Introduction
To the Editor:
The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO; Rome) has just released a report The State of Food and Agriculture; Biofuels: Prospects, Risks and Opportunities1. This report demonstrates how the FAO has marginalized itself by its thinking and lack of foresight. The words GMO (genetically modified organism) or transgenic are not mentioned as rapid ways to domesticate crops for biofuels; even breeding is not mentioned as such in the text. The FAO-given role for biotech in biofuel crop development is crop genomics, but they fail to say how genomics might be used. There is also a general statement that "Apart from genomics, other biotechnologies that can be applied include marker-assisted selection and genetic modification." The only things they discuss in particular that should be "genetically modified" are the organisms producing the enzymes for lignocellulose degradation. Algae as a source of liquid biofuels or hydrogen are not mentioned anywhere, yet their culture in seawater has considerable potential to solve the fuel versus food debate discussed at length in the report2.
ADVERTISEMENT
Worse yet they ignore the toxicological and environmental dangers of some of these crops. Castor bean and Jatropha curcas (common name: vomit nut), sources of the closely related, exceedingly potent ricin and curcin are widely discussed, and Jatropha has an entire box dedicated to its culture ("Jatropha—a 'miracle' crop?"), where the answer on balance is "yes." Nowhere in the report do curcin or ricin appear, nor is there a mention of the cancer potentiators and allergens in Jatropha. Unlike soybeans, the protein of the seed of both crops is poisonous (but can be partially detoxified by autoclaving), so there is no possibility of feeding the protein to livestock. No environmental impact or worker toxicological studies have been published that deal with the implications of applying the residues to farmers' fields, as they suggest. The toxins could be eliminated by antisense or RNAi technology, and the residues used as feed. Where is the FAO in dealing with farmer safety? Imagine releasing a transgenic crop with such properties. They do not even cite those who have analyzed and questioned the economics of Jatropha3. Is the FAO really interested in keeping poor farmers poor? Alas transgenics could rapidly solve many of these problems in domestication that the FAO so glibly ignores4, 5. So many of the troublesome genes are known, the crops have been previously transformed, but if organizations, such as the FAO, do not recognize the problems, who will deal with the biotechnological solutions?
