Chinese Researchers Develop Gene-Edited Wheat That Resists Fungal Disease
Expect anti-biotech activists to oppose this important development.

"If the crop variety is susceptible to rust fungi and moisture is there and the temperature is right, it's like lighting a fire. It just destroys crops," said Norman Borlaug, father of the Green Revolution, to me in a Reason interview back in 2000. "One thing that I hope to live to see is somebody taking that block of rust-resistance genes in rice and putting it into all of the other cereals." Borlaug was a big supporter of using modern biotechnology to speed up the development of higher-yielding disease-resistant crop varieties.
As it turns out, plant breeders associated with the Borlaug Global Rust Initiative (BGRI), initiated in 2005 by Borlaug himself, were able to create "super wheat" rust-resistant varieties by 2011 using slower conventional breeding techniques. BGRI researchers pursued conventional breeding, at least in part, because of the fierce opposition to so-called genetically modified organisms (GMOs) by influential anti-technology activist organizations.
But rusts are not the only fungal diseases that attack wheat. There is also a powdery mildew fungus which can produce yield losses of up to 45 percent. Cereal farmers in developed countries sometimes apply fungicides to try to control the pest, but such measures are too expensive for most farmers around the globe.
The good news is that Chinese researchers have just taken a big step forward using gene-editing techniques to develop wheat varieties that resist the fungus. The researchers did not add any new genes from other crops as envisioned by Borlaug but instead used the CRISPR gene-editing technique to boost the performance of the fungus resistance genes already found in wheat without reducing crop yields.
"Another appeal of gene editing is that government regulators in several countries have recently made it easier for researchers and companies to study and commercialize plants made this way, whereas another method of engineering new traits into plants—transferring one species' DNA into another—often requires extensive testing and lengthy reviews before approval," notes Science.
In fact, getting a new biotech crop variety through the regulatory gauntlet typically takes 13 years and costs around $136 million. But fortunately, in 2020 the U.S. Department of Agriculture quite sensibly exempted most gene-edited crop varieties from agency regulations. Consequently, it should be much faster and cheaper to get new biotech enhanced crops such as the Chinese mildew-resistant wheat into farmers' fields and then onto our tables. Of course, anti-biotech activists will oppose this happy prospect.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Who wants to be first to eat the 'Frankenfood' created by the same people who brought us the China virus?
Yeah, thought so.
Too soon. Like that asshole who starts bragging up his new job on the day you get laid off.
Now I can bake covid bread for my enemies.
In 2022 many people are now joining online jobs very fast because it has potential. CJk i joined this 3 months ago and in 3 months I totally received $50743 and all I was doing is copy and paste stuff in my part time.
Join now and start making money from this website: ....... http://moneystar33.blogspot.com/
The authors of
Genome-edited powdery mildew resistance in wheat without growth penalties
Shengnan Li, Dexing Lin, Yunwei Zhang, Min Deng, Yongxing Chen, Bin Lv, Boshu Li, Yuan Lei, Yanpeng Wang, Long Zhao, Yueting Liang, Jinxing Liu, Kunling Chen, Zhiyong Liu, Jun Xiao, Jin-Long Qiu & Caixia Gao deserve not only Nobel gold medals, but votive statues in the temples of their ancestors, for they have just saved as many future lives as Norman Borlaug.
I make 85 dollars each hour for working an online job at home. KLA I never thought I could do it but my best friend makes 10000 bucks every month working this job and she recommended me to learn more about it. The potential with this is endless.
For more detail …. http://rb.gy/u603ti
I will -China has a terrible government, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to trying to feed their people.
I've actually created $20940 in less than calendar month by working job on home PC. When I'd lost my previous career, I was so unsettled and thankfully I searched this easy task now in this way I am ready to obtain thousands staying in home.FRv Every person is able to try this best offer & could benefit more money on-line heading following link.
