Home Page Link AgBioWorld Home Page
About AgBioWorld Donations Ag-Biotech News Declaration Supporting Agricultural Biotechnology Ag-biotech Info Experts on Agricultural Biotechnology Contact Links Subscribe to AgBioView Home Page

AgBioView Archives

A daily collection of news and commentaries on
ag-biotech.


Subscribe AgBioView Subscribe

Search AgBioWorld Search

AgBioView Archives

Subscribe

 


SEARCH:     

Date:

December 13, 2000

Subject:

Dr. Strangelunch: Why we should stop worrying and love GM

 

Dr. Strangelunch
Why we should learn to stop worrying and love genetically modified food

By Ronald Bailey
Reason Magazine, January 2001 www.reason.com

Ten thousand people were killed and 10 to 15 million left homeless when a
cyclone slammed into India’s eastern coastal state of Orissa in October
1999. In the aftermath, CARE and the Catholic Relief Society distributed a
high-nutrition mixture of corn and soy meal provided by the U.S. Agency
for International Development to thousands of hungry storm victims. Oddly,
this humanitarian act elicited cries of outrage.

“We call on the government of India and the state government of Orissa to
immediately withdraw the corn-soya blend from distribution,” said Vandana
Shiva, director of the New Delhi–based Research Foundation for Science,
Technology, and Ecology. “The U.S. has been using the Orissa victims as
guinea pigs for GM [genetically modified] products which have been
rejected by consumers in the North, especially Europe.” Shiva’s
organization had sent a sample of the food to a lab in the U.S. for
testing to see if it contained any of the genetically improved corn and
soy bean varieties grown by tens of thousands of farmers in the United
States. Not surprisingly, it did.

“Vandana Shiva would rather have her people in India starve than eat
bioengineered food,” says C.S. Prakash, a professor of plant molecular
genetics at Tuskegee University in Alabama. Per Pinstrup-Andersen,
director general of the International Food Policy Research Institute,
observes: “To accuse the U.S. of sending genetically modified food to
Orissa in order to use the people there as guinea pigs is not only wrong;
it is stupid. Worse than rhetoric, it’s false. After all, the U.S. doesn’t
need to use Indians as guinea pigs, since millions of Americans have been
eating genetically modified food for years now with no ill effects.”

Shiva not only opposes the food aid but is also against “golden rice,” a
crop that could prevent blindness in half a million to 3 million poor
children a year and alleviate vitamin A deficiency in some 250 million
people in the developing world. By inserting three genes, two from
daffodils and one from a bacterium, scientists at the Swiss Federal
Institute of Technology created a variety of rice that produces the
nutrient beta-carotene, the precursor to vitamin A. Agronomists at the
International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines plan to
crossbreed the variety, called “golden rice” because of the color produced
by the beta-carotene, with well-adapted local varieties and distribute the
resulting plants to farmers all over the developing world.

Last June, at a Capitol Hill seminar on biotechnology sponsored by the
Congressional Hunger Center, Shiva airily dismissed golden rice by
claiming that “just in the state of Bengal 150 greens which are rich in
vitamin A are eaten and grown by the women.” A visibly angry Martina
McGloughlin, director of the biotechnology program at the University of
California at Davis, said “Dr. Shiva’s response reminds me of… Marie
Antoinette, [who] suggested the peasants eat cake if they didn’t have
access to bread.” Alexander Avery of the Hudson Institute’s Center for
Global Food Issues noted that nutritionists at UNICEF doubted it was
physically possible to get enough vitamin A from the greens Shiva was
recommending. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that poor women living in
shanties in the heart of Calcutta could grow greens to feed their children.

The apparent willingness of biotechnology’s opponents to sacrifice people
for their cause disturbs scientists who are trying to help the world’s
poor. At the annual meeting of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science last February, Ismail Serageldin, the director of
the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, posed a
challenge: “I ask opponents of biotechnology, do you want 2 to 3 million
children a year to go blind and 1 million to die of vitamin A deficiency,
just because you object to the way golden rice was created?”

Vandana Shiva is not alone in her disdain for biotechnology’s potential to
help the poor. Mae-Wan Ho, a reader in biology at London’s Open University
who advises another activist group, the Third World Network, also opposes
golden rice. And according to a New York Times report on a biotechnology
meeting held last March by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development, Benedikt Haerlin, head of Greenpeace’s European anti-biotech
campaign, “dismissed the importance of saving African and Asian lives at
the risk of spreading a new science that he considered untested.”

