060 Towards Sustainability- A place for GE in organic production?

I want to see science serve a useful purpose to improve the standard of living for all people. Hey, why is anyone fighting food advance? A very small percentage of the world's population is fortunate enough to have the luxury of turning down food. We've arranged a society based on science and technology in which Because nobody understands anything about science and technology. You can't build a peaceful world on empty stomachs and human misery.

You're listening to Talking Biotech, the weekly podcast illuminating issues in agriculture and medical biotechnology. Your questions and concerns are answered using a science-based approach with the goal of driving innovation to application with communication. Now here's Here's your host, Dr. Paul Vincelli.

Welcome to the Talking Biotech Podcast, the weekly podcast where we discuss contemporary issues in science and technology with a focus on biotechnology and new innovations that can help people and the planet. I'm Paul Vincelli, sitting in for Dr. Kevin Folta, and once again, thanks Dr. Folta, for the opportunity to host Talking Biotech. Today we'll be talking about genetically engineered crops and sustainability, a topic that often seems to go hand in hand for some of us, but others dispute that connection. So we're— I'm very excited to have as our guest Dr. Mark Williams from the University of Kentucky and Mark, welcome to Talking Biotech.

Thank you for having me, Paul. I really appreciate this opportunity.

So Mark, I've known you for a number of years and always have enjoyed our interactions, professional interactions. So let's start by giving the audience some idea of your academic background, your PhD studies, and your career generally.

Right. Well, I've always been interested in plants, and as an undergraduate, I got my degree in botany at the University of Kentucky. So at that point in my life, I was really interested in just learning about, you know, science, plant science, and it came from a kind of an interest in the natural world and being outdoors and gardening and growing plants and things like that. And when I went to graduate school, I was interested in learning more about plant science. And at the time that I went to graduate school at the University of California, Irvine, you know, molecular biology was really starting to take off. This would have been in the, in the 1990s, in the early 1990s. And so I went to Southern California and started learning about plant molecular biology. And I'd always kind of been interested in the way that genes were regulated, you know, genetics, cell biology, and kind of that part of plant science. And so I really embraced these ideas of molecular biology and thinking about trying to investigate the way that gene expression can affect plant attributes. And, you know, I was really just a basic research scientist. I focused on post-transcriptional gene regulation for my PhD work and specifically worked on RNA editing in plant mitochondria. And then I moved back to Kentucky. I'm from Kentucky. I moved back to Kentucky in 2000. I did a postdoc in California, then my second postdoc in Kentucky, and switched to a lab to try to learn about biochemistry. And so I focused on post-translational protein modifications, specifically those involved with modifications of RuBisCO. And so, you know, really from the beginning of my career up until I really got into my faculty career, it was all about plant gene expression, the whole pathway from, you know, RNA through proteins and modifications that happen along the way to affect the way that gene expression happens. And then I became a faculty member in 2001 in the Department of Horticulture, and I was hired to do weed science work. And I didn't have a lot of background in it, but, you know, I was in the department and I'd done some some studies as a postdoc that were looking at new molecular targets for herbicide design. So we were fortunate enough to find a post-transcriptional modifying enzyme that is called peptide deformylase, and it deformylates the N-formyl group on newly translated proteins. And we studied this protein as a target for killing plants, basically, and we found a soil born, or actinomycete from the soil that had a compound in it that specifically knocked out this enzyme. And so we could kill plants, and I'm at that point was really interested in thinking about could we get a natural herbicide that was an effective, you know, systemic broad-spectrum herbicide, and then could we make engineering resistance. So that was my first experience really with genetic engineering, and we made some transgenic tobacco plants. Tobacco is big in Kentucky, was big in Kentucky at that time, that were resistant to this peptide deformylase inhibitor. And so that was kind of the start of my academic career. But prior to that, when I was in California, I was a lecturer and taught classes in biotechnology. And at that point, you know, things were pretty— that would have been kind of late 1990s. Things were really starting to take off in terms of some of the early generation GMO crops. And there was a lot of discussion about the future of biotechnology and all the wonderful things that it could do. And so I fully embraced the ideas at that point in my career. And then when I started doing science and making GMOs, that furthered that kind of thinking for me. But I took kind of a diversion from that just based on opportunities in Kentucky and a big change that was happening in our agricultural system with the ending of the price subsidies for tobacco. There was an opportunity to set up a research program focused on organic farming. And, and the justification for that was that from an organic farming perspective, weed control is generally regarded as the number one impediment to success in organic farming. And so I was focused on weed control, focused on natural products in weed control. And as I was trying to carve out an area for myself as a young assistant professor, started to do some research on organic farming and thinking about organic farming from a weed control standpoint. So that sent me down a path Of organic. And so I established the organic farming unit at UK, which grew from a quarter acre in 2003 to its current, like, 30 acres or so on one of our research farms. I was fortunate enough to create an undergraduate degree program in sustainable agriculture, Paul, that you were involved with in the early phases of and in the development of it. And so it's allowed me to really broaden my perspective of agriculture from genetic modification through organic farming, but with the overarching kind of umbrella for me in my mind as I organize things has always been how do we make our agricultural systems more sustainable. And so that's really where I fall down on it in terms of, or come down on it in terms of my, of what I, what I think is how do, you know, these practices all fit within the spectrum of sustainability. How do we look at all of our agricultural systems from this rubric of environmental responsibility, social responsibility, economic viability, all of these things. How do we integrate those together to think about making our system more sustainable?

