|
Page 1 of 2
QUESTIONS ABOUT FOOD SECURITY
Q 1: Is genetic engineering (GE) the only way of increasing food production?
No, it is not. It is only one of the tools we can use to increase food
production. However, it is a powerful tool that will significantly increase
our ability to produce the quantities of food that our growing world population
will need.
Whether the genetic alteration is done haphazardly by selective breeding
or in a more systematic way by directly altering the genome, increasing
the useable food content of an organism requires some form of genetic
engineering.
For grains and oilseed crops, increasing food production most often means
the ability to produce better yields under the same conditions or, more
generally, the ability to better resist weeds, insects and diseases. Many
important improvements have been achieved by ordinary breeding, but it
is a slow process. Given the rate at which the demand for food is likely
to increase in future years, substantial productivity enhancements will
still need to be made. In conjunction with other methods, GE can help
agronomists make the productivity gains necessary to supply enough food
at reasonable prices. It is thus not the only way, but it
could in the future become the most efficient and economical way.
Another way to answer this question is to consider the growth in world
population over the course of the past century and the impact that has
had on farmlands. World population in 1900 was roughly 1 billion people.
In the year 2000, world population is about 6 billion people. And world
population is projected to grow to 9 or 10 billion people by the year
2050. Until the Green Revolution spread to South America and then to Asia,
beginning about 40 years ago, the only way for developing world farmers
to keep up with population growth was to convert forests, jungles and
deserts into farmland. More productive crop varieties developed during
the Green Revolution allowed farmers to grow vastly more food on only
slightly more land.
It is, of course, possible to increase crop yields by simply planting
and harvesting more crops. This can be done by planting them more densely
or increasing the number of acres devoted to growing them. Other methods
include increasing the use of fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and
irrigation, each of which have well-known risks. Though effective at boosting
yields, vast monoculture regions of intensively farmed land have had significant
ecological affects, especially including the loss of biodiversity. Unless
a viable alternative is devised the destruction of important ecosystems
will increase as the need for more food production increases.
In the developed Western countries, advances such as hybridization, agricultural
chemicals, and farm machinery have boosted production per acre of farmland
to the point where it appears that the amount of food per acre has reached
the limit of the ability of crop plants to convert sunlight to energy.
As these western countries produce all the food they need – and are likely
to need in the foreseeable future – their problems are not the same as
those in the undeveloped countries, where poverty requires that low-cost
solutions be implemented.
Local populations in the developing world will have to rely on low cost
solutions that do not require unrealistic practices such as local farmers
buying expensive chemicals or equipment. However, biotechnology could
provide seed to farmers that is better adapted to their cultivation requirements.
The engineered seeds will have the added benefit of pest resistance and
tolerance to extreme environmental conditions such as drought that are
needed to sustain village farms.
While pondering this question, it is also important to bear in mind that
there is a danger that people will confuse prospective benefits with ones
that have already been realized. Although there is ample reason to believe
that GE may in the long term have substantial benefits for food production,
there are many hurdles still to be overcome, both scientific and political.
This puts the proponents of GE in the dangerous position of over-selling
the technology, and thus looking foolish when on occasions it fails to
live up to its promise, or fails to do so quickly enough. The opponents
of GE are equally in danger of denying access to a potentially useful
technology for many people who might benefit from it.
Q 2: Is it possible to deal with widespread malnutrition with genetic
engineering?
Malnutrition is a complex phenomenon, involving both the quantity and
quality of food, as well as the distribution of that food among a growing
population.
Genetic engineering is the latest in a number of strategies that have
collectively been termed the "Green Revolution," which resulted
in an enormous increase in the amount of food that is produced on the
arable lands of the earth. It also prevented widespread starvation, which
has been forecast at various times over the past half century.
Fundamentally, the problem of malnutrition must be treated with adequate
food. We don’t necessarily have to use genetic engineering, but it truly
could help.
In many cases, biotechnology can certainly help farmers get higher yields
from their land. If biotechnology is used to provide low cost solutions
to improve village farms, then it can help to address world poverty. One
example is efforts by such groups as the CGIAR centers around the world,
or by WARDA in West Africa, or the potato center in Lima, Peru, to develop
genetically engineered pest resistant seeds for distribution to local
farmers. Planting rice, banana, wheat, or potato that are hardier or resistant
to major diseases, for example, will help provide improved yields while
reducing the need for chemical applications.
The best recent success story is papaya in Hawaii, a very important crop
for the local economy. A virus, called papaya ring spot virus, devastated
farmers in Hawaii and many trees had to be cut down. The cost of planting
replacement trees was quite high, however, and many farmers lost their
livelihood. Researchers provided virus resistant trees to farmers at little
or no cost, and crop production was restored. If this model can be applied
to vegetable crops, tubers, and grains, biotechnology can have a major
impact on food production without dramatically increasing costs to small
farmers.
Somewhat related to the question of the quantity of food is its quality:
that is, whether it delivers the vitamins and minerals required to maintain
human health. Here, too, genetic engineering can help. Recently, rice
has been developed with added beta carotene (which is converted into vitamin
A in the human body) and increased iron levels. Crops with higher protein
levels and better amino acid balance are possible, as are crops that can
enhance the bioavailable (or useable) content of other important micronutrients.
These are just a few examples.
Even with plentiful, nutritious food, malnutrition also results from
the inability of some to buy food. So proper nutrition is also a matter
of family income and the price of food. Generally speaking, the more food
produced, the lower the price and thus the less income needed for sufficient
nutrition. By making agriculture more productive, GE can help increase
the supply of food and therefore help keep prices low. Making village
farms more productive can also help generate income if productivity grows
large enough for small farmers to sell food. However, that’s a tremendous
task, so generating sufficient productivity gains to cure the income problem
is unlikely in the near term.
It is reasonable to consider economic deprivation to be the major cause
of starvation in the world. By most estimates, the Earth currently produces
enough food to provide enough calories and nutrition to feed its entire
population. However, food can only flow to the hungry if they could afford
to pay for it. Consequently, giving small farmers the tools to become
more productive can help greatly.
