crops to work in symbiosis with soil bacteria, in a similar manner to pea and bean crops, which also fix nitrogen. Professor Oldroyd continued, “We have developed a pretty good understanding of how legumes such as peas and beans evolved the ability to recruit soil bacteria to access the nitrogen they need. Even the most primitive symbiotic relationship with bacteria benefited the plant, and this is where we hope to start in cereals.”

Katherine Kahn, senior program officer of Agricultural Development at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation commented on Sunday, “We need innovation for farmers to increase their productivity in a sustainable way so that they can lift themselves and their families out of poverty.  Improving access to nitrogen could dramatically boost the crop yields of farmers in Africa.”

Funding decision sparks massive backlash

However, food policy experts and agriculturalists have reacted strongly to the Gates Foundation’s decision to finance research into ‘silver bullet’ GM solutions over proven agroecological approaches. A number of development organisations, including the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation have called for wider uptake of agroecological practices; these include lower impact, organic and context-specific approaches, with a wider social focus.

According to UN rapporteur Olivier DeSchutter, such approaches have already doubled and even tripled yields in the regions the Gates’ research will target. In his report to the FAO, Agroecology and the Right to Food, delivered last year, DeSchutter states, “To feed 9 billion people in 2050, we urgently need to adopt the most efficient farming techniques available, today’s scientific evidence demonstrates that agroecological methods outperform the use of chemical fertilizers in boosting food production where the hungry live – especially in unfavourable environments.”  

Dr Michael Antoniou of King’s College London, a Member of the UK Government's GM Science Review Panel and author of the recent report GMO Myths and Truths report, slammed the decision, stating, "There are safer, proven technologies, so I'm afraid the Gateses have been grossly misled. GM has failed to deliver for farmers; it can only deliver commercial returns,"

Friends of the Earth Food and Farming Campaigner Kirtana Chandrasekaran added, "GM crops have over-promised and under-delivered - this grant would be better spent helping developing countries build on their traditional knowledge to develop diverse and resilient farming systems that meet local needs." 

The Gates foundation’s decision to allocate the money to a UK institute remains an extremely contentious one, as many commentators have said it could spark more confrontations over the controversial technology or allow GM into the UK and wider EU “through the back door.” Although GM technology is unpopular with European consumers and farmers, industry lobbyists and a number of sympathetic governments, including the current Coalition government, have stepped up attempts to introduce GM organisms into the bloc.

In Britain, the dust of May’s spat between Rothamsted Research Institute and protest group Take the Flour Back, has just begun to settle. The upheaval began when Rothamsted planted an open air trial of GM ‘whiffy wheat,’ engineered to repel aphids, which protesters threatened to remove, citing environmental concerns. The episode culminated in a debate on the BBC’s Panorama programme and a protest at the Rothamsted Institute in Hertfordshire.  

In the past, the Gates foundation has been criticised for its policy decisions, including investing for maximum returns in the companies which are driving environmental degradation and compounding poverty in the areas where it professes to work, and allying itself with biotech giants to promote GM technology in areas where such cultivation may not be suitable.

Tweet