That's right. Yeah, we've had great conversations on this very topic, Mark, and, and that I've appreciated your sort of divergent thinking in, in so many ways. Yeah, in fact, you— it's interesting to, to listen, hear about your career because you actually came to molecular biology You know, decades ago. And I, in contrast, as a field plant pathologist, the work I'm doing now providing outreach on genetic engineering of crops is, you know, is relatively recent. I've only been involved with this for a couple of years now. So it's interesting to see how we have these different paths and can bring different ideas to the table for discussion. So let me just, for the benefit of the listeners and to remind myself, you helped establish the Society Sustainable Agriculture Program, and you are the director of the organic farm as well, is that— here at the Organic Research and Education Farm at the University of Kentucky, is that a fair description of your current responsibilities?

I'm the director of the organic farming unit, and I think it's, from a listener perspective, it's important to note that one of the things that we do in this Sustainable Ag Program is the program is about sustainable agriculture. It's not organic farming per se. It's all aspects of agriculture, and I think ultimately that's the punchline for me that I'll try to get across in this interview today is that I think as we move our systems forward, we need to use the best practices from all of these different approaches integrated together into a way that meets these criteria of sustainability. And organic is just part of that, just same as genetic modification is just part of that. And we can talk more about the integration of these ideas later, but the organic farming unit about is on the 30 acres, about half of it is, is focused on, you know, grant-funded research, federal grant-funded research projects looking at everything from kind of systems-level questions down to, you know, plant-microbe interactions and plant microbiome, you know, specific insects in certain cropping systems, things like that. And then half of the, of the organic unit is used as a farming apprenticeship program for students in the Sustainable Ag program where they can come and get hands-on experience on a farm. And so we are self-funded through a community-supported agriculture program, so we market the food that we grow to our UK community of faculty, students, and staff. We grow wholesale and sell to our UK dining services, and then we have 2 farm stands per week. So we're a self-funded operation that allows us to create a real working model benchmark type farm that we can teach from. So there's 2 kind of central kind of objectives on that, on the organic farming unit. And the reason I bring this up is that it has allowed me to do something that's fairly unique from a professor standpoint, and that is In addition to research and teaching and things like that, I've actually learned how to farm and created one of the, you know, a pretty high-quality farm for this region of the country that we can teach from. And so it's not only just lab work that allows me to inform my thinking. I'm actually involved with lots and lots of farmers, and although I don't have a formal extension position, I have an administrative position that allows me to work a lot with farmers, and then we actually farm. So it's really grounded a lot of my science, or— And vice versa. Science has grounded my farming, and it's allowed me to see what the limits that we know now are. And the kind of overarching philosophy I've developed through this kind of marriage of these two approaches is we have to be very careful when we talk about things. There's a lot of misconceptions and agricultural illiteracy. And what, as researchers and as academicians, we have to focus on what science tells us and base our ideas on what we can say scientifically. We need research-based recommendations and things like that. So that's where a farm like that really, really is focused.