It’s important to note, however, that given current estimates, the farmers
around the world only produce enough to feed the current population at
such levels. If world population grows to 9 or 10 billion in the next
50 years (as the United Nations projects), hunger will become both an
economic and physical reality if world food output is not increased.
Here again, access by the hungry to the improved crops now being developed
(many with the help of genetic engineering) could depend on the financial
status of the people who most need access to such innovations. The costs
of developing such crops are high and the potential market is very poor.
Thus, without major shifts in funding that would make the technology available
at low cost to those who need it, the potential benefits are unlikely
to be realized.
Developers of the beta carotene (Vitamin A) -enhanced golden rice have
recently announced that they will donate that technology and improved
selectable marker technology to developing nations. This project was funded
by a consortium of public research institutions, private corporations,
and charitable foundations. In addition, many research institutions in
developing countries are funded by the US and European governments and
by the United Nations with the aim of generating crop plants for developing
countries.
If farmers are to produce enough food for their local populations, instead
of relying on sparse currency with which to buy food, they need the products
of modern biotechnology to make this possible – this includes crops produced
with genetic engineering and other sophisticated biological technologies.
Ironically, advocates of equality in food access come out in strong opposition
to the very technologies that could help free poor populations from handouts
or ‘redistribution’ of the food supply, which seems to be their preferred
solution. An old saying has it that to feed a village for a day, give
them fish. But to feed them for a lifetime, teach them how to fish. Shall
we give the developing food for a day, or teach them how to use modern
biotechnology and feed them for a lifetime?
Q 3: If food security is primarily a question of distribution insecurity,
then how can increased production using GE address the question of food
security?
If you increase production of food in an area, you reduce the need for
food to be purchased and transported to that area. Insofar as genetic
engineering allows people to become more self reliant in food production,
their dependence upon potentially expensive transportation and redistribution
schemes is decreased.
A complex approach to the question requires us to look at increasing
food production without changing distribution channels. Producing more
grains worldwide will not by itself increase the availability of grains
to underdeveloped nations. The result is the coincidence of regional shortages
in some areas and regional surpluses in other areas.
The availability of crops that can grow in more places and produce more
nutritious food can help people become independent of redistribution or
handouts. GE seeds allow farmers to produce food more productively, less
expensively, and closer to the consumers. Land, which once would not grow
corn, may now grow drought resistant strains. Other examples are easy
to imagine.
In several recent famines, the countries concerned were still net exporters
of food—in other words, the countries were producing enough food to feed
their populations but the people concerned couldn’t afford to buy it and
the countries had massive debts to service, as well as poor internal infrastructure
and often problems with high level corruption.
This is a serious issue because, based upon current projections, the
rate of increase in crop yields from conventional breeding methods is
not sufficient to maintain the projected increase in the world’s population.
Therefore even if distribution problems could be solved (a very large
if) there could still be great difficulties.
QUESTIONS ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Q 4: How can GE ensure environmental sustainability as well as increase
food production when pressure on environmental resources like land and
water is growing?
There are two ways in which GE can help promote environmental sustainability.
One way is to increase total food production, thereby making it unnecessary
to put marginal or environmentally sensitive areas under plow. The other
way is to employ crop production methods that place fewer burdens on the
environment.
First, consider productivity. Growing more food on a given area of land
means that for any level of output (whether it’s enough to feed six billion
people today, or nine billion people in 50 years) more land is available
for other purposes. That’s important, because adding new cropland has
historically meant plowing under virgin wilderness area. Greater productivity
can be achieved with a combination of processes, including more traditional
methods, as described in the answer to Question 1 above. But GE technology
is an important tool that allows agronomists to alter plants more quickly
and more precisely than do older techniques.
Next, consider the ability to use less agricultural chemicals, including
pesticides, herbicides, and synthetic nitrogen fertilizers. Rainwater
tends to make these chemicals run-off farms into rivers, streams, and
sensitive lands, sometimes upsetting the ecological balance of those systems.
Agronomists know, however, that some crop plants, such as certain legumes,
have the ability to "fix" nitrogen, absorbing it from the air.
If we can splice the ability to fix nitrogen into other crop plants, we
could reduce the need for synthetic chemical fertilizers and make a giant
step in sustainability.
Similarly, if we can increase disease resistance in crop plants, that
added trait would allow farmers to reduce the use of fungicides and improve
no-till methods. Genetically engineered plants that are drought resistant,
or enable the use of less toxic herbicides could also help achieve these
goals. Glyphosate tolerance has shown itself to be a sound technology
in this respect, as glyphosate is far less toxic than many other herbicides
and becomes effectively inactive within a few days after spraying.
There are currently seed banks established around the world at CIMMYT,
CGIAR, and other research centers that were established to maintain diverse
germplasms that may provide useful traits for cultivated species. These
seed banks are also a source for biotechnologists to identify useful genes
that they can move between related species to improve crops. For example
the Mlo gene was recently cloned from barley and it provides resistance
to powdery mildew. Powdery mildew is a problem worldwide in cereals and
other crops. GE allows us to take that gene and introduce it into other
cereals. Then we can give that seed to farmers and the resistance should
restore productivity in fields that are typically devastated by the disease.
An important part of the question is whether this technology will "ensure"
sustainability. There is no reason to believe that GE or any one technique
will by itself ensure environmental sustainability. There are numerous
factors that lead to environmental degradation. For instance, the emissions
and other waste created by an affluent, formerly starving nation could
have a considerable impact. However, it is highly likely that the use
of GE technology can help promote sustainability quite significantly.
Q 5: Won’t herbicide-tolerant and pesticidal GE crops lead to intensified
use of agro-chemicals?
Herbicide tolerance enables the use of fewer types of herbicides (reducing
usually to one) and reduces the number of applications needed. Fewer,
higher doses of the resisted herbicide are possible without damaging the
crop. The end result is that close to the same amount of the resisted
herbicide is used but many other herbicides are eliminated—an overall
reduction.
