Genetically Modified Foods

Back • Up • Next

Genetically Modified Foods
Talk about a storm in a teacup!
NEWS FLASH: I'm no longer updating this page. GM foods are here to stay. It's no use protesting anymore. Humanity continues to progress... (despite the Luddites)
Study shows positive impact of biotech crops After just 10 years of commercialization, biotech crops have made significant, positive impacts on the global environment, according to a new study by Graham Brookes and Peter Barfoot, two UK-based economists. The Philippine STAR 02/18/2007 The study quantifies the cumulative economic and environmental impacts of biotech crops grown during the past decade (1996-2005). Brookes and Barfoot said biotech crops have contributed to significant environmental benefits from the reduction in overall usage of pesticides. They also noted a significant reduction in the amount of greenhouse gas emissions from biotech crop production. They also reported that farmers who planted biotech crops realized significant economic gains compared to farmers who planted non-biotech crops. A key finding of the study revealed that farmers used almost half a billion pounds (224 m kg.) less pesticides with genetically modified (GM) crops since 1996, a reduction of seven percent. This represents about 40 percent of the annual volume of pesticides used in the European Union. The authors found that the global "environmental impact" of pesticide use has been reduced by over 15 percent due to the planting of biotech crops. At the same time, biotech crops made a significant contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural practices by nine billion kg of carbon dioxide. "This is the equivalent of removing almost four million cars from the road for one year," the authors pointed out. The study also showed that in 2005, GM crops have resulted in reduced pesticide use and reduced plowing. "This has reduced fuel usage with biotech crops and resulted in a reduction of almost one billion kilograms of carbon dioxide emission," the authors pointed out. GM crops have also facilitated the use of reduced tillage or no tillage farming systems, which results in more plant residue being stored, or sequestered, in the soil. This carbon sequestration saved the equivalent of nine billion kilograms of carbon dioxide emission 2005, the study said. Economically, the report confirms that farmers earned higher incomes in every country where biotech crops are grown. In 2005, farmers who planted biotech crops earned over five billion in incremental income compared with growers who planted non biotech crops. The study also noted that since 1996, global farm income from biotech crops increased by a cumulative total of $27 billion from a combination of higher productivity and reduced costs. It noted that farmers in developing countries captured the majority of the extra farm income from biotech crops, mostly from insect resistant cotton and herbicide tolerant soybean. The study was published in AgBioForum, a peer reviewed journal on economics and biotechnology.
Fear of the unknown no longer justifies GM crop bans February 20, 2006 Genetic engineering is one of the great scientific innovations, one that still seems new and mysterious for many people. GM foods are regarded with deep suspicion in Australia, as well as Europe and Japan. It may come as a surprise, then, that 18 years have passed since the world's first release of a GM organism - a bacterium released in Australia to control crown gall disease in stone fruit and other crops - and to realise how pervasive imported GM food is, particularly as public resistance has prevented further local releases since GM cotton was introduced 10 years ago. GM cotton comprises about 90 per cent of the national crop and is the source of about a third of the vegetable oil consumed in Australia. Yet cotton is the exception to GM policy. GM canola won federal approval but commercial use has been blocked until 2008 by all states except Queensland. Why are cotton and canola treated differently? A report by a federal taskforce that reviewed farming policies has recommended an end to the moratoriums. Two years ago, The Age made the same call. The fact is, arguments that we do not have enough information to assess the risks grow weaker by the year. Tens of billions of meals with GM foods have been eaten. This real-world experiment, Australian Academy of Science president Jim Peacock observes, has had no documented ill effects on human health. Critics of GM crops seized on the abandonment last year of a CSIRO trial of peas that were made weevil-proof, and thus 30 per cent more productive, by the insertion of bean DNA, because of ill-health in mice that were fed the peas. But researchers know what went wrong. The gene is safe to eat in beans, but insertion altered its shape, which triggered an immune response. What this illustrates is that every GM crop must be rigorously assessed. Despite the need to monitor identified concerns such as genetic drift and impacts on wild populations, the worst fears for the environment have also not been borne out, while proven benefits include lower water and pesticide use (the latest cotton varieties cut spraying by more than 80 per cent). It is the economic benefits that have driven the adoption of GM crops such as canola, corn and soy in the US, Brazil, Canada, Argentina and China (which is releasing the first GM cultivars of rice, the world's most important food crop). US agriculture authorities say this increased farmers' annual revenue by $2.3 billion; the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics warns Australia's failure to grow GM crops will cost it $3 billion by 2015. This estimate has been legitimately criticised for discounting consumer resistance in Australia and its export markets in Japan and Europe (although the European Union has lifted a moratorium on GM foods). One lesson from overseas experience is the need to ensure GM crops are not allowed to contaminate the crops of "clean and green" producers who serve a growing, albeit niche, market. Consumers have a right to choose for themselves, which requires full disclosure of GM products. The same opinion polls that find resistance to GM crops find greater acceptance when the result is better drugs or foods offering health benefits - such as "golden rice" that stops blindness linked to vitamin A deficiency, or oilseed crops rich in omega-3 fatty acids that reduce cardiovascular disease and improve eye and brain function. That shifts the balance of need and concern closer to that of the developing world. We have enough to meet our needs; they don't. Eleven of 17 countries with commercial GM crops are developing nations that account for a third of the GM crop area. The numbers and crop areas are likely to double by 2010, because there is little more arable land and few countries have the luxury of being able to reject high-yield, pest-resistant crops. Feeding their people and alleviating poverty depends on the GM crops already being grown by more than 8 million farmers - 90 per cent of whom are resource-poor. This is not a reason to abandon all caution, but Australians do need to be aware of the broader global picture. With a population set to increase from 6 billion to 8 billion by 2050, how else does the world feed itself? More immediately, how are Australian farmers to compete with overseas growers of more productive GM crops? These are not questions Australia can continue to ignore.
The Conscience of a Carnivore It's time to stop killing meat and start growing it. SLATE William Saletan May 27, 2006 Where were you when Barbaro broke his leg? I was at a steakhouse, watching the race on a big screen. I saw a horse pulling up, a jockey clutching him, a woman weeping. Thus began a worldwide vigil over the fate of the great horse. Would he be euthanized? Could doctors save him? In the restaurant, people watched and wondered. Then we went back to eating our steaks. Shrinks call this "cognitive dissonance." You munch a strip of bacon then pet your dog. You wince at the sight of a crippled horse but continue chewing your burger. Three weeks ago, I took my kids to a sheep and wool festival. They petted lambs; I nibbled a lamb sausage. That's the thing about humans: We're half-evolved beasts. We love animals, but we love meat, too. We don't want to have to choose. And maybe we don't have to. Maybe, thanks to biotechnology, we can now grow meat instead of butchering it. With all the problems facing humanity—war, terrorism, poverty, tyranny—you probably don't worry much about whether it's right or wrong to eat meat. That's understandable. Every society lives with two kinds of moral problems: the ones it's ready to face, and the ones that will become clear or compelling only in retrospect. Human sacrifice, slavery, the subjugation of women—every tradition seems normal and indispensable until we're ready, morally and economically, to move beyond it. The case for eating meat is like the case for other traditions: It's natural, it's necessary, and there's nothing wrong with it. But sometimes, we're mistaken. We used to think we were the only creatures that could manipulate grammar, make sophisticated plans, or recognize names out of context. In the past month, we've discovered the same skills in birds and dolphins. In recent years, we've learned that crows fashion leaves and metal into tools. Pigeons deceive each other. Rats run mazes in their dreams. Dolphins teach their young to use sponges as protection. Chimps can pick locks. Parrots can work with numbers. Dogs can learn words from context. We thought animals weren't smart enough to deserve protection. It turns out we weren't smart enough to realize they do. Is meat-eating necessary? It was, back when our ancestors had no idea where their next meal might come from. Meat kept us alive and made us stronger. Many scientists think it played a crucial role in the development of the human brain. Now it's time to return the favor. Thousands of years ago, the human brain invented agriculture, and hunting lost its urgency. In the past two centuries, we've identified the nutrients in various kinds of meat, and we've learned how to get them instead from soy, nuts, and other vegetable sources. Meat has made us smart enough to figure out how we can live without it. So, why do we keep eating it? Because it's so darned tasty. Don't give me that hippie shtick about how McDonald's or Western society foisted beef on us. McDonald's didn't invent the appendix. McDonald's didn't invent all the genes we've acquired—at least eight, according to a 2004 article in the Quarterly Review of Biology—that help us, but not chimps, manage a meat diet. Look at the fossil evidence recently published in Nature. About 5,000 years ago, when people in Britain figured out how to domesticate cattle, sheep, and pigs, they promptly switched from fish-eating to meat-eating. A similar revolution swept North America about 700 years ago. My daughter has been demanding meat ever since she tasted it in baby food. I've seen vegetarian friends lust at the thought of a burger. We're carnivores. We evolved that way. If we were just beasts, that would end the discussion. But we're not. Evolution didn't stop with our lusts; it started there. Food gave us brain power. Technology lifted us above survival and gave us time to think. We began to understand the operation of living things, even ourselves. We saw what we were, and we saw what we could be. That's the paradox of humanity: Our aspirations transcend our nature, but they have to respect it. To become what we must become, we have to work with what we are. Anyone familiar with Alcoholics Anonymous understands this duality. It's the heart of the Serenity Prayer: "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference." Many alcoholics take this to mean that addiction can't be changed, but behavior can, with God's help. But prayers often mean more than we understand. In the case of meat, maybe we don't have to go cold no-turkey. Maybe what we're asking for, what God is giving us, is the wisdom to see that we can't change our craving for meat, but we can change the way we satisfy it. How? By growing meat in labs, the way we grow tissue from stem cells. That's the great thing about cells: They're programmed to multiply. You just have to figure out what chemical and structural environment they need to do their thing. Researchers in Holland and the United States are working on the problem. They've grown and sautéed fish that smelled like dinner, though FDA rules didn't allow them to taste it. Now they're working on pork. The short-term goal is sausage, ground beef, and chicken nuggets. Steaks will be more difficult. Three Dutch universities and a nonprofit consortium called New Harvest are involved. They need money. A fraction of what we spend on cattle subsidies would help. Growing meat like this will be good for us in lots of ways. We'll be able to make beef with no fat, or with good fat transplanted from fish. We'll avoid bird flu, mad-cow disease, and salmonella. We'll scale back the land consumption and pollution involved in cattle farming. But 300 years from now, when our descendants look back at slaughterhouses the way we look back at slavery, they won't remember the benefits to us, any more than they'll remember our dried-up tears for a horse. They'll want to know whether we saw the moral calling of our age. If we do, it's time to pony up.