Click Below Webpage…............VISIT HERE
Chinese farmers badly need more pest-resistant crops. Over three-quarters of Chinese croplands are polluted. And farmers' attitudes toward pesticides is that more is better.
"There is a big issue with the food supply in China. In fact, China is hoarding 69% of corn reserves, 60% of rice, 51% of the world's wheat supply. This happens when most of your groundwater is too polluted to use, and you've destroyed a good portion of your arable land."
China's Massive Food Shortage Problem (YouTube)
It also has a lot to do with transportation, they lack the infrastructure in rural farm country to transport it out. Their stockpiles are also jokes, it's all stored outside, uncovered, open to the weather and stored for years, they just pile more on top of the previous years harvest. That shit is full of grain insects, mold etc. Most of it isn't even usable. Not even as animal feed. But what they do, is they report (though their crop reports are very suspect as the yields they report are way to consistent and considered high for the environment it's grown in) these huge yields and stockpiles, threaten to release the stockpiles, whenever grain prices go to high globally. The spectators then invariably bid down grains, and China buys the grain they need from the US, Australia and Argentina on contract. Everyone in ag knows this is their game, but the spectators don't care, and the processors don't care. The spectators short the commodity, and processors buy on futures contracts that are below actual market value. And the farmers get screwed. They've been doing this for about a decade, at least.
*speculators
Don't trust China. China is asshoe.
Fuck Joe Bai Den.
Ret's Go Bran Dong
Zhou Baiden.
Ouch. There's such a thing as an asshoe?
Ask ENB. She the local ho expert.
this comment made me smile but also made me think...
I'll bet the women writers HATE the commentariat here. The xy writers here I'm sure hate some of you but I can see them shaking off the psychic injury better... all of them are pretty mercilessly lampooned (mostly for good reason)
Agreed, but it could be taken as a reference to ENB's penchant for covering sex work over other, more important world news stories that are related to civil liberties.
In addition to what Hank says above, it would be nice to get an actual woman to cover women and sex workers. Someone who doesn't shout about women's agency when it comes to sex work and then shove them under the bus to oppose whatever shadow of patriarchy she thinks she sees lurking around the corner. As opposed to just 40-yr.-old teen girls who think getting naked on the internet is neato and fawn all over Scout Willis because she walked through the streets of NYC topless.
I actually believed they might have because they send their brightest students to American and Canadian universities to major in microbiology and agronomics, learn our techniques and then take them home. Go to a land grant university and see how many of the microbiology and agronomics students are from China.
Chinese agents have also been busted digging up GMO corn seeds in the Midwest.
Their espionage agencies are more than happy to conduct corporate espionage. A number of professors have been busted selling secrets to the Chinese government.
And China has no problem stealing technology and intellectual property.
Which lab did it sneak out of?
Speaking of which:
Return to normal my dick.
Is this not normal for that commie hell hole?
Chinese researchers? Are you kidding me?
Fertilized with leftover bat guano from their other..ahem...research.
If they could manufacture a virus which JUUUUST HAPPENED to kill old people while leaving young people untouched, I trust they can pull this off.
Expect anti-biotech activists to oppose this important development.
Along with anybody who was paying attention over the last 2 years.
Joe Rogan should do an interview with the guy mentioned in the article or someone similar, and wait for Neil Young to show up to complain about GMO foods
As long as it is never exported.
What we really need is to GMO grains to being perineal. We have some variety of perineal "wheat" but it's actually wheat grass (which domestic wheat was bred from). They're good for about three years, but yield is far below annual varieties and it decreases every year. There also are only limited processors who currently use it. On the plus side you get three crops per year, it needs to be hayed twice and cut for grain once. In the spring you hay it, cut for grain in the summer, then either graze it or cut it for hay again in the fall. It also cuts down on fuel costs, seed costs, machinery costs, fertilizer usage, runoff, is more drought resistant (more coverage equals less soil evaporation and the roots go down much deeper), cuts down on wind and rain erosion and boosts soil health and organic matter.