Most current complaints about pesticides and genetic engineering concern
the introduction of genes allowing the plants to produce biological insecticides
such as Bacillus thuringiensis toxin. This, of course, directly
reduces the need for applied synthetic chemical pesticides.
For example, Bt crops have saved about 1,000,000 liters of insecticide
applications in the US during the past 4 years.
Q 6: How can GE deal with possible environmental threats such as "super
weeds"?
The transfer of herbicide resistance from crop to weed is a possibility,
and one that presumably increases with the likelihood of cross-pollination.
However, agronomists know that many weeds and some crop plants develop
resistance to herbicides through natural selection and evolution, over
long-term exposure to certain herbicides. It is currently unclear whether
the transfer of herbicide resistance is greater for genetically engineered
resistance than the type of resistance that arises as a result of natural
selection.
No matter what methods of weed control we use, the weeds that survive
become "super weeds" for that method. An example is silver leafed
nightshade in cotton fields. Before herbicides, persistence of silver
leafed nightshade was a different type of problem: that is, there were
no resistance issues, but farmers had to hoe the weeds twice to keep them
under control. Soon after farmers started using herbicides, resistant
strains began to arise. The same is true for every herbicide or management
practice. Resistance to herbicides is an on going problem and it will
require the continued development of new herbicides regardless of what
technology we use. GE is just another tool. However, many of the newer
herbicides developed over the past several years have much less impact
on the environment than the ones they replaced. On balance, that should
be viewed as a positive step.
Neal Stewart is a scientist who studies the transgene movement and persistence
in crops and weedy wild relatives. He and his team are attempting to make
"superweeds" by putting transgenes in wild relatives of transgenic
crops and then looking at the ecological performance. There is no doubt,
he says, that transgenes will move into weeds. It is less clear what the
ecological consequence would be. It is clear that herbicide tolerance
genes will move from plant to plant—such a case could cause trouble for
the farmer who is trying to control an herbicide tolerant weed in a field
with herbicide tolerant crop. Stewart suspects that, using GE to make
better crop plants could make slightly more problematic weeds. However,
he doesn’t think that using GE will create the superweeds that many GE
critics predict.
Thus far, no threats from "superweeds" have arisen from genetically
engineered plants.
If there is a concern about genes crossing into weedy relatives, there
are ways to prevent it or mitigate against it. However, the first example
of this—what has been dubbed "terminator" technology—was widely
criticized by those who did not understand how it could be used to prevent
gene flow into relatives.
It appears as though criticism of "terminator" technology arose
less from a misunderstanding of the technology than from a realization
that it would allow companies to commercialize a process that would prevent
farmers from saving seeds for planting in subsequent years. There was
an enormous protest about this, and most of the major agricultural biotech
companies have agreed not to develop the technologies further. [Editor’s
Note: I was actually present at a scientific conference when the adoption
of this technology was first announced, and many of the scientists there
were quite literally horrified. -CSP]
Q 7: How can undesirable "genetic drifts" be controlled?
The ecological impact of GE crops is a complex issue, and a case-by-case
evaluation of crops and biogeography is necessary.
For example, corn has no sexually compatible relatives in areas outside
of Mexico and southward in the Americas. In other areas the possibility
of genetic drift of transgenes does not exist. In this case, there is
no problem.
In Canada, many wild relatives of canola exist in and near agricultural
lands. The drift of genetic traits such as herbicide resistance (transgenic
and non transgenic varieties exist) that are selected for in an agricultural
setting are a real possibility in such a case.
Wild relatives of rice exist in many parts of the world where agricultural
varieties are grown, and genetic drift is prevalent. The movement of (trans)genes
could bring genetic material for nutritional enhancement or increased
seed production into weeds.
The primary question, however, should not be whether gene flow will occur,
but whether the movement of genes from crops to weedy relatives would
provide the weeds with a selective advantage. If it confers no advantage
on the weeds, then weeds with the new genes would not out-compete other
wild plants, and the gene flow is unlikely to pose any real problem.
Q 8: Shouldn’t biotech companies bear total liability for any harm
to environment and public health?
In the US and most other countries, standard product safety laws already
cover this issue. Furthermore, there is the opportunity for harm to be
redressed by lawsuits. In other words, biotech companies are clearly liable
for harm to the environment and public health as well.
Such responsibilities are the same as they have previously been: Inventors
are liable for the safe operation of their products; growers are responsible
for following guidelines to safeguard the environment; processors are
responsible for safe, hygienic handling of materials; and consumers are
responsible for knowing their own health concerns (e.g. allergies to foods
like wheat or dairy) and consuming prudently. No one party has ‘total’
responsibility.
QUESTIONS ABOUT HUMAN HEALTH
Q 10: Shouldn’t it be possible to demand zero risks from GE?
We do not demand zero health or environmental risks from anything else—including
medical treatment, providing water and power to cities, building cheap
housing for poor people. In all these cases, risks are minimized and policed
to an acceptable safety standard. But these things can never truly be
made "risk free".
The question we should ask is whether there is evidence of risk or harm
beyond what we are already experiencing when we grow traditionally bred
crops and eat the foods made from those traditionally bred crops. There
is no hard evidence that food or environmental safety is any less than
what we are used to with non-engineered crops or foods.
Conventional breeding mixes tens of thousands of genes from two (or more)
organisms together, and involves sorting through many progeny for the
desired characteristics. The functions of many if not all the genes being
introduced to each other are not known. Consider the genes that are being
introduced to each other in two hypothetical cases:
Conventional Breeding mixes 40,000 unknown genes from one plant with
40,000 unknown genes from another plant.
Genetic Engineering mixes just 1-10 genes with known functions with the
40,000 unknown genes of the recipient plant.
Of course, zero risk cannot be promised by any technology, nor can it
be ensured by preventing the use of any technology. Even with these older
methods of breeding, there have been some unwanted traits: For example,
wheat, a hexaploid, is allergenic to many people. Nevertheless, the risk/benefit
assessment of the traditional cross-breeding experiment (the last 10,000-plus
years of agriculture) can be examined: our population has enjoyed substantial
biological success.