EU food agency says GMO maize type safe to grow Europe's food safety agency gave a clean bill of health on Friday for the planting of a genetically modified (GMO) maize, its second positive assessment on the growing of biotech crops. Fri May 20 2005 Jeremy Smith Reuters The maize, a sweet variety known as Bt-11, is marketed by Swiss agrochemicals company Syngenta and engineered to protect itself from attacks by corn borer insects. "The GMO panel concluded...there is no evidence to indicate that the placing of Bt-11 maize and its derived products on the market is likely to cause adverse effects on human or animal health or on the environment in the context of its proposed use," the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) said. The only possible adverse effect might be a resistance to a new protein introduced in corn borers that were exposed to the maize after several years of growing, it said. To delay the development of resistance to this, cultivation of the maize should be accompanied by a risk management program, it said, without elaborating. EFSA's broadly positive assessment for Bt-11 maize is only the first step toward possible EU approval for growing. While its opinion is needed for the application to proceed, it will be many months before this is presented to any EU panel of experts. In March, EFSA cleared another GMO maize for cultivation -- the agency's first foray into the politically sensitive issue of GMO crops that might be grown in the European Union. Set up in 2002, EFSA's views are used by the European Commission as independent scientific opinion on the safety risk of GMO products for entry into the food chain, for consumption by humans and animals and for release into the environment. While the EU has now lifted its 6-year ban on allowing imports of new GMOs, there have no approvals since 1998 on any new gene-spliced crop that could be planted in Europe's fields -- and the EU's 25 governments are deeply divided on the issue. A handful of GMO crops, mainly maize types, were authorized for growing across the EU shortly before the moratorium began in 1998. No new crop has been allowed for planting since then.
GM rice praised in Chinese study Genetically engineered rice crops can cut costs for poor farmers and improve health, a new Chinese study says BBC Science correspondent 28 April 2005 In the study, published in the journal Science, Chinese and US researchers looked at the use of insecticides in small farm trials. They compared normal strains of rice with varieties modified to have innate resistance to pests. Chinese GM rice has been undergoing safety trials for nearly a decade now, but is not yet fully licensed. One of the arguments against genetically engineered crops is that they benefit the seed companies, but not the farmers. Health benefits The authors of the new study disagree. They found that Chinese farmers using rice engineered to resist insect pests made huge savings on insecticides, compared with their neighbours who had planted ordinary hybrid strains. This had nothing to do with any specialist guidance the farmers received, because they were left to manage their crops as they saw fit. As well as cutting costs, the researchers say, the farmers benefited from better health. Pesticides in China are cheap and widely used, but poison an estimated 50,000 farmers a year, up to 500 fatally. Dr Jikun Huang, who led the study, said he hoped it would help persuade the Chinese government to license the commercial use of GM rice. If it does, the impact beyond China's borders would be substantial. The world's largest country would be taking a lead in commercialising a major staple GM food developed in its own labs, which could transform the GM debate across the world. But anti-GM campaigner Greenpeace expressed serious concern over the study. Sze Pang Cheung, of Greenpeace China, commented: "The Science paper states that farmers cultivated the [genetically engineered - GE] rice without the assistance of technicians, and that quite a number of the randomly selected participants grew both [genetically engineered] and conventional varieties on their small family farms." This month, Greenpeace found that GM rice that had not been approved for consumption was on sale in China and could have contaminated exports. It said the Science study provided further evidence of the failure to control GM rice trials in China. "In other countries, GE field trials are tightly regulated, monitored and separated from conventional rice crops," Sze added. "We should not be risking long-term health and environmental impacts, as well as international consumer rejection of Chinese rice when we don't need [genetic engineering] in the first place."
Skewed ethics on biotechnology Anti-biotech campaigns perpetuate poverty, malnutrition and premature death by Paul Driessen, January 14, 2005 Tsunami survivors and millions of others could benefit from a marvel of modern science: golden rice. By adding two daffodil genes to common rice, researchers made it rich in beta-carotene, which humans can convert to vitamin A. This miracle rice could help reduce widespread Vitamin A deficiency that causes up to 500,000 children to go blind every year--and 2,000,000 a year to die from diseases they would likely survive if they weren’t so malnourished. Just a few ounces a day will do wonders. Unfortunately, thanks to anti-biotechnology zealots, the rice is still not available. Even if it were, these unfortunate children would probably still go without. The activists would simply reprise their 2002 tactics, which convinced Zambia’s government to reject 26,000 tons of US corn that had been sent as food aid, because some of it was genetically modified (GM). They spread rumors that it was poisonous, and might cause cancer, or even AIDS--even though it was the same corn Americans have been eating safely for years. So the government locked it in warehouses, while parents and children went hungry. "We’d rather starve than eat something toxic," intoned President Levy Mwanawasa. Of course, amply provisioned by planeloads of European delicacies, His Corpulence was hardly starving. Finally, desperate people broke into the warehouses and took the corn. Today, 14 million people still face starvation in southern Africa. Worldwide, 800 million are chronically undernourished. Nearly 30,000 (half of them children) die every day from malnutrition and starvation. And three billion people--half the world’s population--try to survive on less than $700 a year, coaxing crops from the earth with farming methods that haven’t changed in a millennium. Biotechnology could help reduce this human misery. In addition to fortifying plants with vitamins, genetic engineering can produce crops that grow better in dry, saline, nutrient-poor soils that prevail in much of Africa. It can replace staples devastated by disease--including Kenyan sweet potatoes and Ugandan bananas. It might soon enable plants to produce vaccines against killer diseases like diarrhea and hepatitis B. Bt corn and cotton combat insect predators. Bugs that feed on the plants ingest proteins that attack their digestive systems, leaving other insects untouched. Farmers can greatly reduce pesticide use, thereby protecting crops, people and "good" bugs. By eliminating pests like corn borers, which chew pathways for dangerous fungal contaminants, Bt corn plants also reduce fumonisin and aflatoxin, which cause fatal diseases in animals, and cancer, reduced immunity and birth defects in humans. GM crops also reduce soil erosion, by allowing farmers to use herbicide-resistant plants (like RoundupReady soybeans) and no-till farming methods. Other crops enjoy longer shelf-life, even without refrigeration — a vital consideration for some 2 billion people who still don’t have electricity, because radicals also oppose power generation facilities. By increasing crop yields, gene-spliced plants can help poor farmers earn a decent living, grow more nutritious food for their hungry people — and save wildlife habitats. According to Dr. Norman Borlaug, Nobel Prize winning father of the first Green Revolution, if the world had been forced to use organic farming or 1960s agricultural technologies to produce as much food as it actually did in 2000, "we would have had to double the amount of land under cultivation." Millions of acres of forest and grassland habitats would have been plowed under, destroying biodiversity, to feed famished people--or millions more would have starved. Modern biotech methods are precise, predictable refinements of plant breeding techniques that have been used for centuries to modify the genetic makeup, size, flavor, quality and other traits of nearly every food we eat. Studies by the National Academy of Sciences and others prove they’re safe for people and planet. But Greenpeace still claims gene-spliced organisms "pose unacceptable risks to ecosystems and have the potential to threaten biodiversity, wildlife and sustainable forms of agriculture." A child would have to eat 15 pounds of cooked golden rice a day to get his minimum daily vitamin A, ever-inventive Rainbow Warriors prevaricate. We need a moratorium on all GE crops, "including those already approved," the Sierra Club insists. Biotechnology threatens "a form of annihilation every bit as deadly as nuclear holocaust," rants professional malcontent Jeremy Rifkin. No wonder Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore says the campaign against genetic engineering "has clearly exposed the environmentalists’ intellectual and moral bankruptcy." Their specious, speculative "concerns" simply have no basis in reality. They’re based on the radicals’ willingness to say virtually anything to further their cause, and on their incessant abuse of the so-called "precautionary principle." If they can foresee a possible danger, no matter how remote, they demand that new technologies be banned until proponents can prove they will never cause harm. This means ultra precaution against distant, theoretical risks to healthy, well-fed Westerners — at the expense of real, immediate, life-threatening risks to Earth’s poorest, most malnourished people. Yet the media report their absurd claims without question or comment. Politicians and bureaucrats cite them to justify new regulations, more delays in approving new products, and trade barriers to protect subsidized farmers from "unfair" foreign competition. And "socially responsible" foundations, EU governments and organic food companies continue to fund the activists--$500 million between 1995 and 2001, and $175 million between 2002 and 2006, according to the Wall Street Journal and other analysts. People are starving and dying, while these organizations talk about far-fetched, hypothetical risks to the environment — and then claim they’re moral and ethical for doing so. "I appreciate ethical concerns," Kenyan plant biologist Florence Wambugu says. "But anything that doesn’t help feed our children is UNethical." Thankfully, the tide may at last be turning. The European Union finally approved a biotech corn variety for human consumption. India’s government acceded to poor farmers’ demands that they be allowed to continue planting GM cotton. Brazil did likewise when it realized its farmers were not about to give up their RoundupReady soybeans. And China has been able to slash pesticide use by 70-80 percent in Bt cotton fields. Will golden rice, Ugandan bananas, Kenyan sweet potatoes and dozens of other potential life-saving crops be next to gain global approval? Will Green zealots finally recognize their scientific and moral decay, as some have belatedly on DDT to control malaria? The misery and death toll is already unconscionable. It’s time to oppose Eco-Imperialism, and return science, ethics and compassion to agricultural and environmental policies. Paul Driessen is CORE’s senior policy advisor and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power · Black Death (www.Eco-Imperialism.com)
