2008 0:18
Review: Tomorrow’s Table
Posted in Agriculture, Food, Genetics, Reviews, Science By Karl Haro von Mogel.
While I was in the process of applying for graduate school, in late 2006, I was chasing down a letter of recommendation from my former boss, and somehow, the conversation turned to a book he was asked to proof-read. That book, a year and a half later, was to be published as Tomorrow’s Table: Organic Farming and the Future of Food, by Pamela Ronald and Raoul W. Adamchak. Pamela Ronald is a rice geneticist and genetic engineer, the chair of the plant genomics program at UC Davis, now also the Director of Grass Genetics at the Joint Bioenergy Research Institute in Emeryville. (She is also a former professor of mine.) The second author, Raoul, is an organic farmer, who runs the UC Davis Student Farm’s Market Garden, a stone’s throw from where I used to garden in Davis.
When I first heard about it in production, I couldn’t wait to read this book, because I knew what it would be about, an idea that both Pam and Raoul have promoted and embody in their lives. You see, Pam and Raoul are married, and they think Organic Agriculture and Genetic Engineering should be, too.
Tomorrow’s Table opens with a concise explanation of relevant concepts, to get everyone on board the same train. For those who are not familiar with plant breeding, genetic engineering, or what the differences are between organic and conventional agriculture. With a forward by Sir Gordon Conway, they are ready to demonstrate to the reader that the political lines as currently drawn, that keep genetically engineered crops out of organic agriculture, are not only arbitrary but may be keeping us from realizing truly sustainable agriculture. Their strategy is to take turns at the dinner table - sometimes literally - to lay it all out.
Alternating with each chapter, Pam teaches a course on genetics, explaining and comparing plant breeding and genetic engineering, while Raoul takes you onto the farm and describes how the organic folks do things differently. An analogy emerges in the book, although not explicitly stated, between Raoul’s trusty pocketknife and Pam’s restriction enzymes - molecular scissors that are used to snip DNA into pieces to be stitched together. How does the scale of the cutting tool determine whether or not you can use it in an organic system?
Next, Pam delves into many of the issues surrounding genetic engineering: Safety, regulations, politics, and how to figure out what is true or not. Does the information come from a trusted source such as a peer-reviewed scientific journal, or a biotech company or an activist group? Are the fearful warnings about ‘frankenfood’ destroying the planet likely to be true or instead false alarms? Pam brings in the research of a sociologist who found that the source of the warnings are a very good predictor of whether or not they are true or false. Not to give it all away, but the warning’s aren’t exactly coming from the most reliable sources.
The chapter on politics, I might add, begins with a grisly scene: my home county of Sonoma, CA, embroiled in an anti-GE measure, proposition M. Farms and houses were littered with Yes and No on M, which would have made it illegal to grow or sell GE crops in the county. The most wide-sweeping measure of its kind in the country, it even, accidentally, would have banned medicines based on genetic engineering. Fortunately, it failed.
Next, they plow through each of the classic issues brought up in discussions of genetic engineering. Trust, risks, the environment, gene flow, and seed and genetic ownership. It turns out that GE does not conflict with the regular practices and goals of organic agriculture today, and the distinction is merely political (and social). They end with a Pollan-esque deconstruction of their food choices.
Without a doubt, this is one of the most informed books I have read on the topic of genetic engineering in agriculture, which neither over-blows nor undercuts the significance of its achievements and promise, and they recognize that GE has issues ahead of it when it comes to intellectual property and consumer acceptance. On organic agriculture as well, they are well-measured in their enthusiasm for a more biological method of growing food, which can reduce the need for agricultural inputs like pesticides and fertilizers, but still has many challenges ahead of it. Garden of Eden it is not… yet. Many GE traits such as drought tolerance, enhanced nitrogen uptake, pest resistance, and disease resistance would work beautifully in an organic agricultural system of agriculture
Most of the critics of genetic engineering have ties to the organic sector of food production in one way or another, and I often hear people enthusiastic about genetic engineering who sneer about organic’s small, yet growing acreage. The animosity between the two camps hurts both efforts, especially because they are often working toward the same goal - sustainable agriculture that you can sink your teeth into. For this reason every critic, skeptic, cynic, advocate, or eavesdropper of either genetic engineering or organic agriculture issues, should check out this book. It is written for them. Heck, it should be read by any person who wants to be able to have a full meal of delicious, healthy food 20 years from now. If you care about food, you would be well-served by reading Tomorrow’s Table. Literally.