Shiva, Ho, and Haerlin are leaders in a growing global war against crop
biotechnology, sometimes called “green biotech” (to distinguish it from
medical biotechnology, known as “red biotech”). Gangs of anti-biotech
vandals with cute monikers such as Cropatistas and Seeds of Resistance
have ripped up scores of research plots in Europe and the U.S. The
so-called Earth Liberation Front burned down a crop biotech lab at
Michigan State University on New Year’s Eve in 1999, destroying years of
work and causing $400,000 in property damage. (See “Crop Busters,”
January.) Anti-biotech lobbying groups have proliferated faster than
bacteria in an agar-filled petri dish: In addition to Shiva’s
organization, the Third World Network, and Greenpeace, they include the
Union of Concerned Scientists, the Institute for Agriculture and Trade
Policy, the Institute of Science in Society, the Rural Advancement
Foundation International, the Ralph Nader–founded Public Citizen, the
Council for Responsible Genetics, the Institute for Food and Development
Policy, and that venerable fount of biotech misinformation, Jeremy
Rifkin’s Foundation on Economic Trends. The left hasn’t been this
energized since the Vietnam War. But if the anti-biotech movement is
successful, its victims will include the downtrodden people on whose
behalf it claims to speak.

“We’re in a war,” said an activist at a protesters’ gathering during the
November 1999 World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle. “We’re going to
bury this first wave of biotech.” He summed up the basic strategy pretty
clearly: “The first battle is labeling. The second battle is banning it.”

Later that week, during a standing-room-only “biosafety seminar” in the
basement of a Seattle Methodist church, the ubiquitous Mae-Wan Ho
declared, “This warfare against nature must end once and for all.” Michael
Fox, a vegetarian “bioethicist” from the Humane Society of the United
States, sneered: “We are very clever little simians, aren’t we?
Manipulating the bases of life and thinking we’re little gods.” He added,
“The only acceptable application of genetic engineering is to develop a
genetically engineered form of birth control for our own species.” This
creepy declaration garnered rapturous applause from the assembled
activists.

Despite its unattractive side, the global campaign against green biotech
has had notable successes in recent years. Several leading food companies,
including Gerber and Frito-Lay, have been cowed into declaring that they
will not use genetically improved crops to make their products. Since
1997, the European Union has all but outlawed the growing and importing of
biotech crops and food. Last May some 60 countries signed the Biosafety
Protocol, which mandates special labels for biotech foods and requires
strict notification, documentation, and risk assessment procedures for
biotech crops. Activists have launched a “Five-Year Freeze” campaign that
calls for a worldwide moratorium on planting genetically enhanced crops.

For a while, it looked like the United States might resist the growing
hysteria, but in December 1999 the Environmental Protection Agency
announced that it was reviewing its approvals of biotech corn crops,
implying that it might ban the crops in the future. Last May the Food and
Drug Administration, which until now has evaluated biotech foods solely on
their objective characteristics, not on the basis of how they were
produced, said it would formulate special rules for reviewing and
approving products with genetically modified ingredients. U.S. Rep. Dennis
Kucinich (D-Ohio) has introduced a bill that would require warning labels
on all biotech foods.

In October, news that a genetically modified corn variety called StarLink
that was approved only for animal feed had been inadvertently used in two
brands of taco shells prompted recalls, front-page headlines, and anxious
recriminations. Lost in the furor was the fact that there was little
reason to believe the corn was unsafe for human consumption—only an
implausible, unsubstantiated fear that it might cause allergic reactions.
Even Aventis, the company which produced StarLink, agreed that it was a
serious mistake to have accepted the EPA’s approval for animal use only.
Most proponents favor approving biotech crops only if they are determined
to be safe for human consumption.

To decide whether the uproar over green biotech is justified, you need to
know a bit about how it works. Biologists and crop breeders can now select
a specific useful gene from one species and splice it into an unrelated
species. Previously plant breeders were limited to introducing new genes
through the time-consuming and inexact art of crossbreeding species that
were fairly close relatives. For each cross, thousands of unwanted genes
would be introduced into a crop species. Years of “backcrossing”—breeding
each new generation of hybrids with the original commercial variety over
several generations—were needed to eliminate these unwanted genes so that
only the useful genes and characteristics remained. The new methods are
far more precise and efficient. The plants they produce are variously
described as “transgenic,” “genetically modified,” or “genetically
engineered.”