Facing Biotech Foods Without the Fear Factor NY Times January 11, 2005 JANE E. BRODY Almost everywhere food is sold these days, you are likely to find products claiming to contain no genetically modified substances. But unless you are buying wild mushrooms, game, berries or fish, that statement is untrue. Nearly every food we eat has been genetically modified, through centuries of crosses, both within and between species, and for most of the last century through mutations induced by bombarding seeds with chemicals or radiation. In each of these techniques, dozens, hundreds, even thousands of genes of unknown function are transferred or modified to produce new food varieties. Most so-called organic foods are no exception. The claims of no genetic modification really refer to foods that contain no ingredients that are produced through the highly refined technique of gene splicing, in which one or a few genes are transferred to an organism. But alarmist warnings about the possible hazards of gene splicing have made the public extremely wary of this selective form of genetic modification. Such warnings have so far been groundless. "Americans have consumed more than a trillion servings of foods that contain gene-spliced ingredients," said Dr. Henry I. Miller, a fellow at the Hoover Institution and author, with Gregory Conko, of "The Frankenfood Myth," a new book that questions the wisdom of current gene-splicing regulations. "There hasn't been a single untoward event documented, not a single ecosystem disrupted or person made ill from these foods," he said in an interview. "That is not something that can be said about conventional foods, where imprecise methods of genetic modification actually have caused illnesses and deaths." Ignorance vs. Progress It is no secret that the public's understanding of science, and genetics in particular, is low. For example, in a telephone survey of 1,200 Americans released last October by the Food Policy Institute at Rutgers University, 43 percent thought, incorrectly, that ordinary tomatoes did not contain genes, while genetically modified tomatoes did. One-third thought, again incorrectly, that eating genetically modified fruit would change their own genes. In another telephone survey, in which 1,000 American consumers were questioned last year in research for the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, 54 percent said they knew little or nothing about genetically modified foods. Still, 89 percent said that no such food should be allowed on the market until the Food and Drug Administration determined that it was safe. What most respondents did not seem to know is that almost none of the foods people eat every day, which contain many introduced genes whose functions are unknown, have ever been subjected to premarketing approval or postmarketing surveillance. Why should people object to the presence of a single new gene whose function is known when for centuries they have accepted foods containing hundreds of new genes of unknown function? A junior high school student in Idaho, Nathan Zohner, demonstrated in a 1997 science fair project how easy it was to hoodwink a scientifically uninformed public. As described in "The Frankenfood Myth," 86 percent of the 50 students he surveyed thought dihydrogen monoxide should be banned after they were told that prolonged exposure to its solid form caused severe tissue damage, that exposure to its gaseous form caused severe burns and that it had been found in tumors from terminal cancer patients. Only one student recognized the substance as water, H2O. Without better public understanding and changes in the many arcane rules now thwarting development of new gene-spliced products, we will miss out on major improvements that can result in more healthful foods, a cleaner environment and a worldwide ability to produce more food on less land - using less water, fewer chemicals and less money. The European Union has, in effect, banned imports of all foods produced through gene splicing, and it has kept many African nations, including those afflicted with widespread malnutrition, from accepting even donated gene-spliced foods and crops by threatening to cut off products they export because they might become contaminated with introduced genes. Even more puzzling, Uganda has prohibited the testing of a fungus-resistant banana created through gene splicing, even though the fungus is devastating that nation's most important crop. A Continuum of Techniques In a new report, "Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods," published by the National Academy of Sciences, an expert committee notes that any time genes are mutated or combined, as occurs in almost all breeding methods, there is a possibility of producing a new, potentially hazardous substance. Citing a conventionally bred potato that turned out to contain an unintended toxin, the report says the hazard lies with the toxin's presence, not the breeding method. Among the foods developed through induced mutations are lettuce, beans, grapefruit, rice, oats and wheat. None had to undergo stringent testing and federal approval before reaching the market. Only those foods produced by the specific introduction of one or more genes into the organism's DNA are subject to strict and prolonged premarketing regulations. But as the academy's report points out, gene splicing is only a process, not a product, a process on a continuum of genetic modification of foods that began more than 10,000 years ago when people first crossed two varieties of a crop to improve its characteristics. In fact, gene splicing is the most refined, precise and predictable method of genetic modification because the function of the transferred gene or genes is known. It is also important to realize that genes are rarely unique to a given organism. Regulate by Degree of Risk All new crop varieties, whether produced through gene splicing or conventional techniques like cross-breeding or induced mutations, go through a series of tests before commercial introduction. After greenhouse testing for the look and perhaps taste of the crop, it is grown in a small, sequestered field trial and, if it passes that test, in a larger trial to check its commercial viability. The potential risks associated with genetically modified foods result not so much from the method used to produce them but from the traits being introduced. With gene splicing, only one or two traits at a time are introduced, making it possible to assess beforehand how much testing is needed to assure safety. While such safety tests are important, it is possible to become fixated on hypothetical risks that can never be absolutely discounted. Indeed, Dr. Miller, once director of the Office of Biotechnology for the Food and Drug Administration, argues that overly stringent regulations can needlessly raise public fears. "People naturally assume that something that is more highly regulated is more dangerous," he said, adding, "Government officials should have done less regulating and more educating." A risk-based protocol for safety evaluation would greatly reduce the time and costs involved in developing most new gene-spliced crops, many of which could raise the standard of living worldwide and better protect the planet from chemical contamination.
Study finds benefits in GM crops GM crops are no more harmful to the environment than conventional plant varieties, a major UK study has found. Richard Black BBC environment correspondent 2004/11/29 The Bright project looked at varieties of sugar beet and winter oil-seed rape which had been engineered to make them tolerant of specific herbicides. The novel crops were compared with non-GM cereals grown in rotation. The project concluded that the GM varieties, used in this way, did not deplete the soil of weed seeds needed by many birds and other wildlife. The findings of the Botanical and Rotational Implications of Genetically Modified Herbicide Tolerance (Bright) Link project were released on Monday Bright was designed to mimic normal agricultural practice, and measure how these GM crops would perform when used in a typical crop rotation pattern over four years. Not only did the project find no evidence of seed depletion, it also pointed to potential benefits for farmers of growing the GM crops. "There do appear to be a number of reasons why farmers might be quite interested in growing these crops " - Dr Jeremy Sweet, Bright scientific co-ordinator "What we have shown is that in the case of these two crops, there are ways of managing them which are quite practical, and farmers can deal with them quite readily," the study's scientific co-ordinator Dr Jeremy Sweet told BBC News. "There appear to be some management advantages in the flexibility of the herbicide usage; there could well be cost-benefit advantages, depending on the price of the herbicides and seeds when the crops are commercialised. "So there do appear to be a number of reasons why farmers might be quite interested in growing these crops." However, there is little prospect of GM crops being introduced into the UK in the short-term. THE BRIGHT LINK PROJECT Four-year study on relatively large plots (0.25-0.5 hectares) Studied GM winter rape and beet grown in rotation patterns Outcomes compared with plots of conventional plants GM crops tolerant to glyphosate or glufosinate herbicides One rape had cross-bred resistance to imidazolinone Studied numbers and diversity of weed seeds left in soil Looked for emergence of multi-herbicide-resistant plants Earlier this year another major trial, the Farm-Scale Evaluations or FSEs, found that two GM varieties, a sugar beet and a spring rape, were more damaging to biodiversity than conventional crops. There were fewer insect groups, such as bees and butterflies, recorded among the novel plants. A GM maize, on the other hand, appeared to do better than its conventional cousin. Following the FSE results, Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett announced that companies wishing to bring GM crops into the UK would have to go through a long approval process. THE BRIGHT FINDINGS GM crops showed increase weed seeds over 4 years Weed seed diversity in soil similar in GM and non-GM Advantages seen in GM in reduced weed control costs GM crops offered greater flexibility in spray timing Emerging multi-herbicide-resistant crops controllable Subsequently, Bayer CropScience, the only company with outstanding applications for government permission, withdrew those applications. Nevertheless, Bright will help biotech companies and proponents of GM agriculture argue that the crops should not be banned on environmental grounds. The European Union has indicated that member countries will in the future have to base decisions on whether or not to permit GM agriculture on science rather than public opinion. Public opposition However, Emily Diamand, senior farming researcher with the anti-GM Friends of the Earth (FoE), was sceptical that Bright really had mimicked normal farming practice. She told BBC News: "It was done at agricultural research centres, and real farmers never do things in the same way as they are done on research stations. "Its findings are only as useful as the questions it asks - there are so many other things to be considered with GM crops, such as the effect on the soil, gene transfer to other plants, and the social and health impact." GM opponents have also pointed to results in the study which highlighted the emergence of multi-herbicide-resistance in "volunteer" plants. Volunteers are plants that grow from spilt seed in the previous rotation and can breed with other herbicide tolerant crops in a new rotation to produce progeny with "combinations of herbicide tolerance". These plants could lead to farmers having to use stronger, or combinations of, weed killers if they wanted to get rid of them, campaigners said. "These experiments show that, practically, it will be very difficult to grow GM with non-GM - the issue of co-existence," FoE's Clare Oxborrow explained. "With oilseed rape they found that up to 1,000 seeds on average per metre squared were actually surviving in the soil. This has huge implications for things like contamination of non-GM crops and for giving consumers choice." 'Further' declines English Nature, the UK government's independent wildlife advisor, said it found nothing to cheer in the Bright results. It said both Bright and the FSEs showed weed control in these modified crops was more effective and reliable than conventional intensive agriculture. English Nature argued that this risked further reducing already impoverished farmland wildlife by destroying even more of the weeds it depended on. Dr Brian Johnson, English Nature's biotechnology advisor, said: "We will be asking the Advisory Committee for Releases to the Environment (Acre) to consider the validity of the scientific data presented in the Bright report and to assess the implications of these results for the conclusions of the FSEs." And Dr Mark Avery, the director of conservation at the bird group RSPB, said: "This research tells us nothing about the impacts GM will have on wildlife. "The government funded Farm-Scale Evaluations published last year demonstrate clearly that if GM herbicide-tolerant beet and oilseed rape were grown in the UK they would exacerbate the problems faced by our threatened farmland wildlife." A UK government spokesman said of the Bright findings: "It's valuable research, and complements the Farm-Scale Evaluations. "It provides some valuable results and we'll ask Acre to evaluate it, and we'll take it from there." More than half of Britons who took part in the "GM Nation" survey last year said GM crops should never be introduced in the UK under any circumstances.

