Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

How a CIA-funded startup plans to bring back the dodo bird

News Feed
Tuesday, January 31, 2023

The last living dodo bird was seen on the island of Mauritius in 1662; soon it was extinct, largely the victim of the invasive species humans brought to the island. But the dodo may one day see a second life: Using its genome and that of its closest living relative, the genomics company Colossal plans to harness gene editing tools to bring the bird back from the dead. “The Dodo is a prime example of a species that became extinct because we—people—made it impossible for them to survive in their native habitat,” says Beth Shapiro, a paleogeneticist and scientific advisor to Colossal Biosciences, which is building technology to de-extinct animals, in part to combat biodiversity loss and restore ecosystems and climates that have degraded without them. The two-year old Dallas-based startup has already announced plans for a cold-tolerant “woolly elephant” that could keep arctic shrubs and trees under control and fertilize grasses with their manure, along with a resuscitated Tasmanian tiger, which helped keep ecosystems in Australia in balance until the early 20th century. [Image: courtesy of Colossal] The dodo effort, led by a newly-assembled Avian Genomics Group, will be aided by a new $150M Series B financing round. After the hard process of genetic engineering and assisted reproductive technologies, the aim is to work with the government of Mauritius on rewilding the bird in its former habitat. Colossal CEO Ben Lamm estimated the first dodo would be born before the mammoth calves, which it aims to birth in 2028 using an artificial womb. “Given the significantly shorter timeline of gestation of 30 days versus the 22 months in elephants, I think it is highly likely we see a dodo before we see the mammoth,” he says. The moonshot technology has attracted some $225 million from investors, many of whom come far from the world of biology: Paris Hilton, Chris Hemsworth, Tony Robbins, the Winkelvoss twins, Dune producer Thomas Tull, and video game developer Richard Garriott have all invested. So, too, has In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s venture capital arm. For those investors, at least for now, what’s most exciting about de-extinction is the hard path it takes to get there, and the benefits that may accrue along the way. Even without resurrecting extinct species, Colossal’s innovations in synthetic biology could be used to conserve existing wildlife. Animal populations have plunged by an average of 69% in the past half-century—including a decline of some 3 billion birds—a decline exacerbated by and that exacerbates climatic changes. “If there are coral populations that are better able to survive in warm and more acidic water than others, and we can understand what those genetic underpinnings are, we can use these technologies to move those DNA sequences from the resistant coral populations to others, creating populations that are able to survive and thrive, even in this rapidly changing climate,” Shapiro says. The company is also working on synthesizing the elephant endotheliotropic herpesvirus, which infects and kills many young Asian elephants. Genetic technology “operates at a pace that allows these species to keep up, that gives them a chance to survive.” The company also touts potential benefits in agriculture and in human healthcare, through improved gene therapy and vaccine development. There’s also geopolitical survival: Its innovations, Colossal said in a statement, will help to “further the U.S. high tech advantage.” In September the company spun out its in-house software platform into a new startup, FormBio, focused on “empowering scientists to reach discoveries and breakthroughs in less time and with less effort,” with $30 million in initial funding. Lamm, a serial entrepreneur, first contacted genomics pioneer George Church in 2019 to discuss algae. Lamm was at the time leading Hypergiant, offering AI and consulting to aerospace and the military, It was there that Lamm helped develop a prototype for the Eos Bioreactor, a small box that uses software to manage the growth of algae, which naturally removes carbon dioxide from the air. Church, who himself has co-founded some 50 companies through his Harvard lab, turned Lamm onto another idea, one meant to address both the climate and biodiversity crises. In September 2021 they launched Colossal with Lamm as CEO and one of its initial seed funders. Shapiro, a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who has a tattoo of the dodo and once ridiculed the idea of bringing it back, acknowledged her personal evolution. “I never woke up saying I’m gonna do this,” she says. But over two decades of genetic research into extinct species, the speculation and curiosity kept piling up. She joined Colossal as an adviser last year. “I was drawn in through my scientific experience and the questions that we kept getting asked.” Beth Shapiro looking for dodos [Photo: courtesy of Colossal] She still maintains that true de-extinction is a myth. “It’s impossible to bring something back that’s an identical copy to something that used to be alive.” Instead, “we are going to be able to bring back traits and behaviors and characteristics of extinct species that I think we can use to revitalize and reinvigorate existing ecosystems.” Still, a number of other biologists, paleontologists, and ethicists continue to stress the less technological questions prompted by Colossal’s mission. What happens when extinct species return to now-transformed habitats? Is this a productive way to address the world’s conservation and climate crises? “I will be the first to admit that I would absolutely love to see a living, breathing dodo,” says Hanneke Johanna Maria Meijer, a paleontologist at the University of Bergen who has studied the bird. “I have worked on this species for several years, holding its bones in my hands day after day, and you can’t help but wonder how it would have looked like, how it behaved, and how it would have experienced the world around it. A real living dodo would answer some of these questions.” She also credits any effort to invest in conservation and develop new molecular technologies that will help conservation efforts. Still, given the unforeseen impacts, she says, “this reads as another attempt to bring back a species from extinction without thinking if we really should.” How to bring back a dodo When Dutch and Portuguese sailors first landed on Mauritius, an uninhabited island in the middle of the Indian Ocean, five hundred miles east of Madagascar, they didn’t like the taste of the flightless birds they found there, what one described as “foules twise as bigge as swans.” After eating some of what they called walghvoghel, or “repulsive bird,” the settlers switched to parrots and pigeons. Eventually the Dutch would call them dodaersen, or fat-asses: Their diet of low-lying food, including fish and fruit, made them plump and removed the evolutionary imperative to fly. Over time, their wings grew shorter. But as more humans arrived on Mauritius—along with more invasive rats, cats, dogs and pigs, hungry for dodo eggs—their once-pristine habitat began to disintegrate. The last recorded sighting of the three-foot bird was in 1662. It would take centuries to recognize what had happened. An 1848 British study, “The Dodo and Its Kindred,” funded by Prince Albert, correctly surmised that the bird was a