Plant breeders using biotechnology have accomplished a great deal in only
a few years. For example, they have created a class of highly successful
insect-resistant crops by incorporating toxin genes from the soil
bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis. Farmers have sprayed B.t. spores on
crops as an effective insecticide for decades. Now, thanks to some clever
biotechnology, breeders have produced varieties of corn, cotton, and
potatoes that make their own insecticide. B.t. is toxic largely to
destructive caterpillars such as the European corn borer and the cotton
bollworm; it is not harmful to birds, fish, mammals, or people.

Another popular class of biotech crops incorporates an herbicide
resistance gene, a technology that has been especially useful in soybeans.
Farmers can spray herbicide on their fields to kill weeds without harming
the crop plants. The most widely used herbicide is Monsanto’s Roundup
(glyphosate), which toxicologists regard as an environmentally benign
chemical that degrades rapidly, days after being applied. Farmers who use
“Roundup Ready” crops don’t have to plow for weed control, which means
there is far less soil erosion.

Biotech is the most rapidly adopted new farming technology in history. The
first generation of biotech crops was approved by the EPA, the FDA, and
the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 1995, and by 1999 trans-genic
varieties accounted for 33 percent of corn acreage, 50 percent of soybean
acreage, and 55 percent of cotton acreage in the U.S. Worldwide, nearly 90
million acres of biotech crops were planted in 1999. With biotech corn,
U.S. farmers have saved an estimated $200 million by avoiding extra
cultivation and reducing insecticide spraying. U.S. cotton farmers have
saved a similar amount and avoided spraying 2 million pounds of
insecticides by switching to biotech varieties. Potato farmers, by one
estimate, could avoid spraying nearly 3 million pounds of insecticides by
adopting B.t. potatoes. Researchers estimate that B.t. corn has spared 33
million to 300 million bushels from voracious insects.

One scientific panel after another has concluded that biotech foods are
safe to eat, and so has the FDA. Since 1995, tens of millions of Americans
have been eating biotech crops. Today it is estimated that 60 percent of
the foods on U.S. grocery shelves are produced using ingredients from
transgenic crops. In April a National Research Council panel issued a
report that emphasized it could not find “any evidence suggesting that
foods on the market today are unsafe to eat as a result of genetic
modification.” Transgenic Plants and World Agriculture, a report issued in
July that was prepared under the auspices of seven scientific academies in
the U.S. and other countries, strongly endorsed crop biotechnology,
especially for poor farmers in the developing world. “To date,” the report
concluded, “over 30 million hectares of transgenic crops have been grown
and no human health problems associated specifically with the ingestion of
transgenic crops or their products have been identified.” Both reports
concurred that genetic engineering poses no more risks to human health or
to the natural environment than does conventional plant breeding.

As U.C.-Davis biologist Martina McGloughlin remarked at last June’s
Congressional Hunger Center seminar, the biotech foods “on our plates have
been put through more thorough testing than conventional food ever has
been subjected to.” According to a report issued in April by the House
Subcommittee on Basic Research, “No product of conventional plant
breeding…could meet the data requirements imposed on biotechnology
products by U.S. regulatory agencies.…Yet, these foods are widely and
properly regarded as safe and beneficial by plant developers, regulators,
and consumers.” The report concluded that biotech crops are “at least as
safe [as] and probably safer” than conventionally bred crops.

In opposition to these scientific conclusions, Mae-Wan Ho points to a
study by Arpad Pusztai, a researcher at Scotland’s Rowett Research
Institute, that was published in the British medical journal The Lancet in
October 1999. Pusztai found that rats fed one type of genetically modified
potatoes (not a variety created for commercial use) developed immune
system disorders and organ damage. The Lancet’s editors, who published the
study even though two of six reviewers rejected it, apparently were
anxious to avoid the charge that they were muzzling a prominent biotech
critic. But The Lancet also published a thorough critique, which concluded
that Pusztai’s experiments “were incomplete, included too few animals per
diet group, and lacked controls such as a standard rodent diet. …Therefore
the results are difficult to interpret and do not allow the conclusion
that the genetic modification of potatoes accounts for adverse effects in
animals.” The Rowett Institute, which does mainly nutritional research,
fired Pusztai on the grounds that he had publicized his results before
they had been peer reviewed.