GM plants for your health Thursday, November 25, 2004 By Holger Breithaupt The acceptance of GM crops in Europe might grow as soon as the first products to offer direct benefits for consumer health become available When will agricultural biotechnologies, such as genetically modified (GM) crops, reach Europe? This was the main question at the Agricultural Biotechnology International Conference (ABIC)—the largest of its kind—that took place in September this year in Cologne, Germany. Given that the ABIC was accompanied by a parallel conference organized by critics of GM crops and foods, this is an appropriate question. Most of the European Union (EU) member states have not yet approved the GM crops that are used widely and safely elsewhere in the world. Moreover, although the EU has finally lifted its moratorium on GM crops, and has passed new regulations for growing and marketing GM foods, national politics, legislation and ideological views about consumer and environmental protection have further hampered their use. European consumers remain wary of agricultural biotechnology and its products, as they do not see any direct benefits from GM crops and are, therefore, understandably reluctant to accept them. But it is only a matter of time before GM foods arrive on supermarket shelves across Europe, predicts Ashley O'Sullivan, President and CEO of Ag-West Bio Inc. (Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada). "The reality for legislation to regulate agricultural biotechnology is that the train has left the station and there is no way of going back," he added. ...to convince the cautious European public, agricultural biotechnology still has to [...] offer products that directly benefit consumers But to convince the cautious European public, agricultural biotechnology still has to show that it can do more than increase the returns to farmers, and offer products that directly benefit consumers. The next wave of GM plants, which are currently being developed and tested in academic and industry laboratories around the world, including Europe, may soon do this. A range of new GM crops in the research pipeline will offer direct benefits to consumers and environmental health, and could therefore change the public perception of this technology and, accordingly, the political and legal situation in Europe. A look at the global picture shows that the EU is still standing at the sidelines when it comes to the commercial use of GM crops, although its academic and industrial plant scientists remain at the forefront of this research. Worldwide, farmers in 18 countries grow GM crops on a total of 67.7 million hectares. In Europe, only farmers in Spain and Germany grow pest-resistant GM maize. The UK recently approved a herbicide-tolerant maize after extensive risk assessment showed that it benefits the environment and wildlife, but its manufacturer, Bayer CropScience (Monheim, Germany), later withdrew the crop, claiming that the conditions imposed by the British Government on its growth had left it economically unviable. This reluctance to grow GM crops is surely due to ideological views, political and public reactions to various food scandals in Europe—such as bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), foot and mouth disease, and acrylamide in fried foods—and pressure from non-governmental organizations. But it is also a result of limited options. "Six countries, four crops, two traits. That's what it is at the moment," said Bernward Garthoff of Bayer CropScience. So far, only GM maize, canola, soy and cotton have been approved worldwide, and only two traits are subject to genetic modification: herbicide tolerance and pest resistance through the introduction of the Bacillus thuringiensis toxin gene. Moreover, just six countries—the USA, Canada, Argentina, Brazil, China and South Africa—account for more than 99% of the global market in GM crops, which was estimated to be worth between US$4.5 and 4.75 billion in 2003. "We have here a case of 'invented in Europe' and 'exploited in the rest of the world'," said Manuel Hallen from the European Commission (EC) Directorate General of Research (Brussels, Belgium). GM crops have already shown benefits for farmers and the environment, as O'Sullivan illustrated by citing data from Canada on the growth of herbicide-resistant canola. The switch from conventionally bred to GM herbicide-tolerant canola increased the yield by 10%, reduced herbicide use by 40% (approximately 6,000 tonnes) and reduced fuel use because the farmers needed to spray less often. Canadian agriculture saved a total of C$464 million by growing GM canola, according to O'Sullivan. Elsewhere, Argentina reaped massive benefits from GM soybeans, as well as insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant maize, cotton and canola, as Esteban Hopp from the National Institute of Agricultural Technology in Buenos Aires, Argentina, pointed out. The use of GM crops allows farmers to significantly reduce their costs, which has made the country one of the leading exporters of soy and soy products. During the financial crisis in Argentina in 2002, the agricultural sector continued to expand and to employ more people. Furthermore, food donations from Argentinian farmers helped to ease food shortages in major cities. Similarly, Florence Wambugu, founder and CEO of Africa Harvest Biotech Foundation International (based in Nairobi, Kenya), and Jocelyn Webster, Executive Director of AfricaBio (a biotechnology stakeholder association in Cape Town, South Africa), have described how modern seed technologies, including GM crops, have helped small-scale African farmers to make a living. "The seed became the delivery of technology for farmers that cannot be reached by Western aid," Wambugu said about programmes to supply African villages with pest-resistant high-yield plants. For these farmers, it does not matter whether the seed comes from conventional breeding or GM. "We can talk about GM technology, hybrid or tissue culture and all that, [but] we must do more to actually reach out to the poor," she said. "The technology has potential but there is a need to move beyond the current four crops." These arguments will do little, however, to convince farmers, food marketers and consumers in Europe. Without tangible benefits, consumers will not buy GM foods and food marketers will not put them on supermarket shelves. Moreover, European farmers, who are pampered by heavy subsidies, do not have to grow GM crops to stay competitive. To achieve acceptance, products that offer direct health and nutritional benefits for European consumers are needed. This has not escaped the attention of agricultural businesses. Companies such as Monsanto (St. Louis, MO, USA), DuPont Agriculture & Nutrition (Wilmington, DE, USA) and Bayer CropScience are investing heavily in what Hans Kast, President and CEO of BASF Plant Science GmbH (Limbergerhof, Germany), has called the second revolution in agricultural biotechnology: GM foods with health benefits. These products would gracefully merge agricultural biotechnology with the rapidly growing market for functional foods (with additives such as vitamins or micronutrients) and nutraceuticals (compounds isolated from foods or plants with claimed health benefits). Given that many consumers who are wary of GM foods nevertheless eat nutraceuticals or functional foods, despite the often unfounded or unproven health claims, functional GM foods might overcome the widespread rejection of agricultural biotechnology by offering proven health benefits—unlike functional foods and nutraceuticals that are sold over the counter, GM plants are subject to rigorous safety and efficacy tests. Obvious candidates for incorporation into GM foods are omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids, which are particularly important for prenatal and early childhood neuronal development. These compounds are primarily found in cold-water fish, such as salmon, tuna, halibut and herring. Given the declining state of marine fisheries and concerns over mercury contamination, GM plants that supply omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids would not only be beneficial for consumers, but could also ease the pressure on fish stocks. Bayer CropScience is collaborating with the research group of Ernst Heinz at the University of Hamburg, Germany, to develop flax plants that produce omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids. At the ABIC, Petra Cirpus from Bayer CropScience presented preliminary results from transgenic flax equipped with algal genes, which can produce omega-3, omega-4 and other polyunsaturated fatty acids. Once this GM flax is tested and approved, oils from this plant will probably do more to convince consumers of the benefits of biotechnology than any public-education campaign. ...unlike functional foods and nutraceuticals that are sold over the counter, GM plants are subject to rigorous safety and efficacy tests Similarly, Steve Padgette, Vice President of Biotechnology at Monsanto, and Ganesh Kishore, Vice President of Technology at DuPont Agriculture & Nutrition, presented information on the efforts of their respective companies to develop foods with health benefits for consumers. Both companies are focusing on GM soy and canola to produce omega-3 fatty acids, although other fatty acids and proteins are also equally pursued. One goal is to create soy and canola with longer-chain unsaturated fatty acids, which would lower the levels of low-density lipids and cholesterol in the blood, thereby reducing the risk of heart disease. Other efforts aim to create vegetables that contain larger amounts of compounds that protect against cancer, such as lycopene in tomatoes, or to engineer basic staple crops, such as rice, wheat and maize, that can produce larger amounts of vitamins and micronutrients. For example, academic researchers at the Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences in Tjele, Denmark, have already developed such plant varieties for developing countries, where many people rely on only one food staple and can rarely afford vegetables, meat or fish. This research is not just focused on GM plants, but, as Padgette pointed out, "We can deliver new traits for the customer through conventional breeding and we certainly do that, but there are certain traits where you can't do that." This change in the marketing of GM crops might serve to sway public opinion. Marcus Girnau from the German Federation of Food Law and Food Science, an umbrella organization for the German food industry, cited an online survey from Dialego, a market research company based in Aachen, Germany, along with an article from the German financial newspaper Handelsblatt from July this year, which found that Germans might, in time, accept GM foods if they believe them to have health advantages. Although 38.5% of the respondents would not buy foods with GM content at present and more than 80% said they wanted GM food to be labelled as such, more than 30% would choose GM fruits if they tasted better than normal ones and more than 65% would be willing to buy a yoghurt with GM content if it protected them from colon cancer. Girnau concluded that even in Germany, which is one of the strongholds of the anti-GM movement, opposition might eventually fade. Another survey in the UK showed that 37.8% of respondents would have no preference between non-GM and GM breakfast cereals (Moon & Balasubramanian, 2003). As Jocelyn Webster put it, "If we had an