Yeah, and, and of course I had a student, a PhD student, who did work out at the farm you're discussing, uh, some very interesting evaluations of, uh, organic, uh, suitable approaches to, uh, disease control in, in tomatoes. Um, so yeah, we've, we've— I, I always I have appreciated your sort of eclectic approach to this topic. So moments ago, you used a phrase, 2 phrases that often don't occur in the same sentence, and that is sustainable ag and genetic engineering. And so to me, that's where I'd really like to sort of explore your thinking and share with the viewers.

How do these 2 come together in your vision of where agriculture may go or So one of the things I've really thought a lot about as I've gotten deeper and deeper into this is, you know, you always hear people talking about, you know, can this type of agriculture feed the future, or can, you know, the world's population in the future, or can this kind of agriculture best do that? And, you know, these wicked problems of population growth and this kind of, you know, awareness that we have of how big our population is going to get on this planet, and, you know, you hear all these numbers of, you know, 9+ billion people by 2050, and that there is a very strong mandate that we expand our agricultural system, or at least expand the efficiency and ability to feed more people in a short time period. And so, you know, it's one of the things that's always on my mind is how can we meet these planetary objectives and do it in a way that doesn't destroy the planet or really mess up this planet. And as you know, Paul, our agricultural system is a wonderfully efficient you know, system that has all these great attributes to it, but in fact there are a lot of negatives too from an environmental standpoint worldwide in terms of its environmental footprint. And with the, you know, the list goes on and on on the things that it does that we need to try to reduce or certainly not increase as we increase production, or at least be aware of that. And that's where I really see technology coming in. But I think really Some of these terms get misunderstood. So when we talk about sustainable agriculture, some people equate that with organic farming, depending on what their knowledge of agriculture is. And that's really a misconception. I mean, I think there's certainly some organic farms that you would say are unsustainable and plenty of them that are sustainable. And I think you could say the same thing from full conventional farms as well.

Sure.

What I really try to think of is It's not black and white. It's more of a grayscale kind of thing. Certainly from an organic standpoint, as researchers, we need to be aware of that population. It is the fastest growing sector of agriculture and has been for decades. There's a lot of wonderful things about organic farming, but it's not a perfect system, the same as conventional systems are not perfect systems. There is no perfect agricultural system. It's more of a spectrum to me. And so I think while we You know, it's justifiable to do research, extension, teaching in organic farming for those farmers and for those consumers that want to buy something that has the USDA certified organic stamp on it for all the reasons that people talk about. That's just one approach to doing things. What I ultimately feel like is the way forward is to take the best practices from organic, combine them with the best practices of conventional, the best practices of genetic modification and put together a hybrid system that really starts to address this idea of sustainability. And I think there's, there's increasing amount of research out there that suggests that there are certain aspects of conventional that we really need to critique from their negative environmental footprint, but there's also some really wonderful efficiencies that we've gotten with that system. So this idea that, that is out there that organic farming just rejects you know, the current technologies is not true either. There's all kinds of misconceptions on this. So I see maybe not per se in organic farming a place for the traditional GMOs. What has really changed in my thinking recently is this new generation. In my way of thinking, you know, we're just entering into this new green revolution with the new technologies like CRISPR-Cas9 and things like that that are out there that I think will have a place or should have a place in organic farming depending on the way that they're done. So my hope is that we move forward in something that may be certified organic or it may be something that's more of a hybrid approach that is using these ideas of sustainability.

So just for the sake of the audience, many of the listeners are students, graduate students, and professors and professionals, but some, some are just the general public that are interested. So I want to Just clarify, CRISPR-Cas9 is basically derived from a natural defense, virus defense system in bacteria that is used to, with a rather high degree of precision, make genetic changes of a wide range of types. And these can range from creating extremely focused and minimal mutations that would be no different from what would happen naturally, to inserting a gene into the plant in a particular location in its genome. Is that a fair description of CRISPR-Cas9? And if so, where would it fit? Give me an example of where you saw it fitting in.

Right, right, that's what my understanding is. And, you know, my understanding is, at least right now, that if there are no foreign genes brought into the plant, like it is a modification of A gene that's normally present, like a nucleotide in a gene that creates a different amino acid that's changed, something like that, the same as like breeding would be, and the footprint that's left in the genome is the plant genome, and it's no different than traditional breeding, then at least right now it's not considered a GMO.