Activists are also fond of noting that the seed company Pioneer Hi-Bred
produced a soybean variety that incorporated a gene—for a protein from
Brazil nuts—that causes reactions in people who are allergic to nuts. The
activists fail to mention that the soybean never got close to commercial
release because Pioneer Hi-Bred checked it for allergenicity as part of
its regular safety testing and immediately dropped the variety. The other
side of the allergy coin is that biotech can remove allergens that
naturally occur in foods such as nuts, potatoes, and tomatoes, making
these foods safer.

Even if no hazards from genetically improved crops have been demonstrated,
don’t consumers have a right to know what they’re eating? This seductive
appeal to consumer rights has been a very effective public relations
gambit for anti-biotech activists. If there’s nothing wrong with biotech
products, they ask, why don’t seed companies, farmers, and food
manufacturers agree to label them?

The activists are being more than a bit disingenuous here. Their scare
tactics, including the use of ominous words such as frankenfoods, have
created a climate in which many consumers would interpret labels on
biotech products to mean that they were somehow more dangerous or less
healthy than old-style foods. Biotech opponents hope labels would drive
frightened consumers away from genetically modified foods and thus doom
them. Then the activists could sit back and smugly declare that biotech
products had failed the market test.

The biotech labeling campaign is a red herring anyway, because the U.S.
Department of Agriculture plans to issue some 500 pages of regulations
outlining what qualifies as “organic” foods by January, 2001. Among other
things, the definition will require that organic foods not be produced
using genetically modified crops. Thus consumers who want to avoid biotech
products need only look for the “organic” label. Furthermore, there is no
reason why conventional growers who believe they can sell more by avoiding
genetically enhanced crops should not label their products accordingly, so
long as they do not imply any health claims. The FDA has begun to solicit
public comments on ways to label foods that are not genetically enhanced
without implying that they are superior to biotech foods.

It is interesting to note that several crop varieties popular with organic
growers were created through mutations deliberately induced by breeders
using radiation or chemicals. This method of modifying plant genomes is
obviously a far cruder and more imprecise way of creating new varieties.
Radiation and chemical mutagenesis is like using a sledgehammer instead of
the scalpel of biotechnology. Incidentally, the FDA doesn’t review these
crop varieties produced by radiation or chemicals for safety, yet no one
has dropped dead from eating them.

Labeling nonbiotech foods as such will not satisfy the activists whose
goal is to force farmers, grain companies, and food manufacturers to
segregate biotech crops from conventional crops. Such segregation would
require a great deal of duplication in infrastructure, including separate
grain silos, rail cars, ships, and production lines at factories and
mills. The StarLink corn problem is just a small taste of how costly and
troublesome segregating conventional from biotech crops would be. Some
analysts estimate that segregation would add 10 percent to 30 percent to
the prices of food without any increase in safety. Activists are fervently
hoping that mandatory crop segregation will also lead to novel legal
nightmares: If a soybean shipment is inadvertently “contaminated” with
biotech soybeans, who is liable? If biotech corn pollen falls on an
organic cornfield, can the organic farmer sue the biotech farmer? Trial
lawyers must be salivating over the possibilities.

The activists’ “pro-consumer” arguments can be turned back on them. Why
should the majority of consumers pay for expensive crop segregation that
they don’t want? It seems reasonable that if some consumers want to avoid
biotech crops, they should pay a premium, including the costs of
segregation.

As the labeling fight continues in the United States, anti-biotech groups
have achieved major successes elsewhere. The Biosafety Protocol negotiated
last February in Montreal requires that all shipments of biotech crops,
including grains and fresh foods, carry a label saying they “may contain
living modified organisms.” This international labeling requirement is
clearly intended to force the segregation of conventional and biotech
crops. The protocol was hailed by Greenpeace’s Benedikt Haerlin as “a
historic step towards protecting the environment and consumers from the
dangers of genetic engineering.”

Activists are demanding that the labeling provisions of the Biosafety
Protocol be enforced immediately, even though the agreement says they
don’t apply until two years after the protocol takes effect. Vandana Shiva
claims the food aid sent to Orissa after the October 1999 cyclone violated
the Biosafety Protocol because it was unlabeled. Green-peace cited the
un-ratified Biosafety Protocol as a justification for stopping imports of
American agricultural products into Brazil and Britain. “The recent
agreement on the Biosafety Protocol in Montreal…means that governments can
now refuse to accept imports of GM crops on the basis of the
‘precautionary principle,’” said a February 2000 press release announcing
that Greenpeace activists had boarded an American grain carrier delivering
soybeans to Britain.