apple that contained Viagra® or an apple that [suppressed] appetite, we wouldn't have these problems." GM plants may not only help to maintain or improve health, but there is also an as yet untapped potential for producing pharmaceuticals of all kinds, as Julian Ma from St. George's Hospital Medical School at the University of London, UK, has shown. So far, the production of pharmaceutical compounds, most notably proteins and peptides, has been largely done in GM bacteria or mammalian cell cultures, which the public seem to support fully. However, plants have several advantages over bacterial systems; in particular, they have a full complement of organelles that can produce even the most complex mammalian proteins. Ma and colleagues used plant cells to produce correctly folded active immunoglobulins that were biologically active in mice, and it would take only a small step to apply this same procedure to human proteins. Plants also have another important advantage over other production methods: "Production on a globally relevant scale might only be achievable with plants," said Ma, citing a vaccine against the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) as an example. If it were available, the global need for such a vaccine would be so overwhelming that the only option to meet the demand would be to produce it in fields of GM plants. Public resistance against GM plants would probably fade rapidly in the light of such an enormous benefit for public health. The EC wants to move past the debate about GM crops to reap the economic and scientific benefits of plant research. That was the rationale behind lifting the moratorium on GM plants and issuing the Directive on GM labelling (EC, 2003), which requires that all foods that contain more than trace amounts of GM content must be labelled as such. This would not only help to overcome the suspicions of consumers, but would also finally give food producers and marketers in Europe clear regulations and a legal framework under which they could market GM foods, as Girnau pointed out. "We have to have a freedom of choice not only on the consumers' side but also on the producers' side," he said. However, the translation of the EC Directive into national law has been disappointing, with many countries dragging their feet or passing additional legislation with the aim of preventing the growth of GM crops. The German Federal Ministry of Consumer Protection, Food and Agriculture, for instance, has drafted an addendum to the law on genetic engineering that would allow the deliberate release of GM crops in Germany but would impose such strict regulations that it would be almost impossible to grow them. This would have serious consequences not only for agriculture but also for field trials of experimental crops that were developed by German researchers, as the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), the main scientific funding agency in Germany, commented in a harsh rebuke of the draft (DFG, 2004). GM plants may not only help to maintain or improve health, but there is also an as yet untapped potential for producing pharmaceuticals of all kinds... Whether GM crops are grown in Europe as part of the normal diet, as functional foods or to produce therapeutics, the lessons to be learned from the accompanying debates are clear to regulators and business alike. "Public concerns and perceptions cannot be ignored in a democratic Europe," Hallen said. Girnau also warned of repeating some of the early errors that were made in the debate over GM crops: "Consumer trust is indispensable in the marketing of GM food, and basically of all food." This message also seems to have been heard by industry. Harvey Glick, Director of Scientific Affairs at Monsanto, explained that his company now considers stakeholder concerns to be as important as shareholder expectations, and supports outreach programmes with stakeholders in the GM crop debate. Others are also willing to move ahead, while meeting public concerns along the way and adhering to EU regulations. "The EU has passed the most strict legal framework in the world," Kast said about the requirements on labelling, GM content thresholds and traceability, and "we in industry need to accept this." But he also warned the governments of EU member states not to squander the potential opportunities by further postponing the introduction of GM crops. "If we fail to implement these EU rules and regulations, there will be consequences," he said. "No innovation, no new products and EU farmers and EU industry will lose global competitiveness." References DFG (2004) Statement by the DFG on the Draft Legislation to Reform the Law on Genetic Engineering. http://www.dfg.de/aktuelles_presse/reden_stellungnahmen/2004 EC (2003) Regulation (EC) No. 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on Genetically Modified Food and Feed. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission James C (2003) Preview: Global Status of Commercialized Transgenic Crops: 2003. ISAAA Briefs No. 30. Ithaca, NY, USA: ISAAA Moon W, Balasubramanian SK (2003) Is there a market for genetically modified foods in Europe? Contingent valuation of GM and non-GM breakfast cereals in the United Kingdom. AgBioForum 6: 128–133

GM Crops Cut Herbicide Use Finding in engineered canola challenges environmental fears Betterhumans Staff 10/20/2004 The use of herbicide-resistant canola has been found to significantly cut herbicide use, challenging fears that the genetically modified plants adversely affect the environment. By quantifying the impact of the modified canola on the environment, Canadian researchers including Gerald Stephenson of the University of Guelph in Ontario have shown that fears about the plants increasing herbicide use may be unfounded. Some environmental groups have raised fears that the use of herbicide-resistant crops increases reliance on herbicides and can spawn super weeds that require more herbicides to control. But Stephenson and colleagues have found that, at least for modified canola, the net benefit of the plants to the environment is positive. Decreased impact The researchers say that between 1995 and 2000 in Canada, the amount of canola crop that was modified increased from 10% to 80%. This was accompanied by a 40% decrease in herbicide use and a 36% decrease in environmental impact, calculated by human and animal toxicity and environmental persistence. The decrease is attributed to the fact that farmers growing herbicide-resistant crops can use just one or two applications of a broad-spectrum herbicide such as glyphosate and can target weed-infested areas while crops are growing rather than spraying entire fields before planting. The research is reported in the journal Pest Management Science.

Genetic engineering - a Boon to Science By Alfredo S Antao Sep 2004 GENETIC engineering which considered as an off shoot of biotechnology has brought about dramatic changes in both protein and nucleic acid chemistry and in the use of certain new biological systems as selection agents themselves.Presently implementation of efficient procedures for successful cultures of cells, plant regeneration and artificial animal breeding can be carried out due to availability of established protocol for organism development, restriction enzymes, DNA vector systems, transposable elements, series of promoters, marker genes and a large number of cloned DNA genes which have broadened the scope for genetic manipulation by precisely inserting foreign genes into any organism from plants, animals and microorganisms in cloning of useful genes through the use of various molecular probes which has made charterisation and insertion of specific DNA sequences more precise and rapid. Agricultural research institutes have produced environmentally regulated genes and transferred them to plants form a wide range of living organisms and these so called "Transgenic plants" under field conditions, have maintained increased level of insect resistance and virus protection and propagated without any detrimental effects. Besides, interest is growing up in products having traits with "added value" like oil seeds with greater oil content or feed grains that are more nutritious. Similarly transgenic animals created genetically are disease resistant and provide meat and milk at lower cost of production. They also serve as bioreactors producing useful drugs, vaccines, hormones organs for transplantation and many other products benefiting mankind. In the field of protein engineering valuable therapeutic proteins are synthesised and purified from cloned genes. Such proteins obtained by recombinant DNA technology are insulin, human growth hormone, interferons, endorphin and factor VIII which are useful in medicine. Hence the pharmaceutical industries have largely exploited the genetic engineering technology for preparing important and valuable products with health and life saving applications. Some of the applications are: (i) Human insulin for treatment of diabetes. (ii) Transplasminogen activator to dissolve blood clots. (iii) Factor VIII used in haemophilia for blood clot formation. (iv) Enzymes such as streptokinase and urokinase which dissolves blood. (v) Antibiotics such as semisynthetic penicillins. (vi) Growth factor drugs such as epidermal, nerve and fibroblast for skin grafting, bone cells and blood vessels respectively. (vii) Immunoproteins and immunodiagnostics such as antibodies, antigens to ensure hypersensitvity. (viii) Anticancer drug such as Interleukin - 2 and Gamma interferon for cancer therapy. (ix) The antisense - DNA for adenosine receptor gene binds specifically to the adenosine which increases in the lungs of the asthmatic patient and since this respector is not formed in the lungs the patient ceases to show any asthma symptoms. (x) "Thaumatin" is a genetically modified protein obtained from feast and is a boon to diabetics who cannot take sucrose based sweeteners. (xi) Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) obtained from a gene introduced into the white blood cells disintegrates the cancer cell and does not affect the normal cell and is used for treatment of melanoma in skin cancer. Genetic engineering is also utilised in environmental pollution control by the development of biological waste treatment strategies such as plasmid assisted molecular breeding (PAMB) involving mixed cultures that possess plasmids from different trains and cleans up petroleum and it is produced from water. The second way is acquired by engineering fungi like Candida tropical is to degrade toxic, chlormated wastes such as PCBs, Aldrin, DDT, Dioxin and other hazardous chemicals. Genetic finger printing is another powerful tool in this field used in basic research, forensic science and paternity testing. This tool enables indentification of a suspect in cases where samples of blood, semen or hair have been obtained. Lastly the "Human Genome Project" which maps and sequences the human genome is an area that raises a number of ethical, legal, moral and social questions. As such along with the benefits there are risks too, included in this technology such as harmful biological impact on gene pools and eco system and specially the bio hazards involved due to the presence of synthetically reorganised organisms in the environment. Therefore genetic engineering should be utilised in science and medicine for the over all benefit of mankind, avoiding the misuse of this technology that holds tremendous promise and excitement for the years ahead.