Similarly, consider what is the known about the risks associated with
pesticide use. What are we gaining by having a GE seed that requires less
pesticide? Next, evaluate if the risk of GE seed is known or unknown,
probable or implausible. The analysis here should focus on the risks associated
with the practices GE will help curtail.
We need not forget about the possible benefit of GE foods. For example
if you can increase nutrient content in rice resulting in less disease
or blindness, what risk are you willing to take to solve a known problem?
Too often when dealing with GE issues we forget to look at the dangers
we are reducing with the new inputs as well as forget to look at the tremendous
societal advantages that can come from GE seeds. Only when these critical
factors are examined alongside any possible risk of GE technology, can
we determine our risk tolerance level.
Q 9: What about the health risks from GE, such as antibiotic resistance?
GE critics have raised the possibility that anti-biotic resistant genes
used in genetic engineering, could spread to harmful bacteria, making
infectious diseases difficult or impossible to treat. The problem we currently
have with antibiotic resistant bacteria is principally a product of the
indiscriminate use of antibiotics in humans. However, there are some issues
to consider with GE.
Sometimes, engineered plant cells don’t take up the genes for a desired
trait, or don’t take them up in a manner that allows the desired trait
to be expressed. Consequently, when scientists engineer plants, we usually
introduce two genes: one that confers the desired trait, such as resistance
to the mold Fusarium, and another that confers resistance to an
antibiotic, such as ampicillin. The plants are then grown in the presence
of ampicillin so that we can identify transgenic plants from non-transgenic
plants in the laboratory. Cells that haven’t taken up the resistance genes
won’t grow in the presence of ampicillin, and only the truly transgenic
plants will survive.
After we have analyzed our plants to confirm that they express the desired
traits, we give the seeds to the agronomists. The agronomists then cross-breed
the transgenic variety with commercial varieties to introduce the desired
trait into plants and seeds that will be distributed to farmers.
There are two scenarios. In scenario one, cross-breeding may incorporate
the desired trait into the cultivated varieties, but not ampicillin resistance.
So there is no problem. However, breeders have little control over which
genes are incorporated into the final plants, so this doesn’t always happen.
In scenario two, cross-breeding does incorporate the antibiotic resistance.
Is this a problem? Not generally. For example, eating a tomato that is
ampicillin resistant does not make you ampicillin resistant—just like
eating a tomato doesn’t make you turn red, or grow leaves. We eat genes
and DNA in almost all food (all foods start out with DNA, though some
processing methods break down DNA), but the genetic material is destroyed
in the digestive process.
In addition, studies that have looked at this issue have not shown that
the transmission antibiotic resistance from transgenic plants to microbes
occurs at a detectable frequency. Recent attempts to get microbes to pick
up the trait suggested that it would not occur at all.
Besides, not all crops have been engineered with antibiotic marker resistance,
so if this is really a legitimate concern, there are ways to avoid the
use of these markers as well. One way is to use the mannose-based selectable
marker recently developed by Novartis.
Q 11: What is the sound scientific basis for considering GE to be
safe?
Safety is a relative concept. Agriculture and animal husbandry have inherent
dangers, as do the consumption of their products. Any sound evaluation
of the safety of genetic engineering must also consider the "safety"
of current methods of producing food. As mentioned above, nothing is risk
free.
Nonetheless, every GE crop plant that is now on the market has been extensively
studied in toxicity and environmental impact tests, and in most countries
the results of those tests are available through the government. Second,
many crops have been placed into the field over the past 20 years and
experience has shown they are not a problem. There also exist data for
both food safety and ecological safety of GE in the food supply.
Moreover, the experience of over 200 million consumers in North America
over the past four years, and the planting of tens of millions of acres
of genetically engineered crops over that time, gives us additional evidence
that the products of genetic engineering we have today are safe.
Q 12: Critics of biotechnology say that while reductionist biologists
claim patents on life, they believe that 95 percent of DNA is "junk"
(with unknown functions). On the other hand, genetic engineers have to
use this junk DNA to get their results.
Science often progresses ahead of our understanding. Intron sequences,
what we commonly call "junk DNA", are not known to carry any
meaningful information. However, they somehow still contribute to enhanced
gene expression. Thus, we often include these sequences and the process
of understanding them in the scientific literature and in practical applications.
Nevertheless, all GE organisms are extensively tested, and there is no
reason to believe that intron sequences in GE organisms pose any heightened
risk.
Q 13: If GE does not directly benefit consumers, why should consumers
bear any possible risk?
It would be a mistake to view GE as not benefiting consumers. Presumably,
as the cost of producing a bushel of wheat goes down, so will the price.
In other cases, where enhance productivity does not result in increased
output, the efficiency gains will free up labor and resources for other
activities. Also, there are indirect benefits to the environment that
affect consumers. Likewise, in underdeveloped nations, GE can allow for
more targeted food production enhancements that more directly benefit
the people of those countries. Some products, such as GE rice that is
modified to contain essential vitamins, actually will benefit consumers
directly. GE plants now being studied can be used to produce medicines
and plastics that are non-petroleum based.
Also, one cannot objectively concede there is any substantial or unusual
risk from GE organisms. Zero risk is absolutely impossible and would not
ever be required for drugs or any other food products. Theoretically,
we might imagine a future harm by GE organisms. But there is no credible
evidence that would indicate that the harm is anything more than theoretical.
Q 14: Isn’t biotechnology, such as GE techniques, substantively different
from conventional breeding methods?
Conventional breeding and biotechnology both depend on moving genes around
to produce a plant with desired traits. Distinctions about the source
of the genes or the manner of moving them are largely artificial. Only
the results of such efforts are meaningful or relevant.
The primary difference is that biotechnology is precise and fast. In
principle it is like conventional breeding in that new combinations of
genetic material are created. It is also different in a second respect,
in that millions fewer variables (genes) are involved each time it is
performed.