And I just would interject is I've seen papers where there is no remnant foreign DNA in crops, so that is certainly a possibility.

And so putting in whole new gene pathways or genes from other species, you know, that would be more on the line of traditional GMOs. But the thing that is exciting me so much about these new technologies that, Paul, as you're aware, are only a couple years old, is that not only can we move away from some of the concerns that people have had with traditional GMOs that have been limited to just a handful of crops, But we can create a system where we can make changes in a much more precise way, kind of like a surgical way, people would say, where we can go in with much greater precision. And as we are— our knowledge is increasing of gene expression, and as more and more species are being— their genomes are being sequenced, we're starting to understand the genetic basis for a lot of phenotypes that we observe, we can go in potentially, or the hope for this technology is that we can go in and much more precisely control gene expression and do it in a way that is very similar to traditional breeding in terms of its footprint. So not putting in antibiotic resistance genes, not, you know, selectable markers, not putting in genes from foreign species, things like that. That's a possibility, but what makes it even more exciting is that the time that it takes to do this is much less than traditional breeding or even traditional GMOs. And much cheaper. So it's my understanding that it's a huge impediment to make a traditional GMO like Roundup Ready corn or soybean in crops that are not huge subsidized crops or commodity crops. Doing it like in vegetables and things like that, unless it's a huge industry, is really difficult because it's so expensive and it takes so long. So the hope would be that CRISPR-Cas9, which is becoming— you can buy it from molecular biology companies, it's going to allow scientists to really do what to me was the fundamental selling point on a lot of this biotech when I got into it, like being able to make changes in plants, in a range of plants, not just corn and soybean and cotton and things like that, and doing it in a way that's economically viable and much more precise. So that really excites me. about this, and if there is no change in the plant DNA beyond what normal breeding would do in terms of footprint, it seems like it should fit into organic or at least a hybrid system that embraces the best of all these technologies.

Good. Well, yeah, these are great points, Mark, and so I certainly appreciate your perspective. We're going to take a short break and And we're talking to Dr. Mark Williams from the University of Kentucky Department of Horticulture. And when we come back, we'll continue to discuss CRISPR-Cas9 or genome editing technologies and other aspects of genetic engineering that may relate to sustainability. So thank you all for listening to the Talking Biotech Podcast.

Hi, everybody. You know, the Talking Biotech Podcast is It's really found a place as an important voice for sharing science with listeners excited to learn about the latest breakthroughs and concepts from the experts in biotechnology. And frankly, I'm grateful for the incredible listenership we have, and every week I'm amazed when I look at the numbers. And thank you very much for listening. Now this week I need you to take a special action. I'm recording this on what would have been Dr. Sharon Gray's birthday. Now, she was a postdoc in Siobhan Brady's laboratory at University of California, Davis, and by all accounts, she was a rising star in science and certainly would have reached out to ensure equal access to training and education for many all over the world. I mean, that's the way she was rolling during her postdoc time, and certainly evidence of this throughout her graduate career. And in an astonishing confluence of tragedies, Sharon was killed in Ethiopia last— a couple months ago anyway, while on a mission to meet with others regarding a scientific project. And the news of her loss really has reverberated across the scientific community. In response to the tragedy, a memorial account has been established in her name, and the goal is to provide scholarship support for outstanding women in science, hoping to encourage others to maybe reach into that gap and That she's left behind. So please, if you can, go to the GoFundMe page, gofundme.com/SharonBethGray. Now, the Talking Biotech Podcast comes to you for free every week, and I cover all of the associated costs, and I'm glad to do that, and it's fine. I do it without sponsorship. If you can spend $5, $10, $20, $100, maybe more. It would really, really go a long way to enhancing the scholarship fund, and I really would appreciate that. Personally, I was so rattled by her story. The postdocs, the students in our laboratories are like family, and I know her advisor, and I can only imagine what it would do to her and to that community and to her labmates. It's by establishing this fund and by helping with this fund, watching it grow, it's a great way to honor her life and really help provide some support that she would have absolutely have provided if she was allowed to have continued to grace us with her time in science. So please give, learn, and share her story. And thank you very much.

Thank you.

For your kindness and continued support of this podcast, and maybe the scholarship fund for Dr. Gray.