GM soya saved us, says angry Argentina after 'superweed' claim By Seamus Mirodan in Buenos Aires and David Harrison 18/04/2004 Headlines in Britain last week claimed that genetically modified crops were proving disastrous in South America - but local farmers say they have transformed their lives Ricardo Martinez smiled with pride as he looked over the thriving fields of genetically modified soya and then denounced critics who claimed last week that such crops had been a "disaster" for his country, Argentina. "Back in the 1980s we had a lot of trouble with flooding, soil erosion and ever-present weeds," said Mr Martinez, who has been growing soya for seven years on his 3,200-acre farm 190 miles from the capital, Buenos Aires. "When Monsanto introduced GM soya to Argentina it was something of a miracle. It allowed us to increase production and manage our land far more effectively," he added, stressing that the crop had been of "huge benefit" to Argentina's economy. Mr Martinez's remarks were prompted by an article in New Scientist magazine claiming that the introduction of GM crops in Argentina was proving an economic and environmental failure. The article, published in Britain last week, made national headlines when it said that Argentina's pioneering use of GM soya since 1997 had caused "superweeds" to overrun the country and had led to health problems. The claims have prompted an angry reaction in the South American country, where GM crops have been embraced enthusiastically. Argenbio, Argentina's council for biotechnology, led the protests, arguing that GM soya had enabled farmers to avoid a cocktail of chemicals that threatened the crop and, in some cases, damaged the health of farm workers and livestock, causing skin rashes and respiratory problems. GM soya is engineered to be resistant to the herbicide glyphosate, so that farmers can use just that one product to control weeds without damaging their crops. "That combination of glyphosate and GM soya was a godsend to us," Mr Martinez said. Glyphosate also takes less time to sink into the soil than the mix of chemicals used before, reducing the risk of its presence when the product is consumed. Since GM soya's introduction in 1996 its production in Argentina has grown by almost 75 per cent, while more traditional crops such as rice, maize and wheat have shown a steady decline. Today, 99 per cent of soya grown in Argentina is genetically modified and farmers cultivate 85.5 million acres of it. New Scientist quoted experts who warned that GM crops could destroy the soil's natural micro-organisms and create "superweeds" - undesirable plants that mutate to be as resistant to herbicides as the main crop. Small farmers blamed glyphosate for crop failure and loss of livestock. Elsewhere, Adolfo Boy, an agronomist and spokesman for the GM-sceptic Group for Rural Reflection, was quoted as saying: "Let Argentina be a warning to others. We are going down the path of destruction." Many involved directly in Argentine agriculture said last week that they disagreed with that analysis. Eduardo Trigo, an agricultural consultant who carried out a study in 2002, jointly funded by the Argentine government and an international research centre, said that crops would be damaged only if glyphosate were used "negligently". He accused New Scientist of making "very liberal use" of one such example to paint a misleading picture of Argentine agriculture. The study also found that the the expansion in soya growing had helped increase rural employment from 700,000 in 1995 to about 900,000 in the late 1990s and concluded that it had made Argentine farmers £4 billion a year richer. Eugenio Cap, the co-author of the study, said: "It is highly irresponsible to write an article describing the soya programme as a disaster when in effect it saved a society from economic catastrophe." Carlitos Quattordio, an agronomist who works on the 5,000-acre Molinari farm, one of Buenos Aires province's largest soya estates, said: "I am in the fields every day and I have seen no evidence of these 'superweeds'. "If the cultivation process is carried out conscientiously there appear to be no adverse effects on the soil or livestock. Glyphosate is simple to use and it kills only the plants on which it is directly placed. As aircraft are not used to spray these crops, it is hard to see how it could end up on other people's land. It certainly has no effect on any animals." Gabriela Levitus, the executive director of Argenbio, said that her council had studied the environmental consequences of using glyphosate and found it harmless to other plants, livestock and farm workers. She rejected claims that GM crops reduced the levels of bacteria and other micro-organisms in the soil as "a complete lie". GM soya was cultivated in such a way that the organic matter left after the harvest remained on the land, providing cover to maintain the soil's humidity and nutrient levels, she said. Damage had been caused by some farmers' reluctance to practice crop rotation, but that would be true of any monoculture, whether the crop was genetically modified or not, she said. "We are not savages who do not look after the soil. Producers and exporters appreciate the risks and, for their own good, are not going to let that situation arise."

GM foods? Yes, if the price is right The Observer Jamie Doward, social affairs editor January 11, 2004 It was thought that the vast majority of people saw them as 'Frankenstein foods'. And, despite numerous PR offensives, poll after poll suggested the public will not knowingly eat products with genetically modified ingredients. Yet authoritative new research debunks all this as a popular myth. The latest issue of the respected Economic Journal magazine says almost two-thirds of people would eat GM foods, after all, if the price was right. Economists Charles Noussair, Stephane Robin and Bernard Ruffieux,conducted role-playing experiments in which participants were asked to taste products stripped of their packaging. The participants were asked to say how much they were willing to pay for the products. Over time they were told which of them carried a GM label. What the economists found stunned them. Although 35 per cent of participants refused to eat a product once they discovered it contained genetically modified ingredients, 42 per cent said they would buy it if it was cheap enough. The other 23 per cent had no qualms about eating GM products, whatever the price. 'Our results show a sharp contrast to the predominantly negative views of survey respondents toward genetically modified organisms in food products,' the three economists note. They also found that almost nine out of 10 participants said they would eat food having 'only' 1 per cent of GM ingredients. Prior to the experiment the three men conducted a survey which appeared to confirm again that most people don't want to eat GM food. Eighty-nine per cent of those interviewed said they did not want GM ingredients, while almost four out of five wanted them banned. More than 90 per cent said they would never buy GM tomatoes or French fries. Co-author Robin said the results suggested people think differently about things when money is introduced into their decision-making. 'You give one answer when you're asked 'what you think of GM foods?' in an opinion poll, but you give a different reply when you're a consumer,' Robin said. The economists suggest that consumers of GM food may be like 'the consumer of electricity who is opposed to nuclear power but uses the electricity from the power grid, despite the fact that some of it is generated with nuclear power'. Their results showed that people 'demonstrate considerably less hostility toward the presence of genetically modified ingredients in food products than suggested in public opinion surveys'. Originally from: www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,1120536,00.html


Britain 'has moral duty to fund GM research' Robin McKie, science editor Sunday December 28, 2003 The Observer Britain's most respected scientific ethics group will urge Ministers this week to pledge millions of pounds to help develop GM crops for poor countries. In a report on 'The Use of Genetically Modified Crops in Developing Countries', the Nuffield Council on Bioethics says Britain is ignoring a moral imperative to promote GM foods suitable for tropical and sub-tropical nations. GM varieties of rice, bananas, sweet potatoes and soybean, the report says, could save these countries' crumbling economies. However, their benefits are not being investigated by Western agricultural companies. 'Most GM crops have been developed by companies to suit the needs of large-scale farmers in developed countries,' says the report, which is to be released tomorrow. 'Only a limited number - a few varieties of cotton and maize - are currently suitable for developing countries.' Action is desperately needed, says the report. The Government, through the Department for International Development, and the European Commission should therefore fund 'a major expansion of public GM-related research into tropical and sub-tropical staple foods'. Such foods could provide lifelines for small farms whose survival offers 'the best means of achieving a substantial reduction of food insecurity and poverty' in the developing world. The authors analysed a range of GM crops already used in the developing world and concluded that these offer major benefits. For example, many varieties of cotton have been modified by Chinese scientists to produce pesticides in their roots. Last year half of all cotton grown in China was modified this way. As a result, there has been a reduction by as much as 50kg per hectare in pesticide use, a 10 per cent increase in yields, and a reduction in the numbers of farmers being poisoned by their own pesticide sprays. The report dismisses the alleged ecological dangers of GM crops. There is not enough evidence to support the claim that they threaten 'actual or potential harm', it says. Instead, it criticises European nations for their obsession with pinpointing tiny traces of GM crops in our food chain. Tough new EU import and labelling restrictions, introduced in the wake of anti-GM campaigns, are merely likely to cripple farming in the developing world, it says. Not only would these countries find their GM crop exports blocked but their non-GM produce could also be rendered unsaleable. Small amounts of GM produce are likely to be mixed with non-GM produce during storage because these nations do not have the infrastructure to keep them separate, states the report, whose authors include Professor Michael Lipton of the Poverty Research Unit at Sussex University. The Nuffield scientists also strongly criticise anti-GM campaigners who claim modified plants should not be developed because they pose a slight risk to human health. Such a view is impractical and harmful, they say. Food security and environmental conditions are deteriorating across the developing countries, the report says. The world cannot afford to wait for years to be sure GM crops are safe. Millions are likely to go hungry. It is a fallacy to think the policy of doing nothing is itself without risk. 'We are not saying GM technology will save the world on its own,' added Sandy Thomas, director of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 'Measures to limit the effects of climate change and war are probably going to be more important. However, modified crops clearly have a key role to play. We have to judge each plant's use on an individual basis, of course, but it is clear this technology has an awful lot to offer.' 'The Use of Genetically Modified Crops in Developing Countries' will be available at www.nuffieldbioethics.org Originally from: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1113101,00.html