Q 15: In conventional breeding within species, it is said that "vertical
transfer" of genes takes place. However, biotechnology allows "horizontal
transfer" of genes across species. Isn’t such horizontal transfer
unnatural, and therefore possibly unsafe, as well as unethical?
The question makes a false assumption. Horizontal transfer of genes across
species has been occurring naturally for millennia. Therefore, it is natural.
For example, one of the techniques scientists use to create transgenic
plants is to splice new genes into a naturally occurring soil bacterium
called Agrobacterium tumefaciens. This is especially useful, because
A. tumefaciens is known to readily insert genes into the DNA of
live plants, a naturally occurring case of horizontal gene transfer.
It would be better to ask why anyone would think it is "unethical"
to improve foodstuffs? It’s much more unethical to leave millions of innocent
people hungry.
In an important sense, everything about modern agriculture is "unnatural."
If we were to have to grow only wild tomatoes, maize or soybeans, we would
all starve. The entire recorded history of the human race has been fueled
by "unnatural," that is, man-made advances in agriculture by
intervening in the DNA of plants and animals.
Q 16: Is there a difference between applications of biotechnology
in agriculture and medicine? Why are the two perceived differently?
Producers of GM seeds focused first on introducing production traits
that most directly benefit farmers, millers, and manufacturers. To the
consumer there is little difference, if any, between foods made with and
without genetic engineering. This makes the benefits of genetic engineering
less noticeable than the benefits of medicine.
More importantly, though, present-day civilization does not regard agriculture
as highly as medicine. Why? Because it is very clear how medicine saves
people from dying, but less clear how agriculture keeps people from dying.
Few in developed countries notice that they are alive today because of
the food they eat. They take it for granted.
Undernourishment is a disease that needs treatment with food. Only the
well fed think differently about ‘medicine’ and food.
Q 17: Applications of biotechnology range from development of vaccines,
to pollution cleaning bacteria, biodegradable plastics, colored cotton,
herbicide- and pest-resistant crops, and nutritionally-enhanced crops.
Isn’t it possible to draw a line between permissible and impermissible
applications of biotechnology?
It is possible not only to draw lines between permissible and impermissible
applications of biotech, it is also possible to justify these lines on
the basis of considerations other than mere human whim. The justifications
will involve both ethical considerations and more tangible issues of human
health and environmental safety.
For example, it is ethically justifiable to develop applications of biotech
that will, without any adverse environmental or social consequences, help
to feed hungry children. It is ethically unjustifiable to develop applications
of biotech that will do no good, but may kill hungry children. It is ethically
justifiable to develop GE organizations that will allow more efficient
use of arable land, provide nutrients and vitamins to malnourished people,
and reduce the use of synthetic chemicals in agriculture. It is ethically
unjustifiable to develop GE organizations that could produce superweeds
(canola genes moving into and wild brassicus) without a consideration
of how to prevent this from occurring or mitigate against it.
We also draw lines based on considerations having to do with moral facts,
such as individual human rights, the duty to do no harm to innocents,
the duty to take into consideration the beauty, integrity, and balance
of nature, the duty to help liberate the oppressed and to maximize the
ratio of good over evil in the world.
However, the main consideration for what is impermissible should not
be drawn on a categorical basis: such as prohibiting GE crop plants, or
GE microorganisms for environmental remediation. Each individual application
should be evaluated on the basis of the potential dangers it is likely
to pose and the dangers it is likely to avert.
Q 18: Isn’t the credibility of regulatory agencies influencing the
popular perception of genetic engineering? Is fear of biotechnology a
failure of the regulatory agencies or is it a failure of the market and
corporate ethics as such?
The credibility of regulatory agencies has had a strong influence. Loss
of it in the UK has resulted in a pronounced fear of biotechnology. Maintenance
of it in the US has coincided with a majority of consumers worrying little
about genetically engineered foods.
However, the credibility of those agencies often has more to do with
how people see the agencies, than what the agencies actually do. When
fearful people do not see their concerns addressed by the regulatory process,
they question the regulatory process.
Corporate ethics has also been influential. Trade protectionism has motivated
many European food producers to help fuel fear of biotechnology products
made by their competitors overseas. The failure in the market is more
of a failing in our education system that has left many people so scientifically
illiterate that they are easily manipulated by misinformation.
Other factors contribute indirectly to the credibility of regulatory
agencies. In Europe, mad cow disease and other food-related scandals have
made many fearful of their food, and this prompts them to think that regulatory
agencies could have prevented them from happening.
It is also important to realize that regulators are going to make mistakes.
The food supply never can or will be 100 percent safe.
QUESTIONS ABOUT SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES
Q 19: How can modern profit-driven agricultural biotechnology meet
the basic needs of the poor?
As previously noted, the amelioration of malnutrition in the short term
appears to be one major promise of biotechnology. One example is the development
of more nutritionally complete crops that have the potential to reduce
the prevalence of specific food deficiencies in areas dependent upon diets
with little variety. Though publicly funded research is important, efforts
that benefit large numbers of low-income people need not be unprofitable.
Poor nutrition is one factor in low productivity, and genetically engineered
crops might thus provide a benefit more general than the relief of malnutrition.
Similarly, if the use of more robust and more nutritionally complete crops
becomes widespread, small village farmers could become productive enough
to improve their financial condition. These are only two examples of how
biotechnology, which is no more profit driven than current agricultural
practice, might meet the "basic needs" of the poor.
The big question is whether the cost can be kept low enough for poor
farmers. Put simply, this may appear unlikely (and may indeed be unlikely
in the short term), as the development of agricultural biotechnology is
carried out primarily by large multinational corporations.
However, a very common misconception is a belief that the products of
agricultural biotechnology are being developed solely in the private sector.
To cite only three examples: such products as nutritionally enhanced rice,
virus resistant cassava, and vaccine-carrying bananas are under development
in public sector research institutions. These innovations are specifically
targeted at reducing the ills of poor populations.