Yield has increased substantially through traditional breeding, but to reach similar yields as current spring or winter grain varieties is projected at the current rate of gain, to be 20 years. It would take five years or so if we could do it through genetic manipulation. We could splice the perineal genes into modern wheat varieties, which would result in the same quality wheat we have, similar yields, and make it perineal. I've talked at length with several wheat and barley breeders and geneticists who wish we could do that. But there is no funding available. Wheat just doesn't have a high enough profit margin for the agtech companies to spend money on it, and most variety research is done at the land grant universities, and the money spent on wheat breeding is not very much. The schools would rather spend money on flashy research that makes headlines and draws in donors. Finding research funds for agricultural research at the land grant universities is difficult, even though that is one of their primary missions. It's why Congress established them in the first place back in the 1860's.
Most farmers use a three to four year rotation, at least in Montana and North Dakota and the Palouse. Three years in grain, one year in pulse crops or some other legume. This replenishes nitrogen. This would be perfect for perineal wheat. Plant the first spring, spray it out three years later. Air drill in peas, lentils, chickpeas, soybeans or whatever legume you want the following spring. Harvest it and plant your perineal wheat once more. It could all be done no till. This would greatly benefit the environment and farmers. And greatly reduce pesticide usage (especially if you splice in disease resistance such as fungal resistance). Do it with solid stem varieties and you reduce sawfly damage as well.
The anti-GMO idiots (many of who scream follow the science and support vaccine mandates) are actively hurting the environment. Certified organic also can't use gene splicing techniques but have no problem using varieties developed via radiation induced or chemically induced mutagenesis. About the only way to control weeds and diseases in organic currently is deep tillage and fallow, which is extremely detrimental to the soil. Most conventional farmers use no till or minimal till, which improves soil health.
I agree with you soldier on the idiocy of the anti-GMO activists. They are the left's version of modern Luddite anti-science theory and partners with their brethren on the right who may similarly oppose vaccines along with their right wing only anti-evolution and resistance to the clear science on climate change.
3 year program for perennial grains - hopefully nitrogen fixing legumes - is solid, and in my years managing a 120 acre, 30 mother cows cow-calf operation, I mixed in a regional legume - Alyce clover - with winter rye for grazing.
As to research, the University of Florida announced their 2nd biggest year for research grants for IFAS, their agricultural branch, so maybe the problems you speak of regional.
https://blogs.ifas.ufl.edu/news/2021/08/06/uf-ifas-research-receives-155-6-m-in-latest-fiscal-year/
I work in Extension and am a proud graduate of University of Idaho, I see land grant universities, with some notes exceptions, losing funding all across the country. Nevada ended all the ag programs at their land grant university and ended extension (not sure how they maintain land grant status). Many states have eliminated county extension agents and gone to regional agents (even noted land grant universities such as Oregon State University and Colorado State University). Most agricultural research at many land grant universities is now privately funded, and a good portion of it is proof of concept, or regulatory research, there is fewer and fewer dollars being spent on development research.
One of the big problems is land grant universities are hiring Presidents who aren't dedicated to the land grant mission. I remember when I was in grad school, U of I hired a president, who gave a speech after a month on the job, from his campus provided house. From the house you could see the research dairy farm. He got up and laid out his vision. As a passing remark regarding agricultural, he stated "Idaho is the 3rd largest dairy state in the union, so we need to acquire a dairy research unit". His assistant about face palmed and had to whisper in his ear and point out the working 120 cow diary research center that U of I established first in the 1950s, when dairy began replacing beef as the primary animal agriculture in Idaho. He only lasted a year. He never once visited the College of Ag, which was in the oldest building on campus, and needed remodeling, but also was one of the largest colleges on campus. Luckily, Montana State University out president is dedicated to the land grant vision and especially Extension. She also is focused on reducing unnecessary classes to get students graduated in 4 years, last time I heard her speak, which was two years ago, she had reduced average length of a BS from 5+ years, to under 4.5 years. And despite every other public university in the state losing enrollment, MSU has increased enrollment. She also is dedicated to turning us into a premier research university and we are now nationally recognized for our research. Schools like Washington State has so abandoned their land grant mission. They've ignored Extension, and treat their extension agents like shit. I've talked with many of them at regional meetings. You couldn't pay me enough to go work for WSU. WSU, so wants to ignore their agricultural roots that many of their ag students end up having to take classes at U of I, and many of the residents just elect to attend U of I, instead. It's so bad that their college of veterinary medicine, which my friend from grad school attended, out of a class of 200, he was 1 of only 6 large animal vets, despite large animal veterinarians being sorely needed nation wide. Several kids I graduated as an undergrad didn't even bother applying for WSU because of how bad their large animal discipline has gotten. Instead many went to Oregon State or Colorado State.