My name is Chelsea Boonstra, and welcome to the Boonstra Report, where we talk about all things agriculture. Plant breeding innovation has brought significant impacts in European agriculture as well as around the world. It's helping with increased yields and less effect on the environment as there's less inputs Europe did a study on plant breeding, and the study was to provide science-based but easy-to-understand information on the socioeconomic and environmental benefits of plant breeding. It was reported that plant breeding contributes approximately 74% productivity growth on all major arable crops planted in the EU since 2000. This is equivalent to 1.24% yield increase per year. This also translates to a boost in the amount of available food, decrease in food prices, and economic prosperity. Because of plant breeding, we are using less fertilizer and chemicals compared to 15 years ago, all the while seeing many other benefits. Plant breeding enables sustainable intensification by allowing farmers to produce more with less input and reduced effect on the environment. Thanks for listening, and be sure to follow me, Forever Farm Girl, On Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, on WordPress.com. As well, you can find me Chelsea Boonstra on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. Thank you.

Bye. And we're back on the Talking Biotech podcast with Dr. Mark Williams, a professor from the University of Kentucky Department of Horticulture. So Mark, let's continue on this theme of sustainability and genetic engineering. You've got a lot of insights. Just give us some more. Okay.

Yeah. So this idea of how do these new technologies like gene editing that can be much more precise than the original technologies that are out there and much less invasive in terms of some of the things that the public really talks about or these kind of ideas about taking, crossing species lines or creating a system that's reliant on an off-farm input like a herbicide and then Or a, you know, a constitutively expressed pesticide in the plant all the time. There are strengths of those systems, and there are things that are a concern about those systems. But the new technologies that we're just starting to look at, I think, hopefully not only relieve some of those concerns, but they put us into a position where we can much more accurately modify plants to really achieve these goals of sustainability. I'm going to give you an example of how one of these technologies I've been thinking about recently based on my research in organic. For the last several years, I've worked on cucumber beetle and squash bug control in cucurbit crops, and these insects vector bacterial diseases that decimate cucurbit production in this part of the country from an organic perspective. And in conventional perspective, we use a lot of neonicotinoid-based insecticides to A lot of insecticides, yeah. Which are implicated in colony collapse disorder and things like that, or people think, you know, that are investigating them from that standpoint. And, you know, any system that can reduce pesticides in the environment is, it just makes sense. And, you know, there is an attractant to these insects called cucurbitacin that is, it's kind of like when you get cut in the water and your blood attracts sharks. It's kind of analogous to that. These insects cue in on this compound that these plants You know, make, and that's what they are attracted to. And so the higher the cucurbitacin level in plants, the more they're attracted, or attractant to cucumber beetle and squash bug. So there's an example that maybe, and this is all hypothetical, but maybe a modification in the pathway or the gene that's responsible for that could be very, very precisely made that would create a system where you don't need to apply so many pesticides. And, you know, that's kind of, to me, a hope that we can start to understand the molecular basis behind which these things happen and with very selected intervention reduce our use on pesticides and make the system more sustainable. To me, that just makes sense. And I think at the heart of a lot of this, and this is what I think we've not done a great job as scientists on, is education. And we need to educate the public on any concerns they would have about these new technologies that are coming online so fast now. That we need to be, I think, as a community, very, very, we need to think a lot about how we deal with public education in this kind of next wave of GMOs and be clear that some of the concerns that people have had with the original GMOs that came out, you know, are they valid now that we can do things in a much different way? And if those concerns can be addressed, I think that we need to involve the public from the get-go on this so that we don't suffer from some of the problems that we had originally when we talked about GMOs and there was lots of misunderstandings about it. So we need to be real clear on the educational part of this and make sure that what scientists say is based on science because this is such a strong heartfelt kind of thing when you talk about food and the environment. And we need to be really clear what science allows us to say.

Wow, good. You're giving me some ideas. I'm actually going to be involved in a meeting in D.C. in a few weeks on, you know, sort of the future of some of these new technologies with respect to, you know, recommendations from my scientific society and other scientific societies. And so these are great comments and they help fertilize my own thinking. So what do you think about labeling? How do you think that— I mean, there certainly is a case to be made for labeling, and if no other— for no other reason, for social reasons, you know, to give people confidence in their food supply, to allow them to make the choice if they want to stay away from GMOs. So what do you think about labeling with respect to genome editing technologies, these new technologies that we're talking about?