Furthermore, it may seem paradoxical, but it actually can be profitable
to help the poor. "Poor" countries are often key marketing opportunities
for a seed corporation such as Monsanto or Novartis. While costly to create
the seed, the increased yields and pest resistance of the crops may well
justify the additional cost of the technology even to small farmers. One
of the key concerns of developing countries is trying to minimize the
yield swing between good and bad years. By helping crops better deal with
environmental stresses, such as droughts, diseases, and insect pests,
GM can help farmers better manage the feast or famine effect of having
several inches too little rain.
GM crops are only tools in the struggle for sustainable agricultural
initiatives in developing countries, but they are a critical tool because
of their ease to use and their dramatic yield increases, especially when
arable land is scarce.
On whole, the net increase in yield and crop protection should outweigh
the modest cost of the seeds, even in developing countries. If this were
not the case, GM producers would have lots and lots of inventory they
could not sell to any farmer, anywhere.
Q 20: Would not the poor farmers in developing countries become dependent
on commercial biotech corporations?
In the developed countries, all farmers are dependent on the large input
suppliers for 90% of inputs. Seed is the basis of agricultural production,
and nobody can be competitive with outdated cultivars.
A better question might be, is such a dependence always a negative?
Whether this is better or worse than being dependent upon the vicissitudes
of current production, or donor aid, is a debatable issue.
There is no obligation to purchase GM seed. Nor is there reason to suspect
that there would be a lack of traditional seed available to small farmers
who save seed from year to year. The only time a developing country or
individual farmers in a developing country would purchase GM seed at a
premium over traditional seed is if they believed the seed to be worth
the extra cost.
Generally speaking—though not always—the amount of additional crop produced
from GM seeds greatly outweighs the modest cost of the technology. Even
in the absence of markedly improved yields, GM seeds tend to require substantially
fewer inputs, such as synthetic pesticides or herbicides. In those cases,
many farmers will also find it worth paying the premium for GM seeds.
Indeed, the corporations become dependent on their customers in a commercial
relationship just as much as the reverse is true.
Q 21: How can the interests of developing countries be safeguarded?
In general, a primary interest in developing countries is to produce
more food, and to produce more nutritious food. Genetic engineering can
help safeguard this interest.
Accordingly, the biggest threat is preventing developing countries from
being able to use biotechnology. The dogmatic ideology of activist groups
currently constitutes the greatest danger to them.
It is overly simplistic to think that food security will happen purely
by the development of the appropriate crops. Farmers in developing nations
need a suitable political and social infrastructure to ensure that the
application of the new technologies is effectively handled and does not
cause more problems than it solves.
Developing countries definitely can benefit from the yield increases
of GM seeds. The question is how can we make it profitable for seed companies
to provide GM products to developing countries. In part, developing world
governments with support from the World community (or individual UN members)
may have to help subsidize the cost of the technology in their countries.
To build the necessary infrastructure, one key for developing countries
is to secure financing for "sustainable agriculture", a whole
collection of farming practices, which should include GM seeds. Current
aid programs focus on providing assistance largely only when there is
an emergency. But some public and charitable funding has been available
for improving farming methods in the developing world. Greater investment
in promoting sustainable agriculture can help developing nations substantially.
Q 22: Won’t GE crops accelerate the trend towards fewer varieties
of crops? Will not such a loss of crop diversity make agriculture more
vulnerable?
The narrowing of the genetic base of crops has already occurred through
conventional breeding, which farmers have carried on for thousands of
years. It is more likely that genetic engineering will help reverse this
trend.
The current evolution of agriculture in the US and other industrialized
countries, including the move toward genetic engineering, has generated
a select few highly specialized crops. If it is possible to move a gene
into a land race or other locally adapted variety and make it more productive
or better able to resist disease, this will preserve its use, and therefore
help preserve diversity as well.
With conventional breeding a particular trait of interest has to be melded
with other desired traits, to the exclusion of unwanted traits over many
generations of selective breeding. With genetic engineering a single desired
trait can be added to any already optimized breed in a much more directed
and quicker manner. This will make it easier to diversify crops.
As GM crop development begins to introduce targeted production traits,
such as resistance to certain pests in certain regions, the technology
can actually improve crop diversity. Of course, it is enormously expensive
to introduce a gene trait; so many producers will be interested in introducing
traits for which consumers will pay a premium. Variety will be further
increased as GM seed manufacturers introduce new consumer-focused traits,
such as added nutritional components or improved longevity.
Genetic engineering may also expand the variety of crops by "domesticating"
currently unused plants. Some plants are used for food in only limited
geographical regions due to problems with naturally occurring toxins or
other problems. Cassava, for example, is often used as a food source in
sub-Saharan Africa. But cassava naturally contains high levels of cyanide
that can only be removed with very careful preparation. Reduced toxicity
and increased palatability would increase the number of species that could
be used for food.
Finally, seed banks and DNA banks around the world preserve a multitude
of natural varieties, for future resurrection if it should be desirable.
Q 23: What are the social and ethical implications of GE?
The issues can be broken down into two areas: intrinsic and extrinsic.
Intrinsic concerns are those that have to do with moral concerns about
the very process of GE: that it is unnatural or against religious views
for one or more reasons.
If intrinsic objections are held, then the extrinsic ones are irrelevant,
in the same way that if you object to capital punishment on moral grounds,
you don’t argue about the methods by which it should be carried out.
In New Zealand, for instance, the indigenous people (Maori) do not approve
of mixing genes from different species. Their objection is a spiritual
one, based on their belief that ancestors are like gods—to be revered—and
ancestral heritage and inheritance are therefore also sacred. However,
the Maori culture never had to deal with such complexities as GE until
recently. It is fair to say that an ‘intrinsic’ spiritual argument is
the only one which cannot be refuted by an ethics committee.
Other ‘intrinsic’ objections include: GE is unnatural; trying to play
God; arrogating to ourselves historically unprecedented levels of power;
disrespecting life by patenting it; "commodifying" life; illegitimately
abrogating species boundaries or exhibiting arrogance, hubris, and disaffection.