University of Florida, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Kansas State University, Perdue, Michigan State University, Montana State University are the exceptions. They have presidents who embrace the land grant mission and it shows in their research.
You'd know better than me or anyone of course, but isn't policy like that set even higher than by current university presidents? By legislatures even, through the university's mission definition?
See my response to Hank ferrous below, they were meant for you. To summarize, their mission statements were set by Congress in 1862 and haven't been changed, though added to, in subsequent Congressional acts.
Yes, some of the problem is state legislatures, but even then it is the University Presidents' lack of lobbying on behalf of the agricultural and family and consumer science departments.
Organic farming will lead to more damage and likely more 'climate change' issues due to damage to the biosphere. But, the cultists won't hear any arguments that don't fit their agenda and narratives. This doesn't take into account the hysteria about GMOs and 'unsafe' genetic materials being ingested. A culture of cowards, and the same population who are freaking out about those opposed to mask and vaccine mandates.
Hank, GMO and vaccine hysteria share a common fear and there is some overlap on the left. GMOs aren't on the radar of the MAGA anti-vaxxers or they'd apply the same illogic to that wonder of modern science as well.
Nope land grant universities were set by a Congressional act in the 1860s. There primary mission is to provide agricultural sciences and home economics (family consumer sciences) and research in these fields. In the 1930s Congress also directed them to provide Extension education.
See the Morrill acts of 1862 and 1890, and the Smith-Lever Act of 1914. I was off, extension was established by an act of Congress in 1914.
Also, the Hatch Act of 1887.
The problem is that gmo has gone rogue before.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/perineal
Would you need an asshoe to cultivate that? 🙂
I think you meant
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perennial
Yeah, sorry. I've always had trouble with that word and entomologist. That's why I have others read any professional writing I do before I submit it. Not the greatest speller and rely to much on spellcheck.
The Land Institute is working on perennial crops as agriculture.
The point is that we could do it in 5-10 years if we use GMO technology. If you read the Land Institute's pages they've been working on it since the 1970s, and don't expect results for another forty years. So we are talking doing in 5-10 years compared to possibly doing it in 40 years through traditional breeding.
The reason it will take forever is because perennials are inimical to the big businesses that will spend a ton of money to do research fast that they can turn into patentable property. You think monsanto wants to spend money to research private property seeds they can only sell every few years rather than every year? You think Deere et al wants to research seeds that will reduce tilling? Cui bono from perennials when the entire ag industry has been based on annual grains?
The big seed companies don't do any research, or almost none into wheat, as I said above. Almost all wheat research and breeding are conducted by public land grant universities. It takes that long because they are trying to undo 10,000 years of plant breeding. They have, as I said, perennial wheat varieties available already but they are very low yielding. I already addressed all this. The fact is the anti-GMO movement has hampered research into perennial wheat. I know I work with the wheat breeders and researchers. And they will tell you the same. Farmers want it, but it just isn't commercially viable.
