Comments on “Biotechnology: Part of the Problem or Part of the Solution”
Lawrence Busch
University Distinguished Professor
Director, Institute for Food and Agricultural Standards
Michigan State University
The various papers on biotechnology raise a number of fundamental issues of critical importance
not only for scholars but for practitioners in a wide range of fields from bioprospecting to
molecular biology. What I shall endeavor to do here is to critically examine the points made in
several of the papers on biotechnology.
Dr. Khush makes several important points with respect to the potential for agricultural
biotechnology to contribute to enhanced food production in developing nations. There is little
doubt that the potential for biotechnology is enormous, but few products have been made
available to date. Consider the following points:
The world is currently awash in a sea of cereals. Grain pieces are quite depressed worldwide, in
part due to continuing subsidies to production in the US and the EU, and in part due to lack of
effective demand. Moreover, were Eastern Europe to produce at levels similar to that of Western
Europe, grain prices would fall even lower. We would do well to remember that a century ago,
the center of the world grain trade was the Ukraine.
Furthermore, while enhanced grain production is important, it cannot and will not end poverty in
rural areas. Increased productivity certainly has a role to play, particularly in meeting the needs
of farmers who are barely able to meet their subsistence needs. But one simply cannot produce
one's way out of poverty. Rising production of grain is always followed by declining prices.
The cost/price squeeze and technology treadmill will continue to limit the profitability of the
production of undifferentiated agricultural commodities (Cochrane 1993). Rural poverty can
only be reduced by increasing income and that is far better accomplished by switching to higher
value crops (e.g., fruits and vegetables) and by post-harvest and non-farm rural development.
It is also worth noting that while there is little question that biotechnology could enhance crop
production in developing nations, the results to date are disappointing. The industrial world, for
better or for worse, has delegated the development of agricultural biotechnology to the private
sector, while simultaneously ignoring the needs of the developing world. Public expenditures for
international agricultural research are a trivial portion of total global agricultural research
expenditures. Even the relatively well-funded US public research institutions are unable to
compete with the private sector in the production of agricultural biotechnologies. This is evident
in the data on field trial permits issued by USDA. Only a small fraction of these are issued to
public institutions (see http://www.nbiap.vt.edu/cfdocs/fieldtests1.cfm).
Dr. Khush notes that the private sector has been seemingly willing to give free access to IPR in
low income markets. This is hardly a surprise, as these markets are not commercially interesting
and offer an inexpensive form of publicity. However, there is little or no evidence that such
1
access has resulted (or is soon likely to result) in improved varieties of staple crops for poor
nations.
Dr. Khush makes much of the potential for partnerships between the private sector and the
International Agricultural Research Centres (IARCs). While the IARCs may find partnerships
with the private sector desirable so as to enhance food security, the private sector has little reason
to do more than display a minimal level of cooperation. Partnerships to date have been
relatively inconsequential for at least four reasons: First, the agricultural biotechnology bubble
has burst; investments in agricultural biotechnology globally are down. Many of the companies
that invested in agricultural biotechnology have ceased to exist; others have experienced a
marked drop in their revenues. Second, the easy to accomplish, highly profitable activities have
already been done. Crops such as herbicide tolerant soybeans, maize, and cotton have been
developed and are now commercialized. Third, farmers in developing nations have relatively
little in the way of capital to spend on improved seeds. Thus, they offer little or no incentive to
private sector investment. Finally, intellectual property regimes in developing nations are weak,
making returns to investments there lower. One need only look at the impact of Roundup Ready
seeds in Argentina – a middle income nation – to see the limitations on using intellectual
property protection as an incentive for investments in the developing world (e.g., United States
General Accounting Office 2000)
Finally, golden rice is still an largely unproven technology. As Dr. Khush notes, it has not yet
been incorporated into local germplasm, compared to other sources of Vitamin A, or even
examined carefully for nutritional and food safety implications. Furthermore, it is unclear
whether the product will even work as advertised – increasing vitamin A availability. Nor is it
yet clear whether those at whom it is aimed – the poorest of the poor – will in fact accept it.
In contrast to the technical overview provided by Dr. Khush, Dr. Hamilton focuses more on the
regulatory surrounding agricultural biotechnology. However, there are several points on which I
must take issue:
The failure of Zimbabwe and Zambia to accept US grain that was genetically modified shows the
lengths to which the biotechnology industry will go, and the degree to which the US government
is willing to support it. Let me propose a simple thought experiment: Let us suppose that a
Muslim nation was experiencing a food shortage and that their inhabitants were offered pork.
While there would be no doubt that pork is safe to eat, and widely consumed by others, this act
would be seen as unacceptable -- irrespective of the political views of the nations involved. At
the time of the famine in southern Africa, there was plenty of non-genetically modified maize in
the world that could easily have been sent to those nations that had reservations about GM food.
While it might well be argued that the Zimbabwean government used GM maize as a means of
advancing its political objectives, the specific reasons for not wanting to consume GM maize are
beside the point. In a world in which food is available in abundance, why should hungry people
be forced to eat things that they may not wish to eat, merely to satisfy the needs of industry?
Dr. Hamilton also notes the importance of the Starlink affair. I agree with Dr. Hamilton as to its
importance, but would also note that it demonstrated what the industry (and to a lesser extent the
regulators) refuses to accept -- namely, that since pollen drifts and people move grain around
2
(either deliberately or accidentally), complete segregation of genetically modified crops is
impossible. Moreover, once GM crops are released into the environment, their spread is
virtually impossible to control.