Such objections are difficult, if not impossible to refute, because they
rest on strongly-held beliefs, rather than on facts.
Extrinsic objections, which rest more on facts and reasoning, have to
do with consequences arising from the application of the technology.
Such objections include claims that GE organisms may have disastrous
effects on animals, ecosystems, and humans. Potential harms to animals
include unjustified pain to individuals used in research and production.
Potential harms to ecosystems include possible environmental catastrophe,
inevitable narrowing of germplasm diversity, and irreversible loss or
degradation of air, soils, and waters. Possible harms to humans include
perpetuation of social inequities in modern agriculture, decreased food
security for women and children on subsistence farms in developing countries,
a growing gap between well capitalized economies in the Northern hemisphere
and less capitalized peasant economies in the South, risks to the food
security of future generations, and the promotion of reductionistic and
exploitative science.
Consider the fable of Prometheus giving fire to mortals. When he brought
fire, did mankind extinguish it? Or did we attempt to learn how to use
it to the best of our ability?
Increasing yields and decreasing inputs can only benefit society. Genetic
engineering is merely the latest in a long line of technologies that humanity
has devised to improve its prospects. Technophobes will produce arguments
that it is unethical. Technophiles will defend it. But passions aside,
most agree that societies would be far better served by carefully using
technology, while critically monitoring its progress and performance.
Q 24: Shouldn’t consumers have the right to know whether they are
consuming GE?
Opinion on this topic is strongly divided.
Some want GE food products to be labeled because they personally would
prefer to consume such products, and want to have a means for finding
them. Others want such products to be labeled because they wish to avoid
them.
Whether or not such desires require the creation of a "right"
to know if they are consuming GE food products is another matter entirely.
It is generally agreed that consumers have a right to know things that
are directly relevant to their health and safety. For instance, if a food
contains allergens, or is high in sodium or cholesterol, the consumer
is considered to have a right to know.
Governments typically prescribe what aspects of foods consumers have
a legal right to know, with the view to making an optimal amount of useful
information available. In most cases, ingredients that are generally agreed
to be safe and do not form major proportions of the product need not be
listed. Otherwise, labels would be encyclopedic lists that practically
no one would consult. As long as genetically engineered ingredients are
subject to the same rules as any other product, most scientists agree
that there is no need to expand the consumer’s legal right to know beyond
what is necessary and useful.
If a consumer’s right to know goes beyond legitimate health and safety
matters, no one has yet proposed how extensive that right would be. Some
will want to know about the pesticides, manure, trace elements, fertilizer,
or variety of crop, to mention only a few.
Q 25: Shouldn’t GE foods be labeled? If not, why not?
If we assume that a consumer has a legal right to know whether a food
has been produced with GE, then it would be appropriate to assume that
such foods should be labeled.
Questions of the "right to know" aside, a more reasonable question
would be: Should all consumers be forced to accept the cost of this knowledge?
The costs include: 1) farmers needing to segregate grains; 2) silos needing
to be extremely careful about when they take deliveries to keep GE and
non-GE grains separate; 3) food processors needing to test shipments;
and so on down the food chain.
If you ask 100 people if they would want to know if there were GE materials
in their foods, most would say yes. If you asked the same 100 people if
they would want to know if there was GE material in their food AND that
finding out would cost them 5 cents a loaf of bread and 25 cents a pound
of beef, fewer would be interested. But surveys also show that, if you
told that same group of people that, in the judgment of scientific experts,
there was no difference in safety or nutrition, fewer still would demand
that GE foods be labeled.
Should the majority of consumers who understand that there is no health
difference between GE and non-GE foods or simply do not care, be forced
to pay the cost of providing information to a minority of consumers who
what it? Is that fair?
Some suggest that the markets rather than government regulation should
dictate whether or not consumers would prefer low food costs or labeling,
and this underpins the notion that labeling should be optional, not mandatory.
This would lead to a traditional food market and a niche market for non-GE
foods similar to the niche market for organic foods. The customer would
pay a premium for non-GM foods and retail grocery stores would have a
much larger margin on such products. Likewise, farmers would be paid a
premium for non-GM maize. In the end, it is the consumers who actually
want that information who would bear the cost of providing it.
If the issue really is of concern to consumers, then consumers will be
willing to bear the cost of the labeling process.
Q 26: Is it fair to grant patents on GE organisms?
This is a complex issue, having to do with different appreciations of
what is meant by ownership. Patenting does not in fact give patent-holders
ownership; it temporarily gives them the exclusive legal right to use
some process or to exploit some information that they have discovered.
That exclusive right, in turn, enables individuals and companies to protect
their investments when making inventions available to the public.
Without patents, much innovative research would not be done. Universities
and companies typically must invest several million dollars to discover
a novel gene, and to learn how to use it. Regulatory requirements and
developmental difficulties often add several million dollars more to the
overall cost. An assurance that the discoverers will have a protected
right to recoup this investment is essential.
This is exactly similar to human medicine or even to conventional crop
breeding. As one inventor says: "No patents, no progress." Even
public institutions such as the CGIAR centers need patents to justify
and protect their investments.
With some modest variability, patents usually last only about 20 years.
Much of this time tends to be devoted to developing the technologies to
the point where they become useful commercial products. Once patents expire,
anyone is then free to use the innovation.
More contentious, is the issue of taking a process or a crop that has
been used by a country or culture for a long time, making a scientific
analysis of the use, and patenting some aspect of it that may prevent
or limit traditional uses. The WTO under the GATT agreement has surprisingly
wide ranging legal powers in this regard. However, agreements do appear
to be emerging which may either restrict this kind of thing, or at least
ensure that some appropriate financial remuneration is made.
It should be recognized, however, that much of the objection to patenting
(and indeed to the further commercialization of agriculture, of which
GE is only a small part) arises from deep seated cultural differences.
Some cultures regard certain assets as part of the commons (an equal heritage,
communally shared), while others regard all aspects of social assets as
commodities, which can ultimately be exploited.