Under the “precautionary principle,” regulators do not need to show
scientifically that a biotech crop is unsafe before banning it; they need
only assert that it has not been proved harmless. Enshrining the
precautionary principle into international law is a major victory for
biotech opponents. “They want to err on the side of caution not only when
the evidence is not conclusive but when no evidence exists that would
indicate harm is possible,” observes Frances Smith, executive director of
Consumer Alert.

Model biosafety legislation proposed by the Third World Network goes even
further than the Biosafety Protocol, covering all biotech organisms and
requiring authorization “for all activities and for all GMOs [genetically
modified organisms] and derived products.” Under the model legislation,
“the absence of scientific evidence or certainty does not preclude the
decision makers from denying approval of the introduction of the GMO or
derived products.” Worse, under the model regulations “any adverse
socio-economic effects must also be considered.” If this provision is
adopted, it would give traditional producers a veto over innovative
competitors, the moral equivalent of letting candlemakers prevent the
introduction of electric lighting.

Concerns about competition are one reason European governments have been
so quick to oppose crop biotechnology. “EU countries, with their heavily
subsidized farming, view foreign agribusinesses as a competitive threat,”
Frances Smith writes. “With heavy subsidies and price supports, EU farmers
see no need to improve productivity.” In fact, biotech-boosted European
agricultural productivity would be a fiscal disaster for the E.U., since
it would increase already astronomical subsidy payments to European
farmers.

The global campaign against green biotech received a public relations
windfall on May 20, 1999, when Nature published a study by Cornell
University researcher John Losey that found that Monarch butterfly
caterpillars died when force-fed milkweed dusted with pollen from B.t.
corn. Since then, at every anti-biotech demonstration, the public has been
treated to flocks of activist women dressed fetchingly as Monarch
butterflies. But when more-realistic field studies were conducted,
researchers found that the alleged danger to Monarch caterpillars had been
greatly exaggerated. Corn pollen is heavy and doesn’t spread very far, and
milkweed grows in many places aside from the margins of cornfields. In the
wild, Monarch caterpillars apparently know better than to eat corn pollen
on milkweed leaves.

Furthermore, B.t. crops mean that farmers don’t have to indiscriminately
spray their fields with insecticides, which kill beneficial as well as
harmful insects. In fact, studies show that B.t. cornfields harbor higher
numbers of beneficial insects such as lacewings and ladybugs than do
conventional cornfields. James Cook, a biologist at Washington State
University, points out that the population of Monarch butterflies has been
increasing in recent years, precisely the time period in which B.t. corn
has been widely planted. The fact is that pest-resistant crops are harmful
mainly to target species—that is, exactly those insects that insist on
eating them.

Never mind; we will see Monarchs on parade for a long time to come.
Meanwhile, a spooked EPA has changed its rules governing the planting of
B.t. corn, requiring farmers to plant non-B.t. corn near the borders of
their fields so that B.t. pollen doesn’t fall on any milkweed growing
there. But even the EPA firmly rejects activist claims about the alleged
harms caused by B.t. crops. “Prior to registration of the first B.t. plant
pesticides in 1995,” it said in response to a Greenpeace lawsuit, “EPA
evaluated studies of potential effects on a wide variety of non-target
organisms that might be exposed to the B.t. toxin, e.g., birds, fish,
honeybees, ladybugs, lacewings, and earthworms. EPA concluded that these
species were not harmed.”

Another danger highlighted by anti-biotech activists is the possibility
that transgenic crops will crossbreed with other plants. At the
Congressional Hunger Center seminar, Mae-Wan Ho claimed that
“GM-constructs are designed to invade genomes and to overcome natural
species barriers.” And that’s not all. “Because of their highly mixed
origins,” she added, “GM-constructs tend to be unstable as well as
invasive, and may be more likely to spread by horizontal gene transfer.”

“Nonsense,” says Tuskegee University biologist C.S. Prakash. “There is no
scientific evidence at all for Ho’s claims.” Prakash points out that plant
breeders specifically choose transgenic varieties that are highly stable
since they want the genes that they’ve gone to the trouble and expense of
introducing into a crop to stay there and do their work.

