Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 Page 76 Page 77 Page 78 Page 79 Page 80 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83 Page 84 Page 85 Page 86 Page 87 Page 88 Page 89 Page 90 Page 91 Page 92 Page 93 Page 94 Page 95 Page 96 Page 97 Page 98 Page 99 Page 100 Page 101 Page 102 Page 103 Page 104 Page 105 Page 106 Page 107 Page 108 Page 109 Page 110 Page 111 Page 112 Page 113 Page 114 Page 115 Page 116 Page 117 Page 118 Page 119 Page 120 Page 121 Page 122 Page 123 Page 124 Page 125 Page 126 Page 127 Page 128 Page 129 Page 130 Page 131 Page 132 Page 133 Page 134 Page 135 Page 136 Page 137 Page 138 Page 139 Page 140 Page 141 Page 142 Page 143 Page 144 Page 145 Page 146 Page 147 Page 14828 / SEEDWORLD.COM DECEMBER 2016 “I think real damage is being done by not having significant enough margins to support research … we need those same funds to be able to afford to educate,” Hirsch says, referencing the benefits of turf. “The challenge in California is the voice of the environmentalist is so signifi- cant and the media listen to those things and regurgitate them to the public. “We talk about the benefits to state legislators but [that message] just doesn’t get out as much. It’s a real challenge and one our industry needs to face.” So what are those quotable benefits? Hirsch says that when astroturf is used on a football field, compared to real turf, the field is actually 40-50 degrees warmer. The turf provides oxygen that is vital to the needs, it is cooler and actually sup- ports the ground, he says. “Our turf today can support 30 per- cent less water than previously,” Hirsch adds. “That amount of water is significant savings and should be used in the envi- ronment to have good turf.” He also notes that today’s varieties are not only better for the environment but also help reduce noise pollution. In California, Hirsch says tests have been done comparing areas with rock gardens and natural landscapes to that of turf, and these “natural” areas are actually 8 deci- bels louder than areas with turf. While the benefits are real so are peo- ple’s concerns, but there’s a great deal at stake, from creating healthier ecosystems to food security. Michael Gore, an associ- ate professor of molecular breeding and genetics at Cornell University, is concerned that if as an industry we don’t start doing a better job educating, there’s a lot of potential that will go unrealized — as has been the case with golden rice. “Golden rice is still very much contro- versial in the sense that it’s transgenic, and it really hasn’t had an opportunity to address vitamin A deficiency at the human population level in developing nations,” Gore says. “One of the major failings that we’ve had with transgenics is in the early 1990s, when they were first being released. We didn’t really involve the public and educate them and bring them in as part of that process. “I’m fearful that something like that could happen again for the potentially game-changing technology, CRISPR- Cas9. If the public isn’t brought in as part of this process now, then truly we might fail, not only as plant scientists, but as scientists in general.” Gore has not just stood on the sidelines when it comes to education. He has chaired the Plant Breeding Coordinating Committee, a U.S. Department of Agriculture sponsored advisory group of representatives from land-grant universities. “Even though I can’t lobby, I can col- lectively answer any questions that come from groups within the federal govern- ment,” he shares. “This provides all plant breeders a vehicle to share and com- municate with people, who are perhaps policymakers, so they can appreciate the impact that plant breeding has on the United States — food and nutritional secu- rity, climate change, national security.” Gore says there is always going to be risks with any new technology but he encourages policymakers to carefully and objectively evaluate the science. Last December, the National Association of Plant Breeders and ASTA were invited to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to discuss plant breeding issues. “It was a great opportunity to help educate the Executive Branch of the needs of plant breeding and to talk about some of the new technologies,” says Don Blackburn, global seeds and traits research and development lead for Dow AgroSciences, who represented NAPB. But Blackburn says that education around these new technologies shouldn’t stop with policymakers and the public. He says a conscious effort needs to be made to retrain experienced plant breeders. “At Dow AgroSciences, we’ve made an effort of pairing up experienced plant breeders with the younger, new, best and brightest plant breeders,” he says. “That’s been a very good marriage. The experienced plant breeders teach about the connection to the customer and the younger plant breeders help to re-educate in the learning process of the experienced plant breeder into modern plant breeding techniques. “It’s worked extremely well because the younger breeder doesn’t really understand what it takes to get a product to market. With the plant breeding cycle being so long, you need to go through it and live it to understand how to get prod- ucts to market. It’s really been a good win-win.” And that’s really what it’s all about, con- necting the dots, says DeMasi. Whether it’s product related and knowing what your customers will need or introducing differ- ent sectors to each other and people to each other. Sometimes the answers exist; you just have to look for them. “We all have a voice, and we need to use it,” she says. “Don’t expect that some- one else is going to take care of that for you. You have a perspective that is unique — it’s different from anybody else’s — and we need to hear it.” What story will you tell, and who will you help to educate? SW WEB WHERE ONTHE To view the Giant Views of the Industry video series, visit SeedWorld.com. With new interviews posted throughout the year from conferences, trade shows and other industry events, the Giant Views video series covers topics ranging from plant breeding to business, and from policy to technology. 57% of the general public say that GM foods are generally unsafe to eat. 88% of AAAS scientists say GM foods are generally safe to eat. 51 percentage points is the largest opinion difference between the public and scientists.