You will be well served by their unique style of bringing the genetics and diversity of food right to your dinner table - because they also included their favorite recipes. Enjoy “Waxy” mutant rice, which Thai restaurateurs know as sticky rice, along with GE papaya and sweet coconut sauce. Or how about corn bread made with GE canola oil and corn meal, and buttermilk? Delicious!
By including recipes in a book about food issues, they are connecting their tastes in food to the reader, especially their tastes in the genetics and growing methods behind the food that Raoul and Pam choose to eat and feed to their children. They start and end with the question of what kind of agriculture we want, and the answer is emphatically and convincingly, this one.
And stay tuned for an interview with Pam and Raoul on the Mindcast!


















I believe that the comparison between genetic engineering and conventional breeding or hybrid breeding is a false one. It is true that it is all just combining genes to get new DNA and therefor new organisms, but the process is very different. The process of genetic engineering, which as someone who studies plant genetics should be well aware, involves the insertion of a gene cassette into an organisms DNA. The gene cassette can include traits from any kingdom of species, but most commonly includes either a trait from bacteria which makes the novel plant produce Bt, or from bacteria which makes the plant resistant to applications of herbicide. In addition, to make the thing work, the cassette also has to include a promoter gene taken from a plant virus, and an antibiotic resistance marker gene.
The insertion process is incredibly imprecise. There is currently no way to predict where the gene cassette will end up in the DNA sequence, and once inserted, the whole DNA sequence is affected. Some genes get turned on or off, duplicated, or their levels of expression changed.
Essentially what I am trying to say is that we do not have the technology to safely be altering the genes of the food that we eat using genetic engineering. If we combine two closely related edible plants, the chances for catastrophic failure are extremely low. On the other hand, using existing technology, the chances of catastrophic failure from genetic engineering our food is still very low, but no longer negligible.
Nigel, in the evolution of life on this planet, genes have moved between species, genera, phyla, and kingdoms - it’s called lateral gene transfer. Exons get shuffled, and mobile genetic elements are always rearranging DNA and changing their expression. The varied colors in Indian Corn are caused by actual genetic changes occurring in the developing kernel, for example. A gene that changes the shape of tomatoes gets part of its genetic code from a retrotransposon (jumping gene) that disrupted its normal function and gave it a new and different one. Conventional breeding is also random in terms of what parts of each chromosome recombine with each other. So when you suggest that alterations made through genetic engineering are qualitatively different from those that can occur naturally and be utilized by a conventional breeding approach, that’s just not correct.
It is also not true that a viral promoter is necessary to make the gene get expressed - it can be a native promoter, for example, as was used in Pam Ronald’s submergence tolerant rice - so it came from another rice variety and not a virus at all. Antibiotic resistance marker genes are also not necessary, either. There are other marker genes that can be used that do not involve antibiotics. (Which, by the way, are not the same kind of antibiotics used medically.)
The whole DNA sequence is not affected. In fact, research has shown that the effects of a transgene insertion are within the natural variation of other methods of genetic modification, sometimes much less. Here are a couple references for that:
Batista R, Saibo N, Lourenço T, Oliveira MM.
Microarray analyses reveal that plant mutagenesis may induce more transcriptomic changes than transgene insertion.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Mar 4;105(9):3640-5. Epub 2008 Feb 26.
Baudo MM, Lyons R, Powers S, Pastori GM, Edwards KJ, Holdsworth MJ, Shewry PR. (2006) Transgenesis has less impact on the transcriptome of wheat grain than conventional breeding. Plant Biotechnol J. 2006 Jul;4(4):369-80.
Rothamsted Research, Harpenden AL5 2JQ, UK.
Cheng KC, Beaulieu J, Iquira E, Belzile FJ, Fortin MG, Strömvik MV.(2008)
Effect of transgenes on global gene expression in soybean is within the natural range of variation of conventional cultivars.
J Agric Food Chem. 2008 May 14;56(9):3057-67. Epub 2008 Apr 23.
Department of Plant Science, McGill University, 21,111 Lakeshore Road, Sainte Anne de Bellevue, Québec H9X 3V9, Canada.
And here’s a link to one you can read right now:
http://www.isb.vt.edu/news/2006/news06.jan.htm#jan0603