Ho also suggests that “GM genetic material” when eaten is far more likely
to be taken up by human cells and bacteria than is “natural genetic
material.” Again, there is no scientific evidence for this claim. All
genes from whatever source are made up of the same four DNA bases, and all
undergo digestive degradation when eaten.

Biotech opponents also sketch scenarios in which transgenic crops foster
superpests: weeds bolstered by transgenes for herbicide resistance or
pesticide-proof bugs that proliferate in response to crops with enhanced
chemical defenses. As Mc-Gloughlin notes, “The risk of gene flow is not
specific to biotechnology. It applies equally well to herbicide resistant
plants that have been developed through traditional breeding techniques.”
Even if an herbicide resistance gene did get into a weed species, most
researchers agree that it would be unlikely to persist unless the weed
were subjected to significant and continuing selection pressure—that is,
sprayed regularly with a specific herbicide. And if a weed becomes
resistant to one herbicide, it can be killed by another.

As for encouraging the evolution of pesticide-resistant insects, that
already occurs with conventional spray pesticides. There is no scientific
reason for singling out biotech plants. Cook, the Washington State
University biologist, points out that crop scientists could handle growing
pesticide resistance the same way they deal with resistance to infectious
rusts in grains: Using conventional breeding techniques, they stack genes
for resistance to a wide variety of evolving rusts. Similarly, he says,
“it will be possible to deploy different B.t. genes or stack genes and
thereby stay ahead of the ever-evolving pest populations.”

The environmentalist case against biotech crops includes a lot of
innuendo. “After GM sugar beet was harvested,” Ho claimed at the
Congressional Hunger Center seminar, “the GM genetic material persisted in
the soil for at least two years and was taken up by soil bacteria.” Recall
that the Bacillus thuringiensis is a soil bacterium—its habitat is the
soil. Organic farmers broadcast B.t. spores freely over their fields,
hitting both target and nontarget species. If organic farms were tested,
it’s likely that B.t. residues would be found there as well; they
apparently have not had any ill effects. Even the EPA has conceded, in its
response to Greenpeace’s lawsuit, that “there are no reports of any
detrimental effects on the soil ecosystems from the use of B.t. crops.”

Given their concerns about the spread of transgenes, you might think
biotech opponents would welcome innovations designed to keep them
confined. Yet they became apoplectic when Delta Pine Land Co. and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture announced the development of the Technology
Protection System, a complex of three genes that makes seeds sterile by
interfering with the development of plant embryos. TPS also gives biotech
developers a way to protect their intellectual property: Since farmers
couldn’t save seeds for replanting, they would have to buy new seeds each
year.

Because high-yielding hybrid seeds don’t breed true, corn growers in the
U.S. and Western Europe have been buying seed annually for decades. Thus
TPS seeds wouldn’t represent a big change in the way many American and
European farmers do business. If farmers didn’t want the advantages
offered in the enhanced crops protected by TPS, they would be free to buy
seeds without TPS. Similarly, seed companies could offer crops with
transgenic traits that would be expressed only in the presence of chemical
activators that farmers could choose to buy if they thought they were
worth the extra money. Ultimately, the market would decide whether these
innovations were valuable.

If anti-biotech activists really are concerned about gene flow, they
should welcome such technologies. The pollen from crop plants
incorporating TPS would create sterile seeds in any weed that it happened
to crossbreed with, so that genes for traits such as herbicide resistance
or drought tolerance couldn’t be passed on.

This point escapes some biotech opponents. “The possibility that [TPS] may
spread to surrounding food crops or to the natural environment is a
serious one,” writes Vandana Shiva in her recent book Stolen Harvest.
“The gradual spread of sterility in seeding plants would result in a
global catastrophe that could eventually wipe out higher life forms,
including humans, from the planet.” This dire scenario is not just
implausible but biologically impossible: TPS is a gene technology that
causes sterility; that means, by definition, that it can’t spread.

Despite the clear advantages that TPS offers in preventing the gene flow
that activists claim to be worried about, the Rural Advancement Foundation
International quickly demonized TPS by dubbing it “Terminator Technology.”
RAFI warned that “if the Terminator Technology is widely utilized, it will
give the multinational seed and agrochemical industry an unprecedented and
extremely dangerous capacity to control the world’s food supply.” In 1998
farmers in the southern Indian state of Karnataka, urged on by Shiva and
company, ripped up experimental plots of biotech crops owned by Monsanto
in the mistaken belief that they were TPS plants. The protests prompted
the Indian government to declare that it would not allow TPS crops to
enter the country. That same year, 20 African countries declared their
opposition to TPS at a U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization meeting. In
the face of these protests, Monsanto, which had acquired the technology
when it bought Delta Pine Land Co., declared that it would not develop TPS.