The anti-GMO movement has not 'hampered research' into anything and it isn't potential customers who are to blame for something that isn't commercially viable. Im sure there are plenty of Luddites who are just anti-GMO because they are anti-technology. But I've never met one of them. The only ones I've met are anti-GMO because they don't want to eat an herbicide (and a bactericide - meaning esp beneficial gut bacteria) in their food - namely glyphosate. And those who are 'pro-GMO' never ever ever ever mention glyphosate even though pretty much all GMO grains on the market are specifically engineered so that glyphosate can be dumped on them. Like - 'GMO' equals a bit of flimflam and lying.
But hey - let's talk about a non-commercial GMO wheat that resists fungus so that we can blame anti-GMO people when ag decides that it doesn't improve wheat profits and therefore doesn't go to market.
All pesticides have a withdrawal date. Your friend is a Luddite. Sorry, but people don't dump herbicides such as glyphosate on their crops. They use it for a specific purpose, at specific times, and recognize withdrawal dates. Everything you just stated is Luddite propaganda that totally ignores the reality. And dipshit, the article is about a GMO wheat variety. It wasn't developed using traditional breeding. It was developed using genetic engineering. Glyphosate is not a bactericide. So your friends concern is not even scientifically founded. And big bad glyphosate. Glyphosate is the safest fucking pesticide ever developed. It has a very short active half life. It becomes inert extremely quickly and breaks down in sunlight very quickly, within 24 hours. Actually, GMOs have been developed for a variety of tasks other than Glyphosate resistance, there are ones that add nutrients into the plant. There are ones that resist fungal infections, there are ones that resist insect damage. They run the gambit. You don't even know what you are talking about. It is just a catch phrase for you, and you are repeating the anti-GMO propaganda, that isn't based on the science. It is based upon scare mongering and Luddite anti-technology. It is the same idiots who think organic means no pesticides used and is better for the environment, when almost all research proves the exact opposite.
And the fact that the anti-GMO movement has so scared people of a safe and effective means of plant breeding has hampered research, because the consumers are now scared of it. We saw the same thing with rBST in dairy. The research showed it was safe for the consumers and the animals. Improved milk production, made the animals more efficient, but almost no one uses it because luddites convinced the public it was bad for them. So, instead of using a safe technology that would improve animal efficiency, reducing environmental impacts, we can't use it if we want to sell milk.
The same thing is happening with GMOs, specifically bioengineered ones. We've been mutating seeds for almost a century, using heavy chemicals or radiation to cause mutations. Almost every variety of grain and produce sold today was created using these techniques, but no one ever had a problem with that. But once we started using a targeted method to do it, suddenly you all are up in arms about it.
As for glyphosate resistance, plants develop it naturally (it happens all the time and is a major problem with weed control), we could achieve it with traditional breeding, but it would take 20 years and millions more dollars to achieve. With bioengineering, we can do it in five years at a fraction of the cost.
The whole thing is based upon perception, not reality. Based upon a Luddite view that natural is better than technology.
It's the same stupid nonsense that keeps us from using the one proven technology to address climate change that would have the greatest impact, nuclear power. But I already know you are anti-nuclear too. Doesn't surprise me.
Im not anti-nuclear. I just think the massive expansion of it in the name of 'the one proven technology to address climate change' is yet another way to ignore the intractable expensive problems we already have with nuclear - NIMBY, a highly centralized fuel/electricity grid, multi-generation waste disposal, and going to war with every country that doesn't comply with the nuclear rules that the superpowers will decide they want to impose.
Fuck off that is the same as being anti-nuclear. You are a Luddite who believes the watermelon propaganda and claim to follow the science. You are ignoring the science.
And the fact that the anti-GMO movement has so scared people of a safe and effective means of plant breeding has hampered research, because the consumers are now scared of it. We saw the same thing with rBST in dairy. The research showed it was safe for the consumers and the animals.