Study: Ancients Manipulated Corn Genes Ancient Farmers Practiced Genetic Manipulation in Creating Modern Corn Plant, Study Suggests The Associated Press WASHINGTON Nov. 13, 2003 — Ancient Americans were changing corn genes through selective breeding more than 4,000 years ago, according to researchers who say the modifications produced the large cobs and fat kernels that make corn one of humanity's most important foods. In a study that compared the genes of corn cobs recovered in Mexico and the southwestern United States, researchers found that three key genetic variants were systematically enhanced, probably through selective cultivation, over thousands of years. The technique was not as sophisticated as the methods used for modern genetically modified crops, but experts said in a study released Thursday that the general effect was the same: genetic traits were amplified or introduced to create plants with improved traits and greater yield. "Civilization has been built on genetically modified plants," said Nina V. Fedoroff of Pennsylvania State University. The ancestral plant of corn, teosinte, was first domesticated some 6,000 to 9,000 years ago in the Balsas River Valley of southern Mexico, the researchers said in this week's issue of Science magazine. At first, teosinte was a grassy-like plant with many stems bearing small cobs with kernels sheathed in hard shells. By cultivating plants with desirable characteristics, farmers caused teosinte to morph into an increasingly useful crop. The researchers said by 5,500 years ago the size of the kernels was larger. By 4,400 years ago, all of the gene variants found in modern corn were present in crops grown in Mexico. The plant and its grain were so changed by the directed cultivation that it evolved into a form that could not grow in the wild and was dependent on farmers to survive from generation to generation, the study found. The study was conducted by researchers at the Max Planck-Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany; the U.S. Department of Agriculture at North Carolina State University, Raleigh, N.C.; the Smithsonian Institution in Washington; the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom; and the University of Wisconsin. It was financed by the Wellcome Trust, the U.S. National Science Foundation, the German Ministry for Education and Research, and by the Max Planck Society. Fedoroff, a plant geneticist who was not part of the research team, said the study shows that it is unlikely the changes in corn were by chance. The early farmers, she said, "might have been more sophisticated than we think." "The differences between maize (corn) and teosinte come down to just a few genes, but with big effect," said Fedoroff. She said ancient farmers probably spotted these differences and then planted seeds from those cobs to encourage the improvements to continue. "They might have collected the seeds and may have known that if they grew them close together then they could catch (the beneficial changes) in the next generation," she said. "It was like someone found the right combination and it was so much better that people shared it with their friends and relatives and then it got widely propagated." Three genes that dramatically improved corn came together within a short time and the farmers were sophisticated enough to propagate seeds from those plants in following seasons, it's believed. One gene changed the architecture of corn from a plant with many branches to one with a single stalk with a male tassel at the top and female cobs growing along the side. Another genetic change softened the outer hull on the kernel. Before the change, the plant depended on animals to spread its seeds. After animals ate the corn, the tough outer shells would allow the kernels to pass unharmed through the gut. With a softer hull, the kernels would not survive passage through the gut of an animal. As a result, the plant became dependent on farmers to spread its seeds. Another genetic change caused the kernels to stick more tightly to the cob. And still another change modified the starch of the grain. This final change, the authors wrote, made the corn more suitable for making tortillas, and, thus, may have been an early variant encouraged by the farmers. Scientists now change plants by transferring specific, identified genes from species to species in sophisticated labs. Some advocacy groups have claimed this technique is dangerous. As a result, some European and African countries forbid the import of "GM crops." But Fedoroff said that, actually, the whole world eats genetically modified foods. She said that over thousands of years, rice in China, wheat in the Middle East and corn in Mexico were all genetically altered through selective cultivation. The effect, she said, was like "a prehistoric Green Revolution." The same process is under way now, she said, but with modern scientific techniques. "People are fearful of the food they eat," said Fedoroff, "but civilization has been built on genetically modified plants. We wouldn't have civilization without it." On the Net: Science: www.sciencemag.org

Will Frankenfood Save the Planet? Source: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/10/rauch.htm Over the next half century genetic engineering could feed humanity and solve a raft of environmental ills—if only environmentalists would let it by Jonathan Rauch That genetic engineering may be the most environmentally beneficial technology to have emerged in decades, or possibly centuries, is not immediately obvious. Certainly, at least, it is not obvious to the many U.S. and foreign environmental groups that regard biotechnology as a bête noire. Nor is it necessarily obvious to people who grew up in cities, and who have only an inkling of what happens on a modern farm. Being agriculturally illiterate myself, I set out to look at what may be, if the planet is fortunate, the farming of the future. It was baking hot that April day. I traveled with two Virginia state soil-and-water-conservation officers and an agricultural-extension agent to an area not far from Richmond. The farmers there are national (and therefore world) leaders in the application of what is known as continuous no-till farming. In plain English, they don't plough. For thousands of years, since the dawn of the agricultural revolution, farmers have ploughed, often several times a year; and with ploughing has come runoff that pollutes rivers and blights aquatic habitat, erosion that wears away the land, and the release into the atmosphere of greenhouse gases stored in the soil. Today, at last, farmers are working out methods that have begun to make ploughing obsolete. At about one-thirty we arrived at a 200-acre patch of farmland known as the Good Luck Tract. No one seemed to know the provenance of the name, but the best guess was that somebody had said something like "You intend to farm this? Good luck!" The land was rolling, rather than flat, and its slopes came together to form natural troughs for rainwater. Ordinarily this highly erodible land would be suitable for cows, not crops. Yet it was dense with wheat—wheat yielding almost twice what could normally be expected, and in soil that had grown richer in organic matter, and thus more nourishing to crops, even as the land was farmed. Perhaps most striking was the almost complete absence of any chemical or soil runoff. Even the beating administered in 1999 by Hurricane Floyd, which lashed the ground with nineteen inches of rain in less than twenty-four hours, produced no significant runoff or erosion. The land simply absorbed the sheets of water before they could course downhill. At another site, a few miles away, I saw why. On land planted in corn whose shoots had only just broken the surface, Paul Davis, the extension agent, wedged a shovel into the ground and dislodged about eight inches of topsoil. Then he reached down and picked up a clump. Ploughed soil, having been stirred up and turned over again and again, becomes lifeless and homogeneous, but the clump that Davis held out was alive. I immediately noticed three squirming earthworms, one grub, and quantities of tiny white insects that looked very busy. As if in greeting, a worm defecated. "Plant-available food!" a delighted Davis exclaimed. This soil, like that of the Good Luck Tract, had not been ploughed for years, allowing the underground ecosystem to return. Insects and roots and microorganisms had given the soil an elaborate architecture, which held the earth in place and made it a sponge for water. That was why erosion and runoff had been reduced to practically nil. Crops thrived because worms were doing the ploughing. Crop residue that was left on the ground, rather than ploughed under as usual, provided nourishment for the soil's biota and, as it decayed, enriched the soil. The farmer saved the fuel he would have used driving back and forth with a heavy plough. That saved money, and of course it also saved energy and reduced pollution. On top of all that, crop yields were better than with conventional methods. The conservation people in Virginia were full of excitement over no-till farming. Their job was to clean up the James and York Rivers and the rest of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Most of the sediment that clogs and clouds the rivers, and most of the fertilizer runoff that causes the algae blooms that kill fish, comes from farmland. By all but eliminating agricultural erosion and runoff—so Brian Noyes, the local conservation-district manager, told me—continuous no-till could "revolutionize" the area's water quality. Even granting that Noyes is an enthusiast, from an environmental point of view no-till farming looks like a dramatic advance. The rub—if it is a rub—is that the widespread elimination of the plough depends on genetically modified crops. It is only a modest exaggeration to say that as goes agriculture, so goes the planet. Of all the human activities that shape the environment, agriculture is the single most important, and it is well ahead of whatever comes second. Today about 38 percent of the earth's land area is cropland or pasture—a total that has crept upward over the past few decades as global population has grown. The increase has been gradual, only about 0.3 percent a year; but that still translates into an additional Greece or Nicaragua cultivated or grazed every year. Farming does not go easy on the earth, and never has. To farm is to make war upon millions of plants (weeds, so-called) and animals (pests, so-called) that in the ordinary course of things would crowd out or eat or infest whatever it is a farmer is growing. Crop monocultures, as whole fields of only wheat or corn or any other single plant are called, make poor habitat and are vulnerable to disease and disaster. Although fertilizer runs off and pollutes water, farming without fertilizer will deplete and eventually exhaust the soil. Pesticides can harm the health of human beings and kill desirable or harmless bugs along with pests. Irrigation leaves behind trace elements that can accumulate and poison the soil. And on and on. The trade-offs are fundamental. Organic farming, for example, uses no artificial fertilizer, but it does use a lot of manure, which can pollute water and contaminate food. Traditional farmers may use less herbicide, but they also do more ploughing, with all the ensuing environmental complications. Low-input agriculture uses fewer chemicals but more land. The point is not that farming is an environmental crime—it is not—but that there is no escaping the pressure it puts on the planet. In the next half century the pressure will intensify. The United Nations, in its midrange projections, estimates that the earth's human population will grow by more than 40 percent, from 6.3 billion people today to 8.9 billion in 2050. Feeding all those people, and feeding their billion or so hungry pets (a dog or a cat is one of the first things people want once they move beyond a subsistence lifestyle), and providing the increasingly protein-rich diets that an increasingly wealthy world will expect—doing all of that will require food output to at least double, and possibly triple. But then the story will change. According to the UN's midrange projections (which may, if anything, err somewhat on the high side), around 2050 the world's population will more or less level off. Even if the growth does not stop, it will slow. The crunch will be over. In fact, if in 2050 crop yields are still increasing, if most of the world is economically developed, and if population pressures are declining or even reversing—all of which seems reasonably likely—then the human species may at long last be able to feed itself, year in and year out, without putting any additional net stress on the environment. We might even be able to grow everything we need while reducing our agricultural footprint: returning cropland to wilderness, repairing damaged soils, restoring ecosystems, and so on. In other words, human agriculture might be placed on a sustainable