Even so, researchers have developed another clever technique to prevent
transgenes from getting into weeds through crossbreeding. Chloroplasts
(the little factories in plant cells that use sunlight to produce energy)
have their own small sets of genes. Researchers can introduce the desired
genes into chloroplasts instead of into cell nuclei where the majority of
a plant’s genes reside. The trick is that the pollen in most crop plants
don’t have chloroplasts, therefore it is impossible for a transgene
confined to chloroplasts to be transferred through crossbreeding.

As one tracks the war against green biotech, it becomes ever clearer that
its leaders are not primarily concerned about safety. What they really
hate is capitalism and globalization. “It is not inevitable that
corporations will control our lives and rule the world,” writes Shiva in
Stolen Harvest. In Genetic Engineering: Dream or Nightmare? (1999), Ho
warns, “Genetic engineering biotechnology is an unprecedented intimate
alliance between bad science and big business which will spell the end of
humanity as we know it, and the world at large.” The first nefarious step,
according to Ho, will occur when the “food giants of the North” gain
“control of the food supply of the South through exclusive rights to
genetically engineered seeds.”

Accordingly, anti-biotech activists oppose genetic patents. Greenpeace is
running a “No Patents on Life” campaign that appeals to inchoate notions
about the sacredness of life. Knowing that no patents means no investment,
biotech opponents declare that corporations should not be able to “own”
genes, since they are created by nature.

The exact rules for patenting biotechnology are still being worked out by
international negotiators and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. But
without getting into the arcane details, the fact is that discoverers and
inventors don’t “own” genes. A patent is a license granted for a limited
time to encourage inventors and discoverers to disclose publicly their
methods and findings. In exchange for disclosure, they get the right to
exploit their discoveries for 20 years, after which anyone may use the
knowledge and techniques they have produced. Patents aim to encourage an
open system of technical knowledge.

“Biopiracy” is another charge that activists level at biotech seed
companies. After prospecting for useful genes in indigenous crop varieties
from developing countries, says Shiva, companies want to sell seeds
incorporating those genes back to poor farmers. Never mind that the useful
genes are stuck in inferior crop varieties, which means that poor farmers
have no way of optimizing their benefits. Seed companies liberate the
useful genes and put them into high-yielding varieties that can boost poor
farmers’ productivity.

Amusingly, the same woman who inveighs against “bio-piracy” proudly
claimed at the Congressional Hunger Center seminar that 160 varieties of
kidney beans are grown in India. Shiva is obviously unaware that farmers
in India are themselves “biopirates.” Kidney beans were domesticated by
the Aztecs and Incas in the Americas and brought to the Old World via the
Spanish explorers. In response to Shiva, C.S. Prakash pointed out that
very few of the crops grown in India today are indigenous. “Wheat,
peanuts, and apples and everything else—the chiles that the Indians are so
proud of,” he noted, “came from outside. I say, thank God for the
biopirates.” Prakash condemned Shiva’s efforts to create “a xenophobic
type of mentality within our culture” based on the fear that “everybody is
stealing all of our genetic material.”

If the activists are successful in their war against green biotech, it’s
the world’s poor who will suffer most. The International Food Policy
Research Institute estimates that global food production must increase by
40 percent in the next 20 years to meet the goal of a better and more
varied diet for a world population of some 8 billion people. As biologist
Richard Flavell concluded in a 1999 report to the IFPRI, “It would be
unethical to condemn future generations to hunger by refusing to develop
and apply a technology that can build on what our forefathers provided and
can help produce adequate food for a world with almost 2 billion more
people by 2020.”

One way biotech crops can help poor farmers grow more food is by
controlling parasitic weeds, an enormous problem in tropical countries.
Cultivation cannot get rid of them, and farmers must abandon fields
infested with them after a few growing seasons. Herbicide-resistant crops,
which would make it possible to kill the weeds without damaging the
cultivated plants, would be a great boon to such farmers.