type of pigeon, and noted the cause of its extermination, however awkwardly. “We cannot see without regret the extinction of the last individual of any race of organic beings, whose progenitors colonized the pre-adamite Earth,” it said. “But our consolation must be found in the reflection, that Man is destined by his Creator to ‘be fruitful and multiply and replenish the Earth and subdue it.’” Without living dodos, wooly mammoths, or Tasmanian tigers, scientists must integrate fragments of the extinct genomes that remain with the genomes of the animals’ closest ancestors. (Dinosaurs are out of the question, since not enough of their DNA survives.) Colossal plans to use the genome of a Nicobar pigeon, the dodo’s closest living relative, and DNA Shapiro has extracted from dodo skeletons over the years, including from a recent “wonderful specimen” discovered in a museum in Copenhagen. She hopes to publish her findings on the dodo genome this year. The dodo project emerged out of discussions with board members and investors, as an opportunity to pursue more cutting-edge science and make headway in avian genomics, “an area that’s not as well funded as some, an area where there’s still different and new challenges,” Lamm says. Once you’ve sequenced the genomes, building a proxy depends on mastering editing and cloning tools, reprogramming techniques to grow healthy gametes and promote safe in vitro fertilization, and technologies for assistive reproduction. Lamm says Colossal’s researchers have made strides in sequencing and CRISPR, including techniques like multiplex editing, which allows for many different edits at once. Its 40-person mammoth team has already generated over 20 edits in high impact genes associated with cold-adaptation mammoth phenotypes, derived stem cells for both species, and started the process of refining protocols for somatic cell nuclear transfer in elephants. [Photo: courtesy of Colossal] But to begin with, using CRISPR to alter the genome of a closely related species to essentially recreate an extinct one isn’t easy. Thomas Gilbert, a paleo-geneticist at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark, tested the possibility of resurrecting the Christmas Island rat. Even though Gilbert’s team had well-preserved DNA samples and abundant genomic data from the animal’s cousin, the Norway rat, it was unable to sequence the remaining 5% of the Maclear’s rat’s genome, leaving out attributes like immunity and smell. “We did this as a proof of principle that you might not get back what you think you’re going to get,” Gilbert told NBC News. Because gestating a mammophant embryo in an endangered Asian elephant womb could harm the elephant, Colossal faces another particularly gnarly challenge: building an artificial womb that could eventually gestate a mammoth. “It’s really, really interesting,” says Lamm, with applications for living, endangered marsupials, along with human IVF technologies, but “it’s the hardest work we’re doing.” One advantage of growing a dodo: after fertilization inside the bird, much of the embryo develops inside its egg, making the development process dramatically simpler. “What you have is an egg that’s going to develop according to the [genetic] instructions,” says Shapiro, “rather than having to worry about the developmental environment of a mom and how mom’s hormones might be causing genes to turn on or off at the right time and potentially overriding some of the edits that you’re doing.” But getting to that egg involves a series of complex steps: gene editing, germ cell editing, and fertilization, ultimately to produce a new embryo. The primary challenge is cultivating the pigeon primordial germ cells (PGCs), which become the new animal’s sperm or eggs during embryonic development. Colossal is working with Mike McGrew, a biologist at the University of Edinburgh, who has developed techniques for editing stem cells in chickens, and has produced transgenic ducks using the process. Eventually, the research could lead to improvements in our understanding and manipulation of primordial germ cells in humans. “The reprogramming stuff is the hardest part of cloning,” says Shapiro, “and it’s really the part where stuff goes wrong.” Breaking a few eggs Other ecological—and philosophical—challenges remain. Critics have called such experiments a distraction and say if they succeed their effects on the climate and ecosystems would be unpredictable. In 2019, ecologists from the University of California Santa Barbara and Imperial College argued that any de-extinction program should focus on recently extinct species that could be restored in sufficient numbers to enable the rehabilitation of their lost ecological function. In a 2020 study, conservation scientists noted that, among other effects, animals in modern ecosystems may react poorly to suddenly living with a historic species that they’ve never encountered, leading to unforeseen ecological consequences. “It is essential that such risks of releasing a proxy be subjected to rigorous application of advances in risk assessment science,” they wrote, but noted that, unlike conservation data, current methods made it hard to determine the “potential costs and benefits of indirect effects of releasing a proxy – such as lessened public concern for biodiversity loss or increased interest in conservation based on a “resurrected” charismatic species.” Mauritius dodo skeleton [Photo: courtesy of Colossal Meijer, the University of Bergen paleontologist, wonders about the unforeseen impacts of bringing back the dodo, and how exactly it would be reintroduced to Mauritius, which currently contains only 2% of its original forest vegetation. “The results listed by Colossal so far appear interesting and, if real, can be used to really help threatened species,” she says. “But you don’t need a living dodo to do exactly that.” Lamm says Colossal will be careful about reintroducing species, possibly by first studying them in large enclosures while addressing deficiencies in the local ecosystem. “Creating an environment in which dodos can thrive will require environmental restoration, focusing in particular on removing the invasive species that drove dodos to extinction. This environmental restoration will have cascading benefits to other endemic plants and animals.” Read more: This company is using gene editing to bring the Tasmanian tiger back from extinction The company has also begun to engage with conservation nonprofits, bioethicists, local governments and landowners, as well as communities including Indigenous people in the Arctic Circle and Aboriginal groups in Australia. “I think it’s on us, you know, as we, as we leverage these tools and technologies and advance them, that we also have a duty and responsibility to be transparent and also educate around them,” Lamm says. For Shapiro, her passion for dodos aside, de-extinction technologies offer existing endangered species a better chance. The pace of ecosystem change wrought by human activity is now simply too fast for evolution by natural selection to keep up. And, she noted, humans have been manipulating the evolutionary trajectory of everything since we have existed, including the development of agriculture, domesticated species, even conservation. “There are people worried that this is somehow us playing God,” she says. “And my response really is to repeat what Stewart Brand [the writer and tech prophet] said in the Whole Earth Catalog: ‘We are as gods, and we might as well get good at it.'”