footing forever: a breathtaking prospect. The great problem, then, is to get through the next four or five decades with as little environmental damage as possible. That is where biotechnology comes in. One day recently I drove down to southern Virginia to visit Dennis Avery and his son, Alex. The older Avery, a man in late middle age with a chinstrap beard, droopy eyes, and an intent, scholarly manner, lives on ninety-seven acres that he shares with horses, chickens, fish, cats, dogs, bluebirds, ducks, transient geese, and assorted other creatures. He is the director of global food issues at the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank; Alex works with him, and is trained as a plant physiologist. We sat in a sunroom at the back of the house, our afternoon conversation punctuated every so often by dog snores and rooster crows. We talked for a little while about the Green Revolution, a dramatic advance in farm productivity that fed the world's burgeoning population over the past four decades, and then I asked if the challenge of the next four decades could be met. "Well," Dennis replied, "we have tripled the world's farm output since 1960. And we're feeding twice as many people from the same land. That was a heroic achievement. But we have to do what some think is an even more difficult thing in this next forty years, because the Green Revolution had more land per person and more water per person—" "—and more potential for increases," Alex added, "because the base that we were starting from was so much lower." "By and large," Dennis went on, "the world's civilizations have been built around its best farmland. And we have used most of the world's good farmland. Most of the good land is already heavily fertilized. Most of the good land is already being planted with high-yield seeds. [Africa is the important exception.] Most of the good irrigation sites are used. We can't triple yields again with the technologies we're already using. And we might be lucky to get a fifty percent yield increase if we froze our technology short of biotech." "Biotech" can refer to a number of things, but the relevant application here is genetic modification: the selective transfer of genes from one organism to another. Ordinary breeding can cross related varieties, but it cannot take a gene from a bacterium, for instance, and transfer it to a wheat plant. The organisms resulting from gene transfers are called "transgenic" by scientists—and "Frankenfood" by many greens. Gene transfer poses risks, unquestionably. So, for that matter, does traditional crossbreeding. But many people worry that transgenic organisms might prove more unpredictable. One possibility is that transgenic crops would spread from fields into forests or other wild lands and there become environmental nuisances, or worse. A further risk is that transgenic plants might cross-pollinate with neighboring wild plants, producing "superweeds" or other invasive or destructive varieties in the wild. Those risks are real enough that even most biotech enthusiasts—including Dennis Avery, for example—favor some government regulation of transgenic crops. What is much less widely appreciated is biotech's potential to do the environment good. Take as an example continuous no-till farming, which really works best with the help of transgenic crops. Human beings have been ploughing for so long that we tend to forget why we started doing it in the first place. The short answer: weed control. Turning over the soil between plantings smothers weeds and their seeds. If you don't plough, your land becomes a weed garden—unless you use herbicides to kill the weeds. Herbicides, however, are expensive, and can be complicated to apply. And they tend to kill the good with the bad. In the mid-1990s the agricultural-products company Monsanto introduced a transgenic soybean variety called Roundup Ready. As the name implies, these soybeans tolerate Roundup, an herbicide (also made by Monsanto) that kills many kinds of weeds and then quickly breaks down into harmless ingredients. Equipped with Roundup Ready crops, farmers found that they could retire their ploughs and control weeds with just a few applications of a single, relatively benign herbicide—instead of many applications of a complex and expensive menu of chemicals. More than a third of all U.S. soybeans are now grown without ploughing, mostly owing to the introduction of Roundup Ready varieties. Ploughless cotton farming has likewise received a big boost from the advent of bioengineered varieties. No-till farming without biotech is possible, but it's more difficult and expensive, which is why no-till and biotech are advancing in tandem. In 2001 a group of scientists announced that they had engineered a transgenic tomato plant able to thrive on salty water—water, in fact, almost half as salty as seawater, and fifty times as salty as tomatoes can ordinarily abide. One of the researchers was quoted as saying, "I've already transformed tomato, tobacco, and canola. I believe I can transform any crop with this gene"—just the sort of Frankenstein hubris that makes environmentalists shudder. But consider the environmental implications. Irrigation has for millennia been a cornerstone of agriculture, but it comes at a price. As irrigation water evaporates, it leaves behind traces of salt, which accumulate in the soil and gradually render it infertile. (As any Roman legion knows, to destroy a nation's agricultural base you salt the soil.) Every year the world loses about 25 million acres—an area equivalent to a fifth of California—to salinity; 40 percent of the world's irrigated land, and 25 percent of America's, has been hurt to some degree. For decades traditional plant breeders tried to create salt-tolerant crop plants, and for decades they failed. Salt-tolerant crops might bring millions of acres of wounded or crippled land back into production. "And it gets better," Alex Avery told me. The transgenic tomato plants take up and sequester in their leaves as much as six or seven percent of their weight in sodium. "Theoretically," Alex said, "you could reclaim a salt-contaminated field by growing enough of these crops to remove the salts from the soil." His father chimed in: "We've worried about being able to keep these salt-contaminated fields going even for decades. We can now think about centuries." One of the first biotech crops to reach the market, in the mid-1990s, was a cotton plant that makes its own pesticide. Scientists incorporated into the plant a toxin-producing gene from a soil bacterium known as Bacillus thuringiensis. With Bt cotton, as it is called, farmers can spray much less, and the poison contained in the plant is delivered only to bugs that actually eat the crop. As any environmentalist can tell you, insecticide is not very nice stuff—especially if you breathe it, which many Third World farmers do as they walk through their fields with backpack sprayers. Transgenic cotton reduced pesticide use by more than two million pounds in the United States from 1996 to 2000, and it has reduced pesticide sprayings in parts of China by more than half. Earlier this year the Environmental Protection Agency approved a genetically modified corn that resists a beetle larva known as rootworm. Because rootworm is American corn's most voracious enemy, this new variety has the potential to reduce annual pesticide use in America by more than 14 million pounds. It could reduce or eliminate the spraying of pesticide on 23 million acres of U.S. land. All of that is the beginning, not the end. Bioengineers are also working, for instance, on crops that tolerate aluminum, another major contaminant of soil, especially in the tropics. Return an acre of farmland to productivity, or double yields on an already productive acre, and, other things being equal, you reduce by an acre the amount of virgin forest or savannah that will be stripped and cultivated. That may be the most important benefit of all. Of the many people I have interviewed in my twenty years as a journalist, Norman Borlaug must be the one who has saved the most lives. Today he is an unprepossessing eighty-nine-year-old man of middling height, with crystal-bright blue eyes and thinning white hair. He still loves to talk about plant breeding, the discipline that won him the 1970 Nobel Peace Prize: Borlaug led efforts to breed the staples of the Green Revolution. (See "Forgotten Benefactor of Humanity," by Gregg Easterbrook, an article on Borlaug in the January 1997 Atlantic.) Yet the renowned plant breeder is quick to mention that he began his career, in the 1930s, in forestry, and that forest conservation has never been far from his thoughts. In the 1960s, while he was working to improve crop yields in India and Pakistan, he made a mental connection. He would create tables detailing acres under cultivation and average yields—and then, in another column, he would estimate how much land had been saved by higher farm productivity. Later, in the 1980s and 1990s, he and others began paying increased attention to what some agricultural economists nowcall the Borlaug hypothesis: that the Green Revolution has saved not only many human lives but, by improving the productivity of existing farmland, also millions of acres of tropical forest and other habitat—and so has saved countless animal lives. From the 1960s through the 1980s, for example, Green Revolution advances saved more than 100 million acres of wild lands in India. More recently, higher yields in rice, coffee, vegetables, and other crops have reduced or in some cases stopped forest-clearing in Honduras, the Philippines, and elsewhere. Dennis Avery estimates that if farming techniques and yields had not improved since 1950, the world would have lost an additional 20 million or so square miles of wildlife habitat, most of it forest. About 16 million square miles of forest exists today. "What I'm saying," Avery said, in response to my puzzled expression, "is that we have saved every square mile of forest on the planet." Habitat destruction remains a serious environmental problem; in some respects it is the most serious. The savannahs and tropical forests of Central and South America, Asia, and Africa by and large make poor farmland, but they are the earth's storehouses of biodiversity, and the forests are the earth's lungs. Since 1972 about 200,000 square miles of Amazon rain forest have been cleared for crops and pasture; from 1966 to 1994 all but three of the Central American countries cleared more forest than they left standing. Mexico is losing more than 4,000 square miles of forest a year to peasant farms; sub-Saharan Africa is losing more than 19,000. That is why the great challenge of the next four or five decades is not to feed an additional three billion people (and their pets) but to do so without converting much of the world's prime habitat into second- or third-rate farmland. Now, most agronomists agree that some substantial yield improvements are still to be had from advances in conventional breeding, fertilizers, herbicides, and other Green Revolution standbys. But it seems pretty clear that biotechnology holds more promise—probably much more. Recall that world food output will need to at least double and possibly triple over the next several decades. Even if production could be increased that much using conventional technology, which is doubtful, the required amounts of pesticide and fertilizer and other polluting chemicals would be immense. If properly developed, disseminated, and used, genetically modified crops might well be the best hope the planet has got. f properly developed, disseminated, and used. That tripartite qualification turns out to be important, and it brings the environmental community squarely, and at the moment rather jarringly, into the picture. Not long ago I went to see David Sandalow in his office at the World Wildlife Fund, in Washington, D.C. Sandalow, the organization's executive vice-president in charge of conservation programs, is a tall, affable, polished, and slightly reticent man in his forties who holds degrees from Yale and the University of Michigan Law School. Some weeks earlier, over lunch, I had mentioned Dennis Avery's claim that genetic modification had great environmental potential. I was surprised when Sandalow told me he agreed. Later, in our interview in his office, I asked him toelaborate. "With biotechnology," he said, "there are no simