Playing a genetic roulette

``IF HALF of your wishes are fulfilled you will double up your troubles,'' said a visionary President of the U.S. It is true of the world of today engaged in biotechnology applied to the improvement of agricultural production. Gene revolution, core of biotechnology, is based on advances in molecular genetics. It is largely a private enterprise effectively built in the developed world. The basic resources, the biological wealth the wild relatives of many of the crop plants are in the developing world, a dichotomy of discomfort. On the basis of the knowledge gained over the past three decades greater emphasis needs to be placed on ensuring that the productivity gains are not only economically viable but also ecologically sustainable. That strongly endorses the interdependence between the developed and developing worlds to foster mutually beneficial relationships.

Genetic engineering, a strand of biotechnology, is essentially the science of recombinant DNA, based on our fundamental ability to precisely introduce genetic changes into an organism. Plant biotechnology augments plant breeding to harness genes into plants by accepted techniques. This carries three phases of development creating significant value at each stage: agronomic- trait development, differentiated crop development, and use of plants as green factories. Its applications in the field of agriculture is directed towards increased production of food of better quality, or nutritional fortification, at lower costs of economic access. Its promise is to balance the puzzle of increasing soil fertility with no damage to ecology and the environment.

Industrial giants command both influence and finance in the largest measure established research, production, and extension activities of genetically engineered seeds of crops. The interest of multinational companies lies in expanding the range of inputs to be purchased by the farmers. In practice, however, over the years, the endeavour was caught in a fierce storm of controversy and disputes between the industry and farmers, consumers and the environmentalists. Intercontinental trade for seed, food, and food grains was abandoned.

Grave consequences

There are no easy answers to the issues posed by technology and science, but there is no escape from the consequences. Genetic engineering as a science applied to promote agriculture is no exception. It can cause the transfer of dangerous viruses or bacteria across species. Similar danger is recorded of environmental pollution caused by biotechnological organisms that escape into Nature. It is now known that microbes can reproduce, cross-pollinate, and migrate. They can jump across species using virus vectors. They can be moved by different transport agencies. The technology is therefore deemed as a cruel innovation of Nature's creations invaded and altered by commerce to impoverish farmers from the current subsistence levels.

Rapid coverage of GE crops may actually threaten agriculture and food security, from the loss of bio-diversity, and soil fertility. In more than 8,200 field trials, conducted in the U.S., the `roundup ready' seeds yielded less soyabean than similar natural varieties. Pollen from GM crops provoked organic farmers to insist on stronger regulation to contain the sale of GM crop seeds and to make sure that legal steps to sue for the damages are not ruled out. Transgenic crops: Pollen from genetically engineered biotech cotton is toxic to the larvae of some non-pest insects. Furthermore, crops that constantly manufacture their own biotech. toxin increase the odds that pests like potato beetles and corn borers will develop resistance to the toxin. In some cases, transgenic crops could also transfer their genes for herbicide resistance, into nearby populations of weedy wild relatives, with whom they inbreed, with the possibility of creating ``super weeds.'' For this reason, the European Union decided to suspend licensing of new transgenic crops, for planting or import into Europe.

Sterile seeds

The patent under the heading of control of plant gene expression, dubbed as terminator technology, was issued in the U.S. on March 3, 1998. It renders plants to bear sterile seeds, through an interplay of three transplanted genes, one of which produces a toxin that kills seeds, in their final stages. Plants grown from these seeds will themselves produce sterile seeds (Science 282, October 30, 1998). Farmers, small and marginal, in particular of the third world cannot afford to purchase seed for every sowing. Over centuries they are accustomed to saving their own seed for future use. This technology, promoted with vigour but haste by Monsanto in the third world countries, was caught in a fierce storm of anger from the Asian farmers. When farmers grow traditional variety, next to a variety of sterile seeds, the pollen from the latter may reach the former, thus producing seeds with reduced germination when used for sowing the next crop.

Biodiversity, an important trait of third world agriculture will be significantly reduced. The first batch of GM crops was destroyed by the U.S. activists and the press reports of global disillusionment were on the increase.

The Clinton administration was reportedly ``dreading starting a trade war over GM because of public sentiment opposed vehemently war so strongly against.'' India and Zimbabwe turned against Terminator Technology so much so that the traditional soybean was favoured despite extra costs by processors. Unfortunately, Monsanto had to listen to one man's free and frank rebuke of the technology. That was Prof. Gordon Conway, President of the Rockefeller Foundation, New York. His frank and serious address to the Board of Directors of Monsanto, may be summarised as ``Commit yourselves to prompt, full and honest sharing of the data. Admit you do not have all the answers. This is not the time for a new PR offensive. Monsanto was socially irresponsible and the public was alienated.'' He urged global public dialogue that would air all the sides of the issues. That brought TT to an end. (Manchester Guardian Weekly October 14-20, 1999). Developments in science and technology, like politics, can move forward and prosper only with the support of the public. Insistence that a case presented is objective, fair and honest will cut little ice with incredulous public. Science and technology together with the industry must recognise that building credibility with the public is a long-term educational venture requiring a multi-faceted approach. It is wrong and futile to mollify extremists. Their agenda is to arrogate control over what research is performed, what tools are used and what products are brought to the market. Biotechnology is just a microcosm of this greater struggle. Disturbing the farmer is worse than doing nothing.

Genetically modified crops cover a large part of the land in the U.S. - 35 per cent of all corn, 55 per cent of soyabean and 50 per cent of cotton. The U.S. farmers strongly express their concern that many cannot survive the ``New Agriculture'' driven by biotechnological products. They argue that the seeds and foods are too costly, and no significant increase in yield is harvested. It is a food system which is dependent on genetically modified seeds and takes us in the wrong direction.

Many farmers are worried about being squeezed by giant agricultural companies. There is a growing fear that this will turn into the 14th century feudalism. The shifting balance of power favours a handful of agricultural giants over a shrinking number of independent farmers already confused and bedevilled by all the changes.

Three objections

Protesters from various quarters object to GM seeds on three grounds: (1) genetic manipulation is unnatural (2) the food it produces is dangerous and (3) it is bad for the environment. The Secretary for Agriculture in the U.S. observed ``that it does America little good to be seen force-feeding genetically modified organisms down the people's throats.'' In the U.K., the technology of GM crops is under a temporary moratorium from the lab to the super market, while their impact on ecology is not backed up by convincing experimental data. The environmental groups (Green Peace UK, Mothers for Natural law, Friends of the earth) opposed the commercial planting of such crops. The consumer backlash threatens to undermine both the new technology and the credibility of the agencies that regulate it. The European Union launched legal action against Belgium for the handling of the discovery of the cancer causing chemical, dioxin, in food. The Coke contamination scare compelled the chairman of Coca-Cola to apologise to the people of Belgium over the issue.

The demand to label products containing genetically engineered foods and restrictions in Europe on growing or importing genetically engineered crops and food products is clouded in controversies. Labelling standards of GM products, level of fear about health hazards and pricing are the three vital issues that influence acceptance or rejection by the consumers. Whether they remain on the shelves of the super market is the question. More than 500,000 people signed a petition to the FDA demanding mandatory labelling of genetically modified foods. The inclusion of genetically modified foods as ``organic'' was strongly protected.

Science helps to advance the frontiers of knowledge, while science-based technologies help to advance the frontiers of economic wealth. If agriculture is the interaction among crops, farmers and technology, inappropriate technology will ruin the other two factors. There is no disputing the fact that nothing is wrong with science-based technology and nothing is right in its commercialised execution. Usually, the technology conceived by the advanced West is not appropriate to the third world, rich in biological wealth and with poor small farmers as the recipients. The first order of the business is to convince the farmer.

An appropriate technology must comply with seven major prescriptions: (1) Reduce drudgery (2) no displacement of existing labour (3) benefit men and women equally (4) upgrade labour skills (5) balance job creation and destruction (6) assure higher productivity and profitability and (7) promote ecological agriculture over conventional farming practices.

Biotechnology that is causing serious concern relates to commercial exploitation of biodiversity. There is unprecedented interest among the farmers in using diversity - enhancing methods to reduce their farming costs, such as crop rotation, mixed cropping, and multiple cropping. In the developing countries farmers still treasure technologies (simple cultural practices) less harsh to soil productivity and environmental quality but modern science can see them only with the local lens.

The input industry for seeds, fertilizer and pesticide strongly believes in and practices on certain assumptions which are unscientific. Thus, (1) Any natural product of the soil or plant related to crop productivity could be replaced by synthetics with no adverse effect on the soil, environment, and crop yield. In the promotion of fertilizer use, the industry showed incredible ignorance on fertilizer promotion that the plant is unable to distinguish between the source of a nutrient, organic or inorganic, absorbs the nutrient. Hence use of inorganic alone service the purpose. (2) Industrial private funding for research significantly dominates over public expenditure. It is strictly and justifiably restricted to a research project that ultimately ends up as a product that commands expanding markets and huge profits, annually as a leniar trend. For farmers using new products, annual increases, or yield rise up to a point of diminishing returns is service but beyond that disservice. To resolve the conflict of interests between the industry and the farmer is imperative.

(3) The sole object of farming is to increase the yields to a maximum with no reference to the economics of input use efficiency. For this reason the industry assiduously promoted sale of inputs year after year to be on the leniar trend of the business. But the farmer had to work strictly in obedience of the natural law of diminishing returns and accept economic maximisation of yield. Farmers are forced by all possible means to use more and more inputs in the fond hope of securing higher yields. But in reality the stability and viability of the small farmer is at stake.

(4) None of the past rewarding traditional practices are now legal currency of conventional agriculture. Can we afford to leave the past and if so who would create the present preparatory for the future? Alternative production systems utilise a great deal of modern technology with tradition as the foundation. That constitutes eco-technology that effectively integrates ecology, economy, and equity. Bio-technologists must be aware of the failure of the BIOSPHERE-2 experiment at Arizona (U.S.) Every greedy adventure against nature is a chilled story. We are playing a genetic roulette with uncomfortable reality as the result.The food system on GM seeds inputs fertilizer and pesticide of utter misfit and very high levels led us to unforeseen troubles for producers, consumers, and trade. (Marian Burros, New York Times, August 9, 1000) The whole programme of commercialisation of GM is pollution disguised as science (Director General - Green Peace). Because of the risks and grave consequences of biotechnology surfaced in recent years in many countries of the world, the need to promote bio-safety and bio- surveillance policies and practices are needed to allay fears and build up the confidence of the private entrepreneur.

A recent development in geonomics is the merger of all companies related to the three major life science industries - agribusiness, pharmaceuticals and chemicals - a new sector of life sciences. It enjoys substantial government support, massive corporate investment, powerful enabling technologies, and short- term cash-generating potential. Thus this new science is forcing some of the world's largest companies to reinvent themselves as borders between pharmaceutical, biotech, agricultural, food, chemical, cosmetics, environmental, energy and computer industries blur and get eroded. (Science 281: August, 1998).

The industry must recognise that building credibility for the technology with the farmer as the producer and public as the consumer is a long-term educational venture requiring a multi- faceted approach. The promotion of products by industry (MNCs) is usually hostile to farmer's economy. Nature's cornucopia of crop varieties handed down over the centuries is as important for biotechnological progress as the new culture of gene revolution, computers, and the Internet. That is the conclusion of comfort and optimism for future development of biotechnology related to crop improvement.

Even though the developed countries control the technological capacity for advanced crop improvement, they are dependent on the third world for essential plant germplasm. Hence the epitomised message for the developing countries reads as ``Retain the tradition and restrict the technology.

Prof. A. SANKARAM

Distinguished Fellow,

M. S. Swaminathan Research

Foundation, Chennai

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Features
Previous : Unacceptable package
Next     : Know your English