The last living dodo bird was seen on the island of Mauritius in 1662; soon it was extinct, largely the victim of the invasive species humans brought to the island. But the dodo may one day see a second life: Using its genome and that of its closest living relative, the genomics company Colossal plans to harness gene editing tools to bring the bird back from the dead. “The Dodo is a prime example of a species that became extinct because we—people—made it impossible for them to survive in their native habitat,” says Beth Shapiro, a paleogeneticist and scientific advisor to Colossal Biosciences, which is building technology to de-extinct animals, in part to combat biodiversity loss and restore ecosystems and climates that have degraded without them. The two-year old Dallas-based startup has already announced plans for a cold-tolerant “woolly elephant” that could keep arctic shrubs and trees under control and fertilize grasses with their manure, along with a resuscitated Tasmanian tiger, which helped keep ecosystems in Australia in balance until the early 20th century. [Image: courtesy of Colossal] The dodo effort, led by a newly-assembled Avian Genomics Group, will be aided by a new $150M Series B financing round. After the hard process of genetic engineering and assisted reproductive technologies, the aim is to work with the government of Mauritius on rewilding the bird in its former habitat. Colossal CEO Ben Lamm estimated the first dodo would be born before the mammoth calves, which it aims to birth in 2028 using an artificial womb. “Given the significantly shorter timeline of gestation of 30 days versus the 22 months in elephants, I think it is highly likely we see a dodo before we see the mammoth,” he says. The moonshot technology has attracted some $225 million from investors, many of whom come far from the world of biology: Paris Hilton, Chris Hemsworth, Tony Robbins, the Winkelvoss twins, Dune producer Thomas Tull, and video game developer Richard Garriott have all invested. So, too, has In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s venture capital arm. For those investors, at least for now, what’s most exciting about de-extinction is the hard path it takes to get there, and the benefits that may accrue along the way. Even without resurrecting extinct species, Colossal’s innovations in synthetic biology could be used to conserve existing wildlife. Animal populations have plunged by an average of 69% in the past half-century—including a decline of some 3 billion birds—a decline exacerbated by and that exacerbates climatic changes. “If there are coral populations that are better able to survive in warm and more acidic water than others, and we can understand what those genetic underpinnings are, we can use these technologies to move those DNA sequences from the resistant coral populations to others, creating populations that are able to survive and thrive, even in this rapidly changing climate,” Shapiro says. The company is also working on synthesizing the elephant endotheliotropic herpesvirus, which infects and kills many young Asian elephants. Genetic technology “operates at a pace that allows these species to keep up, that gives them a chance to survive.” The company also touts potential benefits in agriculture and in human healthcare, through improved gene therapy and vaccine development. There’s also geopolitical survival: Its innovations, Colossal said in a statement, will help to “further the U.S. high tech advantage.” In September the company spun out its in-house software platform into a new startup, FormBio, focused on “empowering scientists to reach discoveries and breakthroughs in less time and with less effort,” with $30 million in initial funding. Lamm, a serial entrepreneur, first contacted genomics pioneer George Church in 2019 to discuss algae. Lamm was at the time leading Hypergiant, offering AI and consulting to aerospace and the military, It was there that Lamm helped develop a prototype for the Eos Bioreactor, a small box that uses software to manage the growth of algae, which naturally removes carbon dioxide from the air. Church, who himself has co-founded some 50 companies through his Harvard lab, turned Lamm onto another idea, one meant to address both the climate and biodiversity crises. In September 2021 they launched Colossal with Lamm as CEO and one of its initial seed funders. Shapiro, a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who has a tattoo of the dodo and once ridiculed the idea of bringing it back, acknowledged her personal evolution. “I never woke up saying I’m gonna do this,” she says. But over two decades of genetic research into extinct species, the speculation and curiosity kept piling up. She joined Colossal as an adviser last year. “I was drawn in through my scientific experience and the questions that we kept getting asked.” Beth Shapiro looking for dodos [Photo: courtesy of Colossal] She still maintains that true de-extinction is a myth. “It’s impossible to bring something back that’s an identical copy to something that used to be alive.” Instead, “we are going to be able to bring back traits and behaviors and characteristics of extinct species that I think we can use to revitalize and reinvigorate existing ecosystems.” Still, a number of other biologists, paleontologists, and ethicists continue to stress the less technological questions prompted by Colossal’s mission. What happens when extinct species return to now-transformed habitats? Is this a productive way to address the world’s conservation and climate crises? “I will be the first to admit that I would absolutely love to see a living, breathing dodo,” says Hanneke Johanna Maria Meijer, a paleontologist at the University of Bergen who has studied the bird. “I have worked on this species for several years, holding its bones in my hands day after day, and you can’t help but wonder how it would have looked like, how it behaved, and how it would have experienced the world around it. A real living dodo would answer some of these questions.” She also credits any effort to invest in conservation and develop new molecular technologies that will help conservation efforts. Still, given the unforeseen impacts, she says, “this reads as another attempt to bring back a species from extinction without thinking if we really should.” How to bring back a dodo When Dutch and Portuguese sailors first landed on Mauritius, an uninhabited island in the middle of the Indian Ocean, five hundred miles east of Madagascar, they didn’t like the taste of the flightless birds they found there, what one described as “foules twise as bigge as swans.” After eating some of what they called walghvoghel, or “repulsive bird,” the settlers switched to parrots and pigeons. Eventually the Dutch would call them dodaersen, or fat-asses: Their diet of low-lying food, including fish and fruit, made them plump and removed the evolutionary imperative to fly. Over time, their wings grew shorter. But as more humans arrived on Mauritius—along with more invasive rats, cats, dogs and pigs, hungry for dodo eggs—their once-pristine habitat began to disintegrate. The last recorded sighting of the three-foot bird was in 1662. It would take centuries to recognize what had happened. An 1848 British study, “The Dodo and Its Kindred,” funded by Prince Albert, correctly surmised that the bird was a type of pigeon, and noted the cause of its extermination, however awkwardly. “We cannot see without regret the extinction of the last individual of any race of organic beings, whose progenitors colonized the pre-adamite Earth,” it said. “But our consolation must be found in the reflection, that Man is destined by his Creator to ‘be fruitful and multiply and replenish the Earth and subdue it.’” Without living dodos, wooly mammoths, or Tasmanian tigers, scientists must integrate fragments of the extinct genomes that remain with the genomes of the animals’ closest ancestors. (Dinosaurs are out of the question, since not enough of their DNA survives.) Colossal plans to use the genome of a Nicobar pigeon, the dodo’s closest living relative, and DNA Shapiro has extracted from dodo skeletons over the years, including from a recent “wonderful specimen” discovered in a museum in Copenhagen. She hopes to publish her findings on the dodo genome this year. The dodo project emerged out of discussions with board members and investors, as an opportunity to pursue more cutting-edge science and make headway in avian genomics, “an area that’s not as well funded as some, an area where there’s still different and new challenges,” Lamm says. Once you’ve sequenced the genomes, building a proxy depends on mastering editing and cloning tools, reprogramming techniques to grow healthy gametes and promote safe in vitro fertilization, and technologies for assistive reproduction. Lamm says Colossal’s researchers have made strides in sequencing and CRISPR, including techniques like multiplex editing, which allows for many different edits at once. Its 40-person mammoth team has already generated over 20 edits in high impact genes associated with cold-adaptation mammoth phenotypes, derived stem cells for both species, and started the process of refining protocols for somatic cell nuclear transfer in elephants. [Photo: courtesy of Colossal] But to begin with, using CRISPR to alter the genome of a closely related species to essentially recreate an extinct one isn’t easy. Thomas Gilbert, a paleo-geneticist at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark, tested the possibility of resurrecting the Christmas Island rat. Even though Gilbert’s team had well-preserved DNA samples and abundant genomic data from the animal’s cousin, the Norway rat, it was unable to sequence the remaining 5% of the Maclear’s rat’s genome, leaving out attributes like immunity and smell. “We did this as a proof of principle that you might not get back what you think you’re going to get,” Gilbert told NBC News. Because gestating a mammophant embryo in an endangered Asian elephant womb could harm the elephant, Colossal faces another particularly gnarly challenge: building an artificial womb that could eventually gestate a mammoth. “It’s really, really interesting,” says Lamm, with applications for living, endangered marsupials, along with human IVF technologies, but “it’s the hardest work we’re doing.” One advantage of growing a dodo: after fertilization inside the bird, much of the embryo develops inside its egg, making the development process dramatically simpler. “What you have is an egg that’s going to develop according to the [genetic] instructions,” says Shapiro, “rather than having to worry about the developmental environment of a mom and how mom’s hormones might be causing genes to turn on or off at the right time and potentially overriding some of the edits that you’re doing.” But getting to that egg involves a series of complex steps: gene editing, germ cell editing, and fertilization, ultimately to produce a new embryo. The primary challenge is cultivating the pigeon primordial germ cells (PGCs), which become the new animal’s sperm or eggs during embryonic development. Colossal is working with Mike McGrew, a biologist at the University of Edinburgh, who has developed techniques for editing stem cells in chickens, and has produced transgenic ducks using the process. Eventually, the research could lead to improvements in our understanding and manipulation of primordial germ cells in humans. “The reprogramming stuff is the hardest part of cloning,” says Shapiro, “and it’s really the part where stuff goes wrong.” Breaking a few eggs Other ecological—and philosophical—challenges remain. Critics have called such experiments a distraction and say if they succeed their effects on the climate and ecosystems would be unpredictable. In 2019, ecologists from the University of California Santa Barbara and Imperial College argued that any de-extinction program should focus on recently extinct species that could be restored in sufficient numbers to enable the rehabilitation of their lost ecological function. In a 2020 study, conservation scientists noted that, among other effects, animals in modern ecosystems may react poorly to suddenly living with a historic species that they’ve never encountered, leading to unforeseen ecological consequences. “It is essential that such risks of releasing a proxy be subjected to rigorous application of advances in risk assessment science,” they wrote, but noted that, unlike conservation data, current methods made it hard to determine the “potential costs and benefits of indirect effects of releasing a proxy – such as lessened public concern for biodiversity loss or increased interest in conservation based on a “resurrected” charismatic species.” Mauritius dodo skeleton [Photo: courtesy of Colossal Meijer, the University of Bergen paleontologist, wonders about the unforeseen impacts of bringing back the dodo, and how exactly it would be reintroduced to Mauritius, which currently contains only 2% of its original forest vegetation. “The results listed by Colossal so far appear interesting and, if real, can be used to really help threatened species,” she says. “But you don’t need a living dodo to do exactly that.” Lamm says Colossal will be careful about reintroducing species, possibly by first studying them in large enclosures while addressing deficiencies in the local ecosystem. “Creating an environment in which dodos can thrive will require environmental restoration, focusing in particular on removing the invasive species that drove dodos to extinction. This environmental restoration will have cascading benefits to other endemic plants and animals.” Read more: This company is using gene editing to bring the Tasmanian tiger back from extinction The company has also begun to engage with conservation nonprofits, bioethicists, local governments and landowners, as well as communities including Indigenous people in the Arctic Circle and Aboriginal groups in Australia. “I think it’s on us, you know, as we, as we leverage these tools and technologies and advance them, that we also have a duty and responsibility to be transparent and also educate around them,” Lamm says. For Shapiro, her passion for dodos aside, de-extinction technologies offer existing endangered species a better chance. The pace of ecosystem change wrought by human activity is now simply too fast for evolution by natural selection to keep up. And, she noted, humans have been manipulating the evolutionary trajectory of everything since we have existed, including the development of agriculture, domesticated species, even conservation. “There are people worried that this is somehow us playing God,” she says. “And my response really is to repeat what Stewart Brand [the writer and tech prophet] said in the Whole Earth Catalog: ‘We are as gods, and we might as well get good at it.'”

The last living dodo bird was seen on the island of Mauritius in 1662; soon it was extinct, largely the victim of the invasive species humans brought to the island. But the dodo may one day see a second life: Using its genome and that of its closest living relative, the genomics company Colossal plans to harness gene editing tools to bring the bird back from the dead.

“The Dodo is a prime example of a species that became extinct because we—people—made it impossible for them to survive in their native habitat,” says Beth Shapiro, a paleogeneticist and scientific advisor to Colossal Biosciences, which is building technology to de-extinct animals, in part to combat biodiversity loss and restore ecosystems and climates that have degraded without them. The two-year old Dallas-based startup has already announced plans for a cold-tolerant “woolly elephant” that could keep arctic shrubs and trees under control and fertilize grasses with their manure, along with a resuscitated Tasmanian tiger, which helped keep ecosystems in Australia in balance until the early 20th century.

[Image: courtesy of Colossal]

The dodo effort, led by a newly-assembled Avian Genomics Group, will be aided by a new $150M Series B financing round. After the hard process of genetic engineering and assisted reproductive technologies, the aim is to work with the government of Mauritius on rewilding the bird in its former habitat.

Colossal CEO Ben Lamm estimated the first dodo would be born before the mammoth calves, which it aims to birth in 2028 using an artificial womb. “Given the significantly shorter timeline of gestation of 30 days versus the 22 months in elephants, I think it is highly likely we see a dodo before we see the mammoth,” he says.

The moonshot technology has attracted some $225 million from investors, many of whom come far from the world of biology: Paris Hilton, Chris Hemsworth, Tony Robbins, the Winkelvoss twins, Dune producer Thomas Tull, and video game developer Richard Garriott have all invested. So, too, has In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s venture capital arm.

For those investors, at least for now, what’s most exciting about de-extinction is the hard path it takes to get there, and the benefits that may accrue along the way. Even without resurrecting extinct species, Colossal’s innovations in synthetic biology could be used to conserve existing wildlife. Animal populations have plunged by an average of 69% in the past half-century—including a decline of some 3 billion birds—a decline exacerbated by and that exacerbates climatic changes.

“If there are coral populations that are better able to survive in warm and more acidic water than others, and we can understand what those genetic underpinnings are, we can use these technologies to move those DNA sequences from the resistant coral populations to others, creating populations that are able to survive and thrive, even in this rapidly changing climate,” Shapiro says. The company is also working on synthesizing the elephant endotheliotropic herpesvirus, which infects and kills many young Asian elephants. Genetic technology “operates at a pace that allows these species to keep up, that gives them a chance to survive.”

The company also touts potential benefits in agriculture and in human healthcare, through improved gene therapy and vaccine development. There’s also geopolitical survival: Its innovations, Colossal said in a statement, will help to “further the U.S. high tech advantage.” In September the company spun out its in-house software platform into a new startup, FormBio, focused on “empowering scientists to reach discoveries and breakthroughs in less time and with less effort,” with $30 million in initial funding.

Lamm, a serial entrepreneur, first contacted genomics pioneer George Church in 2019 to discuss algae. Lamm was at the time leading Hypergiant, offering AI and consulting to aerospace and the military, It was there that Lamm helped develop a prototype for the Eos Bioreactor, a small box that uses software to manage the growth of algae, which naturally removes carbon dioxide from the air.

Church, who himself has co-founded some 50 companies through his Harvard lab, turned Lamm onto another idea, one meant to address both the climate and biodiversity crises. In September 2021 they launched Colossal with Lamm as CEO and one of its initial seed funders.

Shapiro, a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who has a tattoo of the dodo and once ridiculed the idea of bringing it back, acknowledged her personal evolution.

“I never woke up saying I’m gonna do this,” she says. But over two decades of genetic research into extinct species, the speculation and curiosity kept piling up. She joined Colossal as an adviser last year. “I was drawn in through my scientific experience and the questions that we kept getting asked.”

Beth Shapiro looking for dodos [Photo: courtesy of Colossal]

She still maintains that true de-extinction is a myth. “It’s impossible to bring something back that’s an identical copy to something that used to be alive.” Instead, “we are going to be able to bring back traits and behaviors and characteristics of extinct species that I think we can use to revitalize and reinvigorate existing ecosystems.”

Still, a number of other biologists, paleontologists, and ethicists continue to stress the less technological questions prompted by Colossal’s mission. What happens when extinct species return to now-transformed habitats? Is this a productive way to address the world’s conservation and climate crises?

“I will be the first to admit that I would absolutely love to see a living, breathing dodo,” says Hanneke Johanna Maria Meijer, a paleontologist at the University of Bergen who has studied the bird. “I have worked on this species for several years, holding its bones in my hands day after day, and you can’t help but wonder how it would have looked like, how it behaved, and how it would have experienced the world around it. A real living dodo would answer some of these questions.” She also credits any effort to invest in conservation and develop new molecular technologies that will help conservation efforts.

Still, given the unforeseen impacts, she says, “this reads as another attempt to bring back a species from extinction without thinking if we really should.”

How to bring back a dodo

When Dutch and Portuguese sailors first landed on Mauritius, an uninhabited island in the middle of the Indian Ocean, five hundred miles east of Madagascar, they didn’t like the taste of the flightless birds they found there, what one described as “foules twise as bigge as swans.” After eating some of what they called walghvoghel, or “repulsive bird,” the settlers switched to parrots and pigeons. Eventually the Dutch would call them dodaersen, or fat-asses: Their diet of low-lying food, including fish and fruit, made them plump and removed the evolutionary imperative to fly. Over time, their wings grew shorter. But as more humans arrived on Mauritius—along with more invasive rats, cats, dogs and pigs, hungry for dodo eggs—their once-pristine habitat began to disintegrate. The last recorded sighting of the three-foot bird was in 1662.

It would take centuries to recognize what had happened. An 1848 British study, “The Dodo and Its Kindred,” funded by Prince Albert, correctly surmised that the bird was a type of pigeon, and noted the cause of its extermination, however awkwardly. “We cannot see without regret the extinction of the last individual of any race of organic beings, whose progenitors colonized the pre-adamite Earth,” it said. “But our consolation must be found in the reflection, that Man is destined by his Creator to ‘be fruitful and multiply and replenish the Earth and subdue it.’”

Without living dodos, wooly mammoths, or Tasmanian tigers, scientists must integrate fragments of the extinct genomes that remain with the genomes of the animals’ closest ancestors. (Dinosaurs are out of the question, since not enough of their DNA survives.) Colossal plans to use the genome of a Nicobar pigeon, the dodo’s closest living relative, and DNA Shapiro has extracted from dodo skeletons over the years, including from a recent “wonderful specimen” discovered in a museum in Copenhagen. She hopes to publish her findings on the dodo genome this year.

The dodo project emerged out of discussions with board members and investors, as an opportunity to pursue more cutting-edge science and make headway in avian genomics, “an area that’s not as well funded as some, an area where there’s still different and new challenges,” Lamm says.

Once you’ve sequenced the genomes, building a proxy depends on mastering editing and cloning tools, reprogramming techniques to grow healthy gametes and promote safe in vitro fertilization, and technologies for assistive reproduction. Lamm says Colossal’s researchers have made strides in sequencing and CRISPR, including techniques like multiplex editing, which allows for many different edits at once. Its 40-person mammoth team has already generated over 20 edits in high impact genes associated with cold-adaptation mammoth phenotypes, derived stem cells for both species, and started the process of refining protocols for somatic cell nuclear transfer in elephants.

[Photo: courtesy of Colossal]

But to begin with, using CRISPR to alter the genome of a closely related species to essentially recreate an extinct one isn’t easy. Thomas Gilbert, a paleo-geneticist at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark, tested the possibility of resurrecting the Christmas Island rat. Even though Gilbert’s team had well-preserved DNA samples and abundant genomic data from the animal’s cousin, the Norway rat, it was unable to sequence the remaining 5% of the Maclear’s rat’s genome, leaving out attributes like immunity and smell. “We did this as a proof of principle that you might not get back what you think you’re going to get,” Gilbert told NBC News.

Because gestating a mammophant embryo in an endangered Asian elephant womb could harm the elephant, Colossal faces another particularly gnarly challenge: building an artificial womb that could eventually gestate a mammoth. “It’s really, really interesting,” says Lamm, with applications for living, endangered marsupials, along with human IVF technologies, but “it’s the hardest work we’re doing.”

One advantage of growing a dodo: after fertilization inside the bird, much of the embryo develops inside its egg, making the development process dramatically simpler.

“What you have is an egg that’s going to develop according to the [genetic] instructions,” says Shapiro, “rather than having to worry about the developmental environment of a mom and how mom’s hormones might be causing genes to turn on or off at the right time and potentially overriding some of the edits that you’re doing.”

But getting to that egg involves a series of complex steps: gene editing, germ cell editing, and fertilization, ultimately to produce a new embryo.

The primary challenge is cultivating the pigeon primordial germ cells (PGCs), which become the new animal’s sperm or eggs during embryonic development. Colossal is working with Mike McGrew, a biologist at the University of Edinburgh, who has developed techniques for editing stem cells in chickens, and has produced transgenic ducks using the process. Eventually, the research could lead to improvements in our understanding and manipulation of primordial germ cells in humans.

“The reprogramming stuff is the hardest part of cloning,” says Shapiro, “and it’s really the part where stuff goes wrong.”

Breaking a few eggs

Other ecological—and philosophical—challenges remain. Critics have called such experiments a distraction and say if they succeed their effects on the climate and ecosystems would be unpredictable.

In 2019, ecologists from the University of California Santa Barbara and Imperial College argued that any de-extinction program should focus on recently extinct species that could be restored in sufficient numbers to enable the rehabilitation of their lost ecological function. In a 2020 study, conservation scientists noted that, among other effects, animals in modern ecosystems may react poorly to suddenly living with a historic species that they’ve never encountered, leading to unforeseen ecological consequences.

“It is essential that such risks of releasing a proxy be subjected to rigorous application of advances in risk assessment science,” they wrote, but noted that, unlike conservation data, current methods made it hard to determine the “potential costs and benefits of indirect effects of releasing a proxy – such as lessened public concern for biodiversity loss or increased interest in conservation based on a “resurrected” charismatic species.”

Mauritius dodo skeleton [Photo: courtesy of Colossal

Meijer, the University of Bergen paleontologist, wonders about the unforeseen impacts of bringing back the dodo, and how exactly it would be reintroduced to Mauritius, which currently contains only 2% of its original forest vegetation.

“The results listed by Colossal so far appear interesting and, if real, can be used to really help threatened species,” she says. “But you don’t need a living dodo to do exactly that.”

Lamm says Colossal will be careful about reintroducing species, possibly by first studying them in large enclosures while addressing deficiencies in the local ecosystem. “Creating an environment in which dodos can thrive will require environmental restoration, focusing in particular on removing the invasive species that drove dodos to extinction. This environmental restoration will have cascading benefits to other endemic plants and animals.”

The company has also begun to engage with conservation nonprofits, bioethicists, local governments and landowners, as well as communities including Indigenous people in the Arctic Circle and Aboriginal groups in Australia.

“I think it’s on us, you know, as we, as we leverage these tools and technologies and advance them, that we also have a duty and responsibility to be transparent and also educate around them,” Lamm says.

For Shapiro, her passion for dodos aside, de-extinction technologies offer existing endangered species a better chance. The pace of ecosystem change wrought by human activity is now simply too fast for evolution by natural selection to keep up.

And, she noted, humans have been manipulating the evolutionary trajectory of everything since we have existed, including the development of agriculture, domesticated species, even conservation.

“There are people worried that this is somehow us playing God,” she says. “And my response really is to repeat what Stewart Brand [the writer and tech prophet] said in the Whole Earth Catalog: ‘We are as gods, and we might as well get good at it.'”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Editorial Roundup: Minnesota

Minneapolis Star Tribune. December 4, 2023.

