All discussions of genetically modified crops (Editorial, 4 December) should recognise that there are two basic types of GM. Agronomic GM seeks to improve the growing properties of the plant, for example making it weed- or pest-resistant. Nutritional GM seeks to improve the nutrient profile of the plant. The two approaches differ in critical ways.
First, nutritional GM offers important benefits to consumers, something missing with agronomic varieties. The focus so far is on adding otherwise missing micronutrients (pro-vitamin A, iron and zinc) to the staple starches that form the diet for the poor in developing countries. Deficiencies in these nutrients afflict over 2 billion people, not only harming health, but restricting economic development.
Thus, nutritional GM is relevant for Africa and Asia. Which is why Harvest Plus is about to start 11 large trials in developing countries, and Grand Challenges another five. Importantly, all these projects are funded by public money, from governments and foundations. Initial seeds will be given away, and harvesting seed for future seasons encouraged. Multinational seed companies are hardly involved, for an obvious reason – there is no money to be made from poor subsistence farmers.
Among the diseases targeted for nutritional GM are iron-deficiency anaemia in women and vitamin A deficiency in children, especially the consequent blindness. The trials may not work. But if they do, we will see the benefits quickly, within five years. Then, some of the most serious health problems among the world's poorest people could be substantially diminished by prompt dissemination of nutritionally modified seeds.
If that happens, it would transform the GM debate – much more effectively than any discussion at a learned society in London. Anyone interested in food security should be following the development of nutritional GM closely.
Prof JT Winkler
Director, Nutrition Policy Unit, London Metropolitan University