Socially, the current prevailing world view held in developed nations
is the latter view, and advocates argue that this increases the efficiency
with which these resources can be used.
Q 27: Doesn’t patenting life forms encourage violence: first by treating
life forms as mere machines and denying their self-organizing capacity;
and second, by denying self-reproducing capacity (that is, by allowing
patents on future generations of plants and animals)?
Much of the heat in discussions of biotechnology results from a genuine
clash of world views. Unfortunately, when such clashes occur, reason is
not always a sufficient tool to sort out the difficulties and disagreements.
However, human cultures have permitted ownership of specially bred plants
and animals for eons—from livestock given as dowries to grains held as
tribal property. Viewing such ownership as a violent injustice is not
typical in any part of the world, so sociologically, it is not a serious
issue.
It bears pointing out that patents cannot prevent plants and animals
from reproducing. Humans already exert a great deal of control over reproduction
of plants and animals in agriculture without patents, and patents in the
GE field do not inherently enhance this type of control.
Most experts agree that the patent system is similar to, or at least
compatible with, historical agricultural practices.
Q 28: When a patent is granted on the basis of a GE organism being
novel and not occurring in nature, how can the intellectual property right
(IPR) holders then seek to escape the responsibility of consequences of
releasing the organisms? How can they treat the issue of biosafety as
unnecessary?
All parties using a technology are responsible for damage caused by its
use. This is just as true of GE organisms as it is for automobiles.
A related question is one of regulatory treatment. When regulatory agencies
evaluate new GE organisms, the organisms are classified as either "substantially
equivalent" to their conventional counterparts or "not substantially
equivalent" to their conventional counterparts and then regulated
accordingly. That is, if a GE tomato is found to be substantially equivalent
to conventionally bred tomatoes, the GE tomatoes are not typically subjected
to more stringent regulatory controls.
Critics often ask, "If a GE organism is substantially equivalent
to its conventional counterpart," how can IPR be granted?" Such
a question stems from a common misunderstanding of the concept of substantial
equivalence. Substantial equivalence is a legal concept (not a scientific
one), used in evaluating the risks of a GE organism relative to the risks
of non-GE organisms. If the GE tomato is found to have the same nutritional
and compositional make-up of the conventional variety, and is found to
have no new toxins or allergens, it is deemed to be substantially equivalent
in all relevant aspects pertaining to health and safety. It is also important
to note, that a determination that a GE organism is substantially equivalent
can be made only after the relevant scientific testing for safety has
been conducted.
The best way to avoid any damage that GE organisms might cause, and the
responsibility that would entail, is to be sensitive to biosafety issues
and conduct thorough evaluations. That is why there are regulatory agencies
in place. That is why there are regulations governing the early stages
of development of these crops. That is why large amounts of data have
to be compiled to obtain regulatory approvals. No one treats this issue
lightly. However, we can be assured that when genetically engineered crops
go through the safety evaluations and are approved for release, all issues
of safety have been addressed.
Q 29: Won’t IPR put restrictions on creativity of nature (i.e., inherent
to living systems that reproduce and multiply in self-organized freedom)
by shifting common rights and excluding intellectual commons’ knowledge,
ideas and innovations? Apart from corporate control over minds, IPR may
become intellectual theft or bio-piracy?
No patent can prevent nature from doing what she pleases. No patent allows
anyone to exert control over minds. Common knowledge is not patentable.
That is why applicants have to demonstrate that their inventions are distinct
from the "prior art" and "not obvious".
Intellectual property rights free man’s creativity and give him protection
for the fruits of his creativity. Plant Variety Acts and similar statutes
do not allow people to claim intellectual property rights on plant varieties
or "things of nature". Nature’s creativity is protected alongside
man’s creativity.
"Bio-piracy" is a relatively recent concept, referring to the
act of gaining intellectual property protection for someone else’s invention,
or for something that is already commonly known or used. However, intellectual
property rights usually are denied for such things. The recent revocation
of the neem oil patent is a classical example.
Q 30: Doesn’t the emergence of GE threaten to change the meaning and
value of biodiversity from life-support base for poor communities to raw-material
base for private corporations?
Much historical evidence shows that poor communities are exceptionally
good at destroying biodiversity without the aid of genetic engineering.
Poor communities grow cash crops for sale because they cannot otherwise
afford to produce or purchase goods and services not available through
traditional agriculture and animal husbandry.
The key issue is that private corporations and public research institutions
have developed products that would enormously help developing countries
increase their sustainable agriculture programs. GM seeds are one such
product, helping increase yields and generate crops on lands that were
once unsuitable for agriculture or where crops would often suffer from
terrible pest damage.
Corporations and communities alike have a long history of viewing biodiversity
as a raw material. Biotechnology does not itself do anything to change
this. How we use technology is the issue.
Q 31: Is there any possible benefits of the so-called "Terminator
technology"? Or is it simply a means to exercise control over farmers’
right to grow their own seed?
The most obvious benefit of the "Terminator" technology is
to ensure that the rights of plant breeders are protected. Meanwhile,
farmers will always have the right to grow their own seed. Growing someone
else’s seed is another thing entirely.
The fundamental right rests with the producers of GE seed to be compensated
for their inventions. In most cases, farmers are purchasing the enhancement
just as much as they purchase fertilizer or other inputs that help them
grow more or better crops.
When farmers buy GM seeds, it is common practice for them to make a promise
to only use that seed one time, just as purchasers of computer software
make an implied promise not to make duplications of their software. Saving
seed from the harvest is a violation of the farmers’ promise. Terminator
technology would only enforce the obligations on potential cheaters, while
sparing everyone the cost and aggravation of going to court.
The other obvious benefit is to allay the fears of those who believe
that genes from modified crops will ‘escape’ into the environment and
create ‘superweeds.’ Since the seeds produced by any plant with the "Terminator"
gene will not germinate, any crosses between crops and weedy relatives
would have no impact on the environment.
 Add as favourites (262) |  Quote this article on your site | Views: 3470 | Print | E-mail
|