Minneapolis Star Tribune. December 4, 2023. Editorial: Mend cracks in defense against measlesA new report shows cases and deaths rose worldwide as vaccination coverage declined. Minnesota legislators should end nonmedical exemptions. One of the COVID-19 pandemic’s lasting lessons is how quickly a pathogen can circumnavigate the globe.Distance isn’t a defense when air travel routinely narrows the gap between continents to mere hours. An outbreak in a far-flung location can become a public health crisis in the United States with frightening speed.That’s why a new report on measles from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is cause for alarm. Measles cases and deaths rose significantly worldwide from 2021 to 2022, a disturbing trend fueled by declining vaccination rates.Boosting vaccination rates is an urgent world health challenge, particularly in the low-income countries hit hardest by measles’ resurgence. But action is imperative in Minnesota as well.Parents need to ensure their children are protected against measles, which can cause serious illness. State lawmakers also have a role to play, with the upcoming session a chance to pass an overdue reform to stem sliding vaccination coverage here.Unfortunately, there are some who misguidedly dismiss measles as a little more than a childhood rash. The reality is far more sobering.The WHO dubs measles one of the world’s most contagious diseases, making it very difficult to protect the unvaccinated. Measles is spread by contact with secretions sneezed or coughed out by someone infected. But it can also be contracted just by “breathing the air that was breathed by someone with measles,” the agency states.Measles is also contagious four days before a rash appears, meaning someone who doesn’t know they’re ill can spread it.There is no specific treatment once someone is infected, other than symptom care. About 1 in 5 people infected is hospitalized, according to the CDC. Complications include pneumonia and encephalitis, which in turn can leave a child deaf or with intellectual disabilities. While deaths are rare in the United States, the same is not true in other countries.The new WHO/CDC findings underscore this tragic reality. From 2021 to 2022, estimated measles cases rose 18%, from 7.8 million to 9.2 million. Estimated measles deaths rose 43% during the same time period, from 95,000 to 136,200.Unsurprisingly, the agencies found that measles vaccine coverage worldwide is at its lowest since 2008. From 2000-2019, global coverage for a first dose of measles vaccine rose from 72% to 86%. It declined to 81% in 2021, the lowest coverage in more than a decade. A likely factor: the COVID-19 pandemic, which disrupted public health vaccination efforts.Fortunately, measles cases in the U.S. have not mirrored the global increase. Forty-one cases have been reported nationally in 2023, according to CDC stats. There were 121 cases in 2022 and 49 cases in 2021. But the U.S. isn’t immune from larger outbreaks. In 2019, 1,274 cases were confirmed in 31 states.Unfortunately, CDC data indicates that U.S. vaccination trends are heading in the wrong direction. Measles vaccination coverage for kindergartners in the 2011-12 school year was 94.7%. In the 2022-23 school year, it was 93.1%.Drilling into CDC data for Minnesota-specific information gives more cause for concern. A decade ago, 96.3% of the state’s kindergartners were vaccinated against measles. For the 2022-23 school year, it was 87.6%. That’s bigger drop than seen nationally, one that leaves children at risk. Measles remains relative rare thanks to vaccination, but the global figures show how quickly this virus can resurface and spread if defenses continue to weaken.“Not getting kids vaccinated is the equivalent of putting them in the back seat without buckling them up, driving 90 miles an hour and running red lights,” Minnesota infectious disease expert Michael Osterholm told an editorial writer.Again, families have a responsibility to seek out credible information about vaccinations. That means talking to a medical provider. But state lawmakers could take another vital step: ending the state’s ” personal belief” exemption.The policy allows parents to opt out of school-aged vaccinations for nonmedical reasons. That puts other kids at risk, particularly those with weakened immune systems or babies who aren’t yet old enough to have gotten all their shots.The Legislature previously considered ending this exemption but backed off after protests by the state’s small, loud and well-funded anti-vaccine lobby. Minnesota’s sliding measles vaccine coverage is further evidence that lawmakers need to find the fortitude to act.Mankato Free Press. December 5, 2023. Editorial: State must get serious about nitrate pollutionFederal officials this month put Minnesota agencies on notice that they have not done enough to prevent nitrates — a toxic byproduct of fertilizers and livestock manure — from getting into people’s drinking water, particularly in southeast Minnesota.Now a legislative leader has a plan to pay for cleaning up the mess — a “polluters tax” paid by adding a fee on fertilizers.Rep. Rick Hansen, DFL-South St. Paul, said at a committee hearing recently that “There has to be a ‘polluter pays’ model. Once the general public picks up these costs there will be no incentive for change. Why would anything change if someone else will be cleaning up the mess?”The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency told the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Minnesota Department of Health that the agencies were not doing enough to identify and assist people with nitrate in their water.If the state doesn’t properly address the problem and hold farmers accountable the feds can take emergency enforcement action.The state has had rather limited success in increasing regulations in the face of the powerful farm lobby.Southeast Minnesota is dominated by a terrain that lets water — and fertilizer and manure pollutants — move easily from the surface to underground drinking water.While a fertilizer fee would be paid by everyone across the state, the nitrate problem is not limited to southeastern Minnesota. Citizens are more and more aware that the state’s valuable water resources are under threat and need to be protected and, when necessary, cleaned up.Copyright 2023 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Costa Rica Bans Toxic Pesticide Chlorothalonil 

The pesticide chlorothalonil is officially banned in Costa Rica after President Rodrigo Chaves signed an official decree prohibiting its use. This decree highlights that Chlorothalonil is a non-systemic fungicide used on a wide range of crops, including vegetables and fruits. However, its persistence in the environment and the negative impacts derived from its use have […] The post Costa Rica Bans Toxic Pesticide Chlorothalonil  appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

The pesticide chlorothalonil is officially banned in Costa Rica after President Rodrigo Chaves signed an official decree prohibiting its use. This decree highlights that Chlorothalonil is a non-systemic fungicide used on a wide range of crops, including vegetables and fruits. However, its persistence in the environment and the negative impacts derived from its use have raised concerns. The degradation of Chlorothalonil in soil depends on several factors and can generate metabolites that are of concern to health and the environment. It has been identified that this chemical can be highly toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates, especially when applied during periods of rainfall. In addition, it is classified as a probable human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and is considered a potential endocrine disruptor with effects on embryonic development. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) concluded that there are critical concerns related to the contamination of groundwater by Chlorothalonil metabolites. In April 2023, following a technical report issued by the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Environment and Energy, and the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewerage, different recommendations were established for the management of chlorothalonil pesticide, among which the prohibition of its use was requested. The Constitutional Chamber, for its part, established mandatory compliance with the provisions of the report, and, for that reason, after a series of meetings and inter-institutional efforts, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Environment and Energy, and the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock signed the decree prohibiting the use of chlorothalonil. “It seems to me a great victory for the environmental sector that managed, through administrative and legal actions, to demonstrate to businessmen and the Executive Branch that we must think about future generations and the protection of highly fragile and finite assets,” commented Alvaro Sagot, environmental lawyer. Costa Rica’s Ministries of Health, Environment, and Energy, and Agriculture and Livestock are working closely together to formulate a comprehensive pesticide management policy that seeks to reduce the risks associated with The post Costa Rica Bans Toxic Pesticide Chlorothalonil  appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

Florida Discontinues Manatee Winter Feeding Program After Seagrass Conditions Improve

Wildlife officials say a two-year experimental feeding program for starving Florida manatees will not immediately resume this winter as conditions have improved for the threatened marine mammals and the seagrass on which they depend

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. (AP) — A two-year experimental feeding program for starving Florida manatees will not immediately resume this winter as conditions have improved for the threatened marine mammals and the seagrass on which they depend, wildlife officials said.Thousands of pounds of lettuce were fed to manatees that typically gather in winter months near the warm-water discharge of a power plant on Florida's east coast. State and federal wildlife officials launched the program after pollution killed off vast seagrass beds, leading to a record of over 1,100 manatee deaths in 2021.This season, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined the seagrass has started to recover in key winter foraging areas on the east coast, and that there appear to be fewer manatees in poor physical condition going into the stressful colder months.“After careful consideration, the agencies are not providing manatees with a supplemental food source at the beginning of the winter season,” the FWC said Friday in a notice on its website. “However, staff developed a contingency plan which they will implement if needed.” Last year, more than 400,000 pounds (181,000 kilograms) of lettuce, most of it donated, was fed to manatees near the power plant in Cocoa, Florida.Manatees are gentle, round-tailed giants sometimes known as sea cows that weigh as much as 1,200 pounds (550 kilograms) and can live as long as 65 years. Manatees are Florida’s official state marine mammal but are listed as a threatened species, also facing peril from boat strikes and toxic red tide algae outbreaks along the state’s Gulf coast. Their closest living relative is the elephant.The starvation problem — something the wildlife agencies call an “unusual mortality event” — has been traced to nitrogen, phosphorus and sewage pollution from agriculture, urban runoff and other sources that trigger algae blooms, which in turn kill off the seagrass that manatees and other sea creatures rely upon.Millions of state and federal dollars are being poured into dozens of projects ranging from stormwater treatment upgrades to filter systems that remove harmful nitrates from water that goes into the Indian River Lagoon, the huge east coast estuary where manatees congregate in winter. Seagrass beds have been replanted.There have been 505 manatee deaths recorded between Jan. 1 and Nov. 24 this year. That compares with 748 over the same time frame in 2022 and 1,027 the year before that, according to the wildlife commission. The Florida manatee overall population is estimated at between 8,350 and 11,730 animals.The agencies are not ready to declare the starvation problem solved and intend to closely monitor manatees and their environment to decide whether feeding or other steps are needed.“Feeding wild animals is a temporary emergency intervention and conservation measures like habitat restoration, improving habitat access, and increasing capacity for rehabilitation are considered long-term solutions,” the Florida wildlife agency said in its notice.Meanwhile, environmental groups are pushing to have the manatee again listed as an endangered species, a higher classification than threatened that provides greater protections. A petition seeking the change filed with the Fish and Wildlife Service contends it was an error to take manatees off the endangered list in 2017, where they had been since 1973.The service made an initial finding in October that placing the manatee back on the endangered list may be warranted, an interim step that requires further review. Environmental groups say the move is encouraging."This is the right call for manatees and everyone who cares about these charming creatures,” said Ragan Whitlock, a Florida-based attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. “I applaud the Fish and Wildlife Service for taking the next step toward increased safeguards. Manatees need every ounce of protection they can get.”Copyright 2023 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Global Dairy Companies Announce Alliance to Cut Methane at COP28

By Leah Douglas(Reuters) -Six of the world's largest dairy companies will soon begin disclosing their methane emissions as part of a new global...