By incorporating genes for proteins from viruses and bacteria, crops can
be immunized against infectious diseases. The papaya mosaic virus had
wiped out papaya farmers in Hawaii, but a new biotech variety of papaya
incorporating a protein from the virus is immune to the disease. As a
result, Hawaiian papaya orchards are producing again, and the
virus-resistant variety is being made available to developing countries.
Similarly, scientists at the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center in St.
Louis are at work on a cassava variety that is immune to cassava mosaic
virus, which killed half of Africa’s cassava crop two years ago.

Another recent advance with enormous potential is the development of
biotech crops that can thrive in acidic soils, a large proportion of which
are located in the tropics. Aluminum toxicity in acidic soils reduces crop
productivity by as much as 80 percent. Progress is even being made toward
the Holy Grail of plant breeding, transferring the ability to fix nitrogen
from legumes to grains. That achievement would greatly reduce the need for
fertilizer. Biotech crops with genes for drought and salinity tolerance
are also being developed. Further down the road, biologist Martina
McGloughlin predicts, “we will be able to enhance other characteristics,
such as growing seasons, stress tolerance, yields, geographic
distribution, disease resistance, [and] shelf life.”

Biotech crops can provide medicine as well as food. Biologists at the
Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research at Cornell University recently
reported success in preliminary tests with biotech potatoes that would
immunize people against diseases. One protects against Norwalk virus,
which causes diarrhea, and another might protect against the hepatitis B
virus which afflicts 2 billion people. Plant-based vaccines would be
especially useful for poor countries, which could manufacture and
distribute medicines simply by having local farmers grow them.

Shiva and Ho rightly point to the inequities found in developing
countries. They make the valid point that there is enough food today to
provide an adequate diet for everyone if it were more equally distributed.
They advocate land reform and microcredit to help poor farmers, improved
infrastructure so farmers can get their crops to market, and an end to
agricultural subsidies in rich countries that undercut the prices that
poor farmers can demand.

Addressing these issues is important, but they are not arguments against
green biotech. McGloughlin agrees that “the real issue is inequity in food
distribution. Politics, culture, regional conflicts all contribute to the
problem. Biotechnology isn’t going to be a panacea for all the world’s
ills, but it can go a long way toward addressing the issues of inadequate
nutrition and crop losses.” Kenyan biologist Florence Wambugu argues that
crop biotechnology has great potential to increase agricultural
productivity in Africa without demanding big changes in local practices: A
drought-tolerant seed will benefit farmers whether they live in Kansas or
Kenya.

Yet opponents of crop biotechnology can’t stand the fact that it will help
developed countries first. New technologies, whether reaping machines in
the 19th century or computers today, are always adopted by the rich before
they become available to the poor. The fastest way to get a new technology
to poor people is to speed up the product cycle so the technology can
spread quickly. Slowing it down only means the poor will have to wait
longer. If biotech crops catch on in the developed countries, the
techniques to make them will become available throughout the world, and
more researchers and companies will offer crops that appeal to farmers in
developing countries.

Activists like Shiva subscribe to the candlemaker fallacy: If people begin
to use electric lights, the candlemakers will go out of business, and they
and their families will starve. This is a supremely condescending view of
poor people. In order not to exacerbate inequality, Shiva and her allies
want to stop technological progress. They romanticize the backbreaking
lives that hundreds of millions of people are forced to live as they eke
out a meager living off the land.

Per Pinstrup-Andersen of the International Food Policy Research Institute
asked participants in the Congressional Hunger Center seminar to think
about biotechnology from the perspective of people in developing
countries: “We need to talk about the low-income farmer in West Africa
who, on half an acre, maybe an acre of land, is trying to feed her five
children in the face of recurrent droughts, recurrent insect attacks,
recurrent plant diseases. For her, losing a crop may mean losing a child.
Now, how can we sit here debating whether she should have access to a
drought-tolerant crop variety? None of us at this table or in this room
[has] the ethical right to force a particular technology upon anybody, but
neither do we have the ethical right to block access to it. The poor
farmer in West Africa doesn’t have any time for philosophical arguments as
to whether it should be organic farming or fertilizers or GM food. She is
trying to feed her children. Let’s help her by giving her access to all of
the options. Let’s make the choices available to the people who have to
take the consequences.”

Ronald Bailey (rbailey@reason.com) is REASON’s science correspondent.

Copyright Reason Foundation, 2000.

Please visit http://www.reason.com to learn more about this magazine and
for subscription information