Well, I've kind of gone round and round on the labeling over the years. My personal feeling is that we should label. Concerns that I've heard people say of that, and I believe this, there's not been really conclusive studies to show that the original GMOs that were out there are unhealthy. Everything that I've seen is that from a health standpoint, they're fine. I think that's pretty consistent. You know that literature probably better than I do, Paul, but that's what I've seen consistently.

Mm-hmm.

Then what I've also heard people say is if we do label, it's going to increase the cost of our food system. I haven't seen enough research on that for me to be very unequivocal that that's true. There's labeling in other countries, and my personal feeling is we should give people an option. I don't know how much it would change people's eating habits even if they did know that things were genetically modified, but I just think from a protecting our food system, from a transparency standpoint, as long as it was associated with good education, I need to see more data saying that this is actually going to increase our cost of our food system. A lot of the crops I deal with are horticultural crops, so they're not GMO anyway, at least at this point. Okay. For a lot of the foods that we eat that are fed directly to humans, this would, at least at this point, is not going to be that impactful. I am kind of pro-label, and I believe that it's the right thing to do to let people know where their food comes from. The more transparent we are in our food system, the better it is. I think if there was a strong educational component to these new generations of GMOs, and it was clear the way that they were made, Maybe it would reduce some of the concern that people have about this. And when people feel like they're being— this whole system is being foisted on them and they don't have any control over it and they're eating things and they don't know what's in their food, that causes misconceptions and it leads to this whole pathway. Personally, I do support labeling.

Yeah.

Very carefully in these new GMOs that are likely to come out.

Yeah. Okay. Yes. And just thanks for Thank you for bringing in that point. When I said before the social value of labeling, it wasn't— certainly for the audience's sake, I want to make sure I say I'm not implying that there is actually a biological hazard. I think the studies are very clear that there is no new risk, no added risk from genetically engineered crops.

Agreed.

So the biological or scientific reasons for labeling are simply not there.

Right.

But the social reasons The transparency that you mentioned, the confidence in the food supply, those are strong reasons for labeling. So I know our listeners will differ on that, but I actually think you and I are on the same page. And what you're saying is that you would extend that concept to include genome editing-based changes or CRISPR-Cas9-based changes. Is that—

Yeah.

I mean, I'm still— this stuff is so new and I think about it, but I don't think about it I'd like to see both sides of the argument on this, and I'd like to see some solid data to say what are the negatives of labeling and what's happened in other countries, and what foods are we even talking about that this would impact, and all of this kind of stuff. I mean, to me, a lot of the way that we eat in this country is based on cost for a lot of people, and I'm not sure it would change things that much unless the price increased For a lot of people, especially people that eat processed food, they're eating so much GMOs anyway. I don't know if it would change. I'd like to see some stronger science on that, and maybe it's out there and I just haven't seen it, Paul. But I think from a social responsibility standpoint, if nothing else, we need to have more discussion on the pros and cons of labeling. Or maybe it's happening and I'm just not aware of it, and I need to educate myself stronger on it. But I do support labeling, and I think with CRISPR-Cas9, I think there needs— it's so new, I think there needs to be stronger discussions in the scientific community and beyond about that labeling. But just on the surface, transparency in the food system seems to make sense from an educational standpoint because it can dispel misunderstandings that can lead to people thinking that a lot of those discussions that have happened about GMOs, some of them warranted, some of them not, maybe that's kind can be addressed with this new generation of gene editing. And if we do that, I think everything that we can do to educate the public on the safety of these is smart.

Right.

So, yeah, that's— yeah, these are great thoughts. So you've said a lot about public education, but if you could pick out a single point that you think is critical beyond the transparency that we've already discussed, what would you recommend To somebody who is planning an educational outreach program on genome editing, yeah, what would be sort of the top, make sure you do this kind of thing?