(Reuters) -Six of the world's largest dairy companies will soon begin disclosing their methane emissions as part of a new global alliance launched at the United Nations climate summit in Dubai on Tuesday.Livestock is responsible for about 30% of global anthropogenic methane emissions, from sources like manure and cow burps, according to the U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organization. Advocacy groups have said that tackling livestock methane should be a major priority at this year's COP28 summit.The six members of the Dairy Methane Action Alliance - Danone, Bel Group, General Mills, Lactalis USA, Kraft Heinz and Nestle - will begin reporting their methane emissions by mid-2024 and will write methane action plans by the end of that year.Methane is nearly 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, making it a major focus of attempts to curb global warming.Reducing dairy methane emissions means providing both technical and financial support to farmers around the world to experiment with possible solutions, like feed additives, said Chris Adamo, vice president of government and public affairs at Danone, on a call with reporters."There’s not one silver bullet. We have to look at this full spectrum of different options for farms across different geographies," he said.Danone this year pledged to cut methane emissions from its fresh milk supply chain by 30% by 2030.Cutting human-caused methane by 45% this decade would keep global warming under 2 degrees Celsius, according to a 2021 assessment by the Climate & Clean Air Coalition and the United Nations Environment Programme.Companies involved in the new alliance do not need to pledge to reduce their methane emissions by a specific amount, but stronger measurement and reporting are key tools for the companies to eventually reduce their emissions, said Katie Anderson, senior director of the Environmental Defense Fund's business-sector food and forest program, on the press call."This is driving more accountability," Anderson said. EDF is convening the alliance.Globally, food production accounts for about a third of global greenhouse gas emissions. Leaders of this year's COP have pledged the summit will include action on food sector emissions.For daily comprehensive coverage on COP28 in your inbox, sign up for the Reuters Sustainable Switch newsletter here.(Reporting by Leah Douglas; Editing by Josie Kao)Copyright 2023 Thomson Reuters.

Can Agriculture Kick Its Plastic Addiction?

These synthetic polymer products have often been used to help boost yields up to 60 percent and make water and pesticide use more efficient. In China, for example, research shows that plastic field covers keep the soil warm and wet in a way that boosts productivity considerably; an additional 15,000 square miles of arable land—an […] The post Can Agriculture Kick Its Plastic Addiction? appeared first on Civil Eats.