The fact is that glyphosate DOES kill gut bacteria. Not just in humans but in fish and insects and bees and presumably livestock. search those two phrases - glyphosate and gut bacteria. That link was ALWAYS known since disrupting the shikimate pathway is how glyphosate works - but that pathway exists in both plants and bacteria. That link was NEVER part of any safety testing because we are only recently understanding the role of gut bacteria (rather than simply viewing it all as something that needs to be killed).
Maybe you think it is pure coinkydink that the diseases of a disrupted gut biome have skyrocketed since glyphosate-resistant grain came to market - leaky gut and systemic inflammation, IBD, Crohn's, metabolic syndrome (which leads to obesity and diabetes), non-alcoholic fatty liver, disruption of immune system, etc.
I repeat - it is not up to consumers to refuse to ask questions about what they eat. It is up to the food producer chain to answer those questions.
That link was NEVER part of any safety testing because we are only recently understanding the role of gut bacteria (rather than simply viewing it all as something that needs to be killed).
Thanks to JFree, no one has to imagine being dumber than 30s-era animal and agricultural scientists. Even medical science has known about the gut biome and antibiotics effects on it since at least the 1950s. FFS, Crichton wrote half a chapter in a popular Sci-Fi novel on the topic in the 70s. What rock have you been living under?
Correlation does not equal causation. There is no active glyphosate in the food you eat. It isn't active, ergo it can have no impact on your gut biome. That is pure propaganda. It isn't scientifically accurate. The few studies use extremely high doses of active glyphosate, far beyond what farmers are legally allowed to use. And as I said, the withdrawal time is long enough that none of the glyphosate is active anymore. All grain is tested before it can be sold, for herbicide residual. It's as stupid as the antibiotics in meat, because all commercially sold meat is tested for antibiotic residue, as is all milk. God, you don't even fucking know what you are talking about.
The reason we have more diagnosis is the same as why we have more autism diagnosis. Better education of both the public and the doctors.
That is pure propaganda. It isn't scientifically accurate.
It cures every thing from leaky gut to IBS, to systemic inflammation, to IBD, to Crohn's, to Syndrome X, to fatty liver, to immune disruption, and more!
*spits tobacco on his jacket*
How is it with stains?
The producers have answered the questions for three decades now. The science is overwhelming about the safety of GMOs and glyphosate. Actually, the science of glyphosate safety dates back to the 1970s when it was introduced. It's been in common use since the 1980s. The science is overwhelming.
All you have are some really badly designed studies that relied on using glyphosate at rates that aren't used, using active ingredient when glyphosate is rendered inactive in under 24 hours under real-world conditions. The studies have widely been disproven, and most scientists consider them junk science, where the studies were set up in such a way as to arrive at a desired outcome. They were also heavily funded by the anti-GMO movement, and in most cases conducted by anti-GMO activists. They were the worst kind of biased junk science.
Wheatgrass and wheat, barley, triticale and rye are all triticeae. The former is perenneal, the latter are all annuals.
Coleman Hughs, racist, misogynist, defender of Joe Rogans, rapping on the mic.
You're welcome.
That outta the Wuhan lab?
Was Fauci involved?
Or how to create superfungus.
Excellent one from Vinay Prasad explaining the disastrous methodology at the FDA for 6mo to 4yr vaccination.
Quick hits: He was personally worried that Trump would politicize the science at the FDA, and it's turned out to be the opposite, this administration is ramming through things which is why people like Paul Offit resigned.
The good news is that Chinese researchers have just taken a big step forward using gene-editing techniques to develop wheat varieties that resist the fungus. The researchers did not add any new genes from other crops as envisioned by Borlaug but instead used the CRISPR gene-editing technique to boost the performance of the fungus resistance genes already found in wheat without reducing crop yields.
Oh, good. I'm glad someone is doing something with CRISPR. I was worried that, with the lack of news coverage, cat-sized dinosaurs and 50-ft. tall apple trees had been engineered and I had missed it.
Gene editing is a fantastic development of engineering and will be a powerful tool in years to come!