Feeding the Billions
For as long as people have been farmers, biotechnology has been a science. The
first farmers noticed that some plants were stronger than others. They looked for the
qualities that would yield a good crop, and they saved the seeds of those plants for the
next year. Farming became more sophisticated because the need to produce large
crops also grew. And science became more complex as well. Farmers needed seeds
for plants that were not vulnerable to insects or funguses. They wanted plants that
could tolerate sun and drought (not much rain). The farmers looked for the strongest
plants. Again, they chose those plants for seeds. The tradition of seed-saving has a
natural beginning.
Traditional ways of producing good seeds have been successful. Experiments to
combine the strongest traits (qualities) of corn or soybean, for example, give high
yield. Also, the use of fertilizers has made the soil richer. Pesticides (to kill insects)
have also had a great effect on production. The increase in food production over the
past forty years is a result of traditional biotechnology.
There is now a new kind of biotechnology, genetic engineering. This kind involves
scientists in white coats in laboratories. Modern agronomists use genetic material and
biologically active chemicals (like antibiotics or enzymes) to cause specific changes
in seeds. In ordinary plant breeding, hundreds of genes are ‘crossed,’ or mixed, and
the results are examined for desirable traits. Biotechnology is quite different. Plant
biotechnology allows selection of one or two desirable traits and none of the undesirable ones. It seems possible to produce perfect crops. However, bioengineering of
plants has caused great controversy. Is it good? Is it bad? Is it safe? Some people see
great advantages in biotechnology. Critics of biotechnology have deep and serious
concerns.
The opponents of biotechnology believe that we do not know enough about the
science of genetics. These ‘unnatural’ plants might not be safe for people or animals
to eat. The new breeds of plants might be difficult to control, and they might affect
other living things.
The proponents of biotechnology point out many advantages. They see these new
plants as a way to save the world’s vast population from starvation. There are pros
and cons, advantages and disadvantages, benefits and risks. Who knows the truth of
biotechnology? It is good for us as inhabitants of the earth and as consumers of farm
products to know what we are eating. It is wise to question what seems like too much
of a very good thing.
Pros: Advocating Biotechnology
Proponents of biotechnology believe it is the future. Billions of people can live
well, and wildlife can be saved. Biotechnology can make it happen. Without biotech
farming and biotech forest management, proponents believe those people will starve,
and the wildlife will disappear. The key is high-yield agriculture. And high-yield
farming is possible because of biotech work. Dennis Avery, the director of the Hudson Institute Center on Global Food Issues, believes in biotechnology. He gives six
reasons why we need biotechnology.
First, he says, biotech will expand the gene pool for all crops. Therefore, genetic
engineers will be able to breed strong crops. All plants will be better and produce
more food.
Second, trees will become a crop. Biotech principles will create trees that grow
faster, and closer together. High-yield forest farms will grow trees four times as fast
as ‘regular’ trees. Foresters will raise the wood products (for lumber and paper, for
example) on small tracts of land.
Third, because of biotechnology, the wild forests will be saved. The genetic diversity in the wildlands will be saved because forest products are grown on farms. With
biotech, researchers can collect genes from any plant or animal and insert those genes
(and thus also the characteristics) into any other plant or animal. The world’s great
forests will be left untouched. Like a bank of valuable genes, the wildlands will hold
the potential for developing new products. Because biotech forests will be managed
like farms, there will be all the forest products society needs. There will be no profit
in cutting down the natural forests.
A fourth advantage is that biotech can create a new diversity. Researchers are trying to develop bacteria that will eat oil and turn it into useful compounds. Such a
bacterium would make oil spills on the ocean less damaging. Another example of new
diversity involves two trees that were dying out: the American chestnut tree and the
American elm tree. Because of genetic engineering, these two trees have been saved.
However, each of these trees is one gene different from the original species.
Fifth, biotechnology can reduce the amount of pesticide spraying on farms. Researchers have developed ‘B.t. crops’ that resist insects. These crops include a gene
from the Bacillus thurigdiensis (or B.t.), an organism that is found naturally in soil.
B.t. produces a substance that kills many insects. That is why B.t. biotech crops can
mean less water contamination. For example, there is now a potato plant that can fight
off a Colorado potato beetle. This insect once destroyed a field of potato plants in a
few days. A biotech company (Monsanto) has developed a potato (NewLeaf ®) that
protects itself against the beetle. There are many benefits from such a plant. It is not
destroyed by the beetle. Farmers do not need to spray potentially harmful chemicals
on their fields. That means farmers do not risk being hurt by the pesticide poisons,
and the pesticides do not seep into groundwater. In addition, the work of the farmer in
planting and harvesting is easier. Farmers know how large the crop will be, so they do
not have to plant extra acres. This planning means less waste of water, too.