Plastics are tightly woven into the fabric of modern agriculture. Black polyethylene “mulch film” gets tucked snugly around crop rows, clear plastic sheeting covers hoop houses, and most farmers use plastic seed trays, irrigation tubes, and fertilizer bags. These synthetic polymer products have often been used to help boost yields up to 60 percent and make water and pesticide use more efficient. In China, for example, research shows that plastic field covers keep the soil warm and wet in a way that boosts productivity considerably; an additional 15,000 square miles of arable land—an area about the size of  Switzerland—would be required to produce the same amount of food. Research shows that as the chemicals from degrading debris leach into the soil, their persistence decreases crop productivity while snaking up the food chain, appearing in earthworm guts and even human placentas. But plasticulture, or the use of plastic products in agriculture, also comes with a wide range of known problems. Plastic contaminates fields at a much greater scale than it does our oceans, posing an acute threat to soil health and food security. Research shows that as the chemicals from degrading debris leach into the soil, their persistence decreases crop productivity while snaking up the food chain, appearing in earthworm guts and even human placentas. In the larger scope, agriculture accounts for a small slice of the plastics pie—less than 3 percent of the annual 440 million tons produced worldwide. Yet their pervasive use—along with farmland, plastics cover everything from individual seeds to bales of hay and packaged produce—has allowed them to plant themselves deeply in our food supply. “Relatively speaking, it’s a small volume,” says Philip Demokritou, vice chair of Rutgers University’s environmental occupational health and justice department and author of a recent international report on plastics in agriculture. “But it carries the highest risks.” Given the challenges of feeding a ballooning global population, curtailing our dependence on plastics to grow food is a daunting proposition. Simply put, “there are no magic solutions,” says Demokritou. Mitigation requires slashing production and consumption, he adds, and increasing recycling and reuse all along the supply chain. From implementing policies, incentives, and regulations to engaging producers, farmers, and consumers, it’s an all-encompassing effort that “we need to battle collectively as a society,” he says. And yet considering the impacts to both environmental and human health, investing in comprehensive, innovative, and proactive measures will be far more cost-effective, Demokritou suggests, “than feeding disease and disasters down the line.” Polluting the Food Chain The world has a voracious appetite for plastic. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) estimates that global plastic waste is on track to nearly triple by 2060. With less than a fifth of the end stream getting recycled, single-use products make up the bulk of the waste, and it’s destined to go to landfills, be incinerated, or escape into the larger environment. Meanwhile, 98 percent of disposables are made from “virgin” feedstock, driving renewed growth for fossil fuel companies that supply the raw material. All told, annual greenhouse gases released from plastic production, landfilling, and incineration total 850 million tons, or 4.5 percent of global emissions. And studies also show that plastic pollution disproportionately affects disadvantaged communities. According to FAO, plastic films such as black mulch and greenhouse covers account for the bulk of annual global use, at more than 8 million tons. Nevertheless, the versatility, affordability, and convenience of synthetic polymers make them indispensable to most industries, including agriculture. The field consumes 14 million tons of plastics every year, with crop and livestock production accounting for 80 percent. In 2021, the United Nations (U.N.) Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) issued a report highlighting the urgent need for more sustainable use of agricultural plastics. The landmark assessment subsequently paved the way for the U.N. to push for a global treaty to slash plastic pollution. According to FAO, plastic films such as black mulch and greenhouse covers account for the bulk of annual global use, at more than 8 million tons. In addition to extending the growing season by warming the soil, safeguarding plants’ roots, and preserving soil moisture, these plastics also suppress weeds. The drawbacks, however, are just as consequential. Plastic mulch creates an impervious surface that concentrates chemical runoff while overheating fields and impacting soil health. And the single-use product is neither recyclable nor reusable, requiring seasonal retrieval and disposal. The Rodale Institute, a nonprofit research institution for organic farming, cites that every acre of land farmed with plastic mulch creates upwards of 120 pounds of waste that typically end up in landfill, or otherwise break down into the soil or nearby watersheds. In China, where farms use enough plastic film to cover the surface area of Idaho every year, the difficulty of end-of-season removal led growers, at one point, to plow the plastic directly into the field. The widespread practice, which took place through the late aughts, “had a deleterious effect on soil quality,” says Richard H. Thompson, a former agricultural plastics sustainability expert at FAO and a lead author of the 2021 report. As contamination rose, crop yields fell by 15 percent. That practice was banned, but plastics have continued to disintegrate and leave an unavoidable trail of debris and impacts—wherever they’re used. “It takes about 10,000 chemicals to produce plastics,” says Rutgers’ Demokritou, noting that the additives are necessary to give polymers flexibility and other functionality. As they fragment under sunlight, temperature fluctuations, and wear and tear, the micro- and nanoplastic (MNP) particles remain chemically stable even as they physically decompose. Accumulating in soils over time, the residues hinder water absorption and impact microbial communities. Eventually, MNPs “pollute the food chain,” Demokritou says, posing health risks such as disrupting endocrine and digestive functions and harboring drug-resistant superbugs. Driving Coordinated Action In the past decade, the massive reliance on plastic mulch has spurred the development of greener alternatives employable on an equivalent scale. Several agrochemical companies have developed biodegradable plastic mulches (BDMs) that, while doubly expensive, relieve farmers of the cost and labor of removal by decomposing into the soil. Yet independent studies on their long-term impacts to both soil health and crop productivity remain inconclusive. To give them the requisite plasticity, BDMs contain many similar additives as those found in conventional films, says Thompson, “so the jury is still out.” The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) National Organic Program (NOP) regulations require organic growers to use BDMs made with no less than 80 percent bio-based sources. Currently organic farms are permitted to use petroleum-based, non-PVC covers, granted that they are removed from the field at season’s end. However, no biodegradable films meet the NOP’s minimum threshold. (The European Union‘s organic farming regulations, however, permit bio-based, biodegradable films.) While regulations can help drive innovation, driving coordinated action requires the development of an international framework that outlines sustainable use and management practices, says Thompson. By setting legally binding targets along the lines of the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, the proposed U.N. treaty will be a groundbreaking effort to address plastic waste. But achieving universal consensus is never easy, he says, so a voluntary code of conduct—a blueprint of sorts that outlines best practices and establishes responsibility for “all the different actors in the plastic supply chain”—would be much more effective in directing country-specific policies and legislation. The U.S., for its part, has dragged its feet on endorsing a binding U.N. treaty, despite being the world’s largest generator of plastic waste. National efforts to stem the tide have also largely stalled. The latest federal bill, the Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act of 2023—the dead-on-arrival proposal was the third of its kind introduced in Congress in the last four years—called for a ban on certain single-use products and more end-of-life responsibility for producers. “Without binding agreements, these programs fail when they begin to threaten [the] bottom line.” A few states have made strides in directing the onus of waste management onto the industry itself. Maine, Oregon, and Colorado have approved extended producer responsibility (EPR) programs, which require packaging producers to shoulder the costs of recycling their products. And California recently passed the Plastic Pollution Producer Responsibility Act. The comprehensive law, which includes EPR provisions that go into effect in 2027, is intended to decrease single-use plastics and packaging, support communities vulnerable to plastic pollution, and promote a path toward a circular economy. “Mandatory EPR policies are a powerful tool for transparency and accountability in an industry that is currently anything but,” says Anja Brandon, Ocean Conservancy’s associate director of U.S. plastics policy. Industry-supported programs such as the Ag Container Recycling Council (ACRC)—the 30-year-old, not-for-profit trade association that collects pesticide drums and containers for recycling into landscaping pavers, drainpipe, and other end products—are voluntary. Yet producer-set goals and targets lack financial accountability for end-of-life product management, Brandon says. “Without binding agreements, these programs fail when they begin to threaten [the] bottom line.” Currently, none of the EPR laws on the books specifically address agricultural plastics, focusing instead on reducing single-use packaging and food containers. California has required pesticide containers of a certain size to be recycled since 2009, though with no deposit or tracking system for returning containers in place, the estimated recycling rate runs about 50 percent, according to a spokesperson for the California Department of Pesticide Regulation, which runs the program Creating transformational change and investment in the circular economy require policies that extend across the industry, Brandon adds. And along with redesigning plastics to “actually be recyclable,” improved reuse and recycling processes and investment in cleanups are crucial to meeting those goals, she says. Weaning the Industry Off Plastic Still, the broad impacts of agricultural plastics create an inherent opportunity to engage a diverse range of players. A 2019 study by the California Marine Sanctuary Foundation (CMSF) shows the extensive reach of farm-generated debris, particularly along watersheds adjacent to agricultural hotspots. Researchers found the state’s coastline along the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS)—the country’s largest federally protected marine area—littered with mulch and film, as well as irrigation tape, tubing, and hoses that had escaped from nearby fields in the farm-rich region. The findings also revealed an array of stakeholders, who have since worked in tandem to develop effective waste management strategies. The Monterey County-based effort has created “strong collaboration all across the supply chain,” says Jazmine Mejia-Muñoz, CMSF’s water quality program manager, one that has prompted similar efforts further down the California coast. By enlisting stakeholders—from small to large-scale growers, product manufacturers, and service providers that provide on-farm plastics collection and retrieval—through awareness and incentivized action, the regional waste management district has vastly increased the collection and recycling of drip tape and plastic film, says Mejia-Muñoz. (Growers get discounted dumping fees for cleaning, separating, and bundling products, all of which streamline the recycling process.) The work is also supported by the MBNMS and the Agriculture Water Quality Alliance, a partnership of agriculture industry groups, resource conservation agencies, researchers, and environmental organizations stewarding Monterey Bay. CMSF has also partnered with the USDA and academic institutions in trialing biodegradable and recyclable films, helping to create a feedback loop between farmers, manufacturers and soil scientists on field-specific needs and performance. “It’s definitely a big team, but every member is so critical,” Mejia-Muñoz says. But despite these efforts, tackling the scourge of plastics will still take large efforts to wean our dependence on disposables. “We need to mandate a reduction in plastic production across the board,” says Ocean Conservatory’s Brandon, “starting with single-use plastics.” “We cannot continue to throw chemicals and materials out there . . . and clean up the mess 20, 30, 40 years later.” For agriculture, bio-based alternatives to its biggest offender may not, in fact, require extensive innovation. Instead of film, many small farms employing sustainable and regenerative practices use natural mulches such as wood chips, leaves, or straw, relying on the low-cost, time-honored practice to keep weeds in check and regulate soil moisture and temperature. And while kraft paper has fallen short of matching the yields and durability of plastic mulch, a recently trialed version promises an uncoated and industrially compostable product that, according to the manufacturer, “provides a comparable level of protection.” The Rodale Institute has also studied cover crops as a viable solution: Mowing or rolling vetch or rye grass into a solid mat has “great potential to replace plastic mulch,” says Vegetable Systems Trial Director Gladys Zinati. Though crop type, growing region, and the existing weed bank—the level of invasive seeds present in the soil—all impact effectiveness, her research showed that a solid mat of crimped vetch or rye grass resulted in greater crop yields with lower implementation costs than plastic sheets. (Soil moisture also increased, though minimally, and not enough to replace irrigation.) While the trials were limited to farms less than 80 acres in size, Zinati sees major promise in expanding the practice. “Depending on [those] factors,” she adds,” everything is scalable.” (Rodale has even designed an add-on device for tractors, making the blueprint publicly available.) Ultimately, history has repeatedly shown that the cycle of plastic pollution “is not a sustainable model,” says Rutgers’ Demokritou. “We cannot continue to throw chemicals and materials out there . . . and clean up the mess 20, 30, 40 years later.” And as much as our widespread reliance on plastics may seem inseverable, transformative change, he adds, is possible. “Look what happened to asbestos,” Demokritou says. “That industry [all but] disappeared, right?” The post Can Agriculture Kick Its Plastic Addiction? appeared first on Civil Eats.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.