As someone that does both conventional and organic agriculture, it depends on what group I'm with of which way I want to be vilified. I'm kind of damned if I do, damned if I don't, depending on what audience I'm with. But oftentimes when I get in groups that are, you know, Right. More conventionally focused, they want to put me on the hot seat as an organic person and just assume that I don't support GMOs or anything like that, and vice versa. And so one of the things that I hear a lot of people in the organic community, they're very much anti-GMOs, and I think they associate— one of my feelings is they associate all genetic modification with Roundup Ready and Bt Ready corn, soybean, things like that. And I view a lot of those as kind of first-generation genetic modifications. They, in their time, they were a step forward in some ways, but they weren't perfect. And as oftentimes happens in science, you know, it's an iterative process where we do things and then we learn, and that's part of the scientific method. It's critiqued by others, and it has to stand the test of time, you know, all of that. And I think that it's important I think it's important to be very clear on how gene editing and these new technologies, the potential for them, which are unbelievable. I mean, it is— I really do feel like we're moving into this whole new phase of green revolution. Not just GMOs, there's other technologies out there as well. Sure, of course. But that we're clear on how this differs from the original GMOs that were out there. The similarities, but the differences. Because the differences really can address a lot of the concerns that I hear people talk about the original GMOs, some of them warranted, some of them not. But, you know, we can address that and be very clear on, from a health standpoint, a human health standpoint, an environmental health standpoint, and the justification for doing them. And I think, you know, if we can do those things and compare and contrast between what was before these new CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing type techniques, not just CRISPR-Cas9, there's other gene editing methods out there.

Sure.

But how does this differ from that, and what are the things that we learned from public perception on the original GMOs? Focus on that and say, okay, this is not like the original technologies. Let's look at this and say we have to make our system more sustainable. This could be a really valuable tool if it's done correctly. And, you know, I think to me, just trying to dispel public perception of saying this is not like traditional GMOs Any last kind of comments for, for the audience on any aspect of what you said? Well, you know, what I started with was this idea of integrating these different approaches to agriculture. And ultimately, that's what I think, you know, we need to be thinking about. It's— there is not a one-size-fits-all approach to agriculture. And there is not one solution that is going to change things that all of a sudden our agricultural system is going to reduce its footprint on the planet, we're going to be able to feed more people. To make our system truly sustainable, it's a multi-phased approach. And I think this is one really important component to it, is, you know, a coalescence of our ability to sequence genomes and, you know, all the next-generation sequencing that allowed us to understand at previously unprecedented rates the connection between genes and, you know, everything downstream from genes and the way that they're expressed. And the way that plants grow. And that's opened up an opportunity to understand the genetic basis for so many things that now with that are these new gene editing technologies that allow us to think about, can we go in and, and, you know, accentuate or downregulate certain things that allow us to be more efficient with, with plant production? But that's just one part of the equation. From, you know, the Internet of Things to, you know, robots to all this precision agriculture. And then, you know, really assessing our diets from a worldwide perspective. And as cultures become more affluent and try to adopt the standard American diet, you know, that's not the way that— that's not the recipe for success in terms of from an environmental standpoint. So it's not a one thing that's going to revolutionize agriculture in a way that fixes things. It's got to be an integration of all these approaches. We certainly can't keep expanding agriculture on this planet from a square footage or acreage-wise and not, you know, increase the negatives. We can't keep cutting down the rainforest. We can't keep, you know, doing a lot of things like poisoning water, you know, or impacting water, surface water, groundwater, streams, all of that stuff. We have to be mindful of the impact of everything that we do.

And so I think this is one really important Yes, so just to recap a couple points that I think are really important in what you've said, you know, over the past few minutes, and one is the distinction, making the distinction to the public between sort of the first-generation genetic engineering traits and those that we can, you know, do through genome editing technologies. And finally, you've made the point about The importance of integrating different, various useful approaches and technologies because no single technology or approach is going to be the answer. So we really appreciate your thoughts, Mark, and thanks for joining us today.

Thank you, Paul. It's been a pleasure to talk with you.

And thank you, listeners, for listening to the Talking Biotech podcast. Follow us on Twitter with the handle @TalkingBiotech. Write a review for iTunes and tell a friend to listen, as your support allows us to deliver more exciting science to more people. I'm Paul Vincelli, and thank you for listening.

Thank you for listening to the Talking Biotech podcast.

Podcast.

Please send your suggestions for guests, comments, or questions to talkingbiotech@gmail.com. Please write a review on iTunes and recommend this podcast to a friend. More downloads and reviews raise the visibility of this podcast and help us reach a wider audience with science.