The sixth reason for supporting biotechnology is its potential for helping Third
World countries. Here Avery suggests a cycle of social development that he thinks is
related to food production. The poorer a country, the more children a family has.
Children represent wealth and future security. The more children a family has, the
greater the number of children who will die before adulthood. The reason is that large
families mean greater competition for resources. If a country suddenly becomes richer
because it has more food, in one generation family size will decrease. Parents will not
have to have large families to be sure that some of the children grow up. In a foodrich country, children are expensive. In other words, zero-population growth is possible only when there is more than enough food. And there is more than enough food
because there are not so many people.
Avery continues his argument with a discussion of pollution. Many blame the First
World for causing pollution. In fact, he says, pollution is a far more serious problem
in Third World countries. People in the Third World have reached the most polluted
stage of their development. Their cities are dirty; they burn coal that dirties the air.
They do not treat their sewage. First World countries are beyond that stage. They treat
sewage, control industrial waste, protect wildlife, and try to correct environmental
problems.
Cons: The Arguments Against Biotechnology
Seeds that are produced with genes from other sources are called transgenic
plants. Crops of all kinds have come from this process—strawberries to corn, apples
to potatoes. Many of these crops are called ‘B.t. crops’ because they include a gene
from an organism that is found in soil. The Bacillus thurigdiensis (or B.t.) produces a
substance that kills many insects. Pesticide use can be reduced greatly. There are
some worries, however. Will the insects change? Will they become tolerant of the B.t.
plants? Agriculture could become vulnerable to stronger insect infestations.
Another danger is that the transgenic plant genes might spread from the plants in
the fields to other nearby plants. Such spreading would mean that insects could develop resistance to the B.t. plants more quickly. Such foreign genes might affect the field
crops and the wild varieties of similar plants. In another instance, a researcher at
Cornell University noted that 50% of his Monarch butterflies (yellow and black patterns on them) died when they ate weeds with B.t. corn pollen on them. The concern
is that transgenic plants may have something in them that could hurt human beings.
Yet another question comes from legal rights to seeds. If a biotech company puts
millions of dollars into developing a special kind of plant, does the company “own”
that plant? Does the company have the right to sell the seeds, and are the seeds from
the crops also the property of the company? Or do the seeds belong top the farmer?
Can such plants be patented to protect the rights of the biotech company? Farmers,
1.4 billion of them, have always saved seeds from their harvest. They have always
saved the best seeds. If a farmer saves biotech seeds, is he stealing from the biotech
company? Obviously, these questions of ethics are not easy to answer. How will
biotechnology be controlled?
Jules Pretty directs the Center for Environment and Society at the University of Essex. He believes that the world population will stabilize (reach its top point and then
stay at that point) at eight to ten billion people. He also figures that each person needs
350 kilograms of grain as food per year. He notes that much of that grain is wasted
because it is fed to animals. The people eat the milk, meat, and cheese, not the grain.
Pretty opposes most kinds of biotechnology because of the dangers it represents and
the ethical questions it raises. He recommends sustainable agriculture, which uses
farmers’ skills and knowledge and not genetically engineered seeds. He prefers animal manure and composted soil to chemical fertilizers.
Norman Borlaug’s Green Revolution, Pretty says, may have shown how to grow
more food with fertilizers and pesticides. It has also contaminated the world with
chemical fertilizers and pesticides. It would be better, Pretty says, to encourage natural enemies of the insects and to use natural products to fertilize the land. In his book
The Living Land, Pretty gives many examples of how education in sustainable farming has increased yield. Two hundred thousand Kenyan farmers doubled their production of corn. In southern and western India, 300,000 farmers are now using new water
and soil management techniques. They have three times the crop yields of previous
years. The solutions, Pretty says, must start with government policies. Taxes on pesticides and chemical fertilizers would make many farmers stop to consider sustainable
farming as an alternative.
Pretty is obviously opposed to genetic engineering of crops. So is Ronnie Cummins, director of the Campaign for Food Safety. Cummins openly opposed biotech
companies. One biotech development is bovine growth hormone. This chemical causes a cow to give 15 to 25% more milk. The milk also contains traces (small amounts)
of the hormone. Also, because cows often respond to the hormone with infections,
they are given antibiotic drugs. Traces of antibiotics also show up in the milk. Cum-
mins also objects to genetically engineered farm products. He says these plants are
making new toxins (poisons) and new allergens (things that people are allergic to).
Furthermore, superweeds and superpests (plants and animals that can tolerate herbicides and pesticides) are developing. Like Pretty, Cummins recommends organic
farming, sustainable farming.