The creation of pharmaceutical crops take this to its logical conclusion. In a recent paid lecture
at the 2003 annual meetings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a
Monsanto representative described that company's proposed solution to the problems posed by
putting pharmaceuticals in corn. In addition to the truly heroic efforts required to engage in such
an activity without risk to the nation's corn crop, what was described was a panopticon world of
high security befitting a nuclear weapons plant.. It is no wonder that the food manufacturers are
nervous about this development. In contrast, it would appear that any reasonable national policy
would prohibit the introduction of all potentially toxic compounds into field-grown edible crops.
There exists a vast array of inedible, self-pollinated plants which might be quite suitable for the
production of pharmaceutical and industrial crops, provided that they meet other environmental
requirements. In contrast, denial of these basic facts of biology and social organization means
that there will inevitably be a serious accident involving illness or death if we insist on going
down the road we are currently following.. The only thing debatable is how long it will take for
such a problem to emerge.
Finally, let me comment on Dr. Benbrook’s paper. He raises a particularly important point: One
cannot treat all biotechnologies in the same way. Virtually everyone is for biotechnology-based
drugs that might cure cancer, while no one applauds the development of biotechnologically
improved strains of anthrax. Dr. Benbrook frames the issue largely in terms of costs or risks v.
benefits. In contrast, I would like to argue that we must go far beyond the utilitarian language of
cost or risk (cf., Busch 1991; Thompson 1995). The new agricultural biotechnologies also pose
issues with respect to rights (e.g., the right to know, the right to refuse, the right to participate in
determining the future). In addition, one might argue for obligations. For example, we have an
obligation not to foreclose choices of future generations; indeed, we might wish to increase the
number of options open to our progeny. It might also be argued that we have an obligation to
protect the natural world from our meddling. It might be further argued that there are certain
virtues -- truth, justice, beauty, integrity -- that should be upheld in our quest for material gain.
We need not limit our actions to a utilitarian concern for consequences.
Dr. Benbrook argues eloquently for his eleven principles. In general, it is hard to quibble with
them. But I would suggest what I hope will be taken as a friendly amendment. Specifically,
these new technologies promise to transform dramatically and perhaps irreversibly the entire
agrifood system. Yet, in most nations (including this one) there are no procedures, no rules, no
policies to ensure that such decisions are made in a democratic way. Here we have decisions that
affect everyone on the planet and yet we refuse to recognize that neither the market nor science
are capable of providing answers to these questions. Of course, in a market economy
innovations must be profitable. Of course, we must take scientific information into account in
making decisions about safety, nutrition, and environmental impact. But the market and science
must not be allowed to become tyrants that rule over us.
There is a small but growing body of literature that attempts to develop means by which
problems such as the introduction of profoundly new technologies can be made the subject of
3
democratic debate (e.g., Middendorf and Busch 1997; Sclove 1995)}. The Danish consensus
conferences in particular have shown a way in which such decisions might be made in a more
democratic manner (Danish Board of Technology 2002).
That said, the points made by Dr. Benbrook about herbicide tolerant, insect resistant, and
vitamin enhanced plants appear to me to be reasonable ones. But they are too important to leave
to experts. They raise the kind of questions that should be the subject of prolonged deliberation
in virtually every nation.
Dr. Benbrook also argues for greater attention to local knowledge. I find his remarks
compelling. However, their implication should be made explicit: They rightly suggest that no
particular technology is likely to be a magic bullet, resolving all the world's food problems. It is
the worst form of hubris to think that food security can be improved solely by clever people
doing clever things in well equipped laboratories.
Finally, Dr. Benbrook is surely right in suggesting that our regulatory systems work like traffic
lights -- either restricting or giving the green light to new technologies, rather than allowing
gradual introduction so as to avoid large scale mistakes. But the regulatory system is also in
need of repair in other ways. As is well-known, the current regulatory system for GMOs was
established by patching together a "coordinated framework" in response to Monsanto's demand
for regulation (Charles 2001; Eichenwald 2001). In particular, it is absurd to argue that only
scientific concerns should be incorporated into regulatory decisions. The new agricultural
biotechnologies are means for transforming how we live and who we are. Those issues must be
central to any debate about biotechnology that is worthy of the name.
References
Busch, Lawrence, William B. Lacy, Jeffrey Burkhardt, and Laur R. Lacy. 1991. Plants, Power,
and Profit: Social, Economic, and Ethical Consequences of the New Biotechnologies.
Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.
Charles, Daniel. 2001. Lords of the Harvest: Biotech, Big Money, and the Future of Food.
Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing Company.
Cochrane, Willard. 1993. The Development of American Agriculture. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Danish Board of Technology. 2002. “Teknologirådet.” http://www.tekno.dk
Eichenwald, Kurt. 2001. “Redesigning Nature: Hard Lessons Learned.” New York Times.
January 25:A1.
Middendorf, Gerad, and Lawrence Busch. 1997. “Inquiry for the Public Good: Citizen
Participation in Agricultural Research.” Agriculture and Human Values 14:47-57.
Sclove, Richard E. 1995. Democracy and Technology. New York: Guilford Press.
Thompson, Paul. 1995. Food Biotechnology in Ethical Perspective. Dordrecht, Netherlands:
Kluwer Publishers.
United States General Accounting Office. 2000. “Biotechnology: Information on Prices of
Genetically Modified Seeds in the United States and Argentina.” Washington, DC:
General Accounting Office, GAO/T-RCED/NSIAD-00-228, GAO/T-RCED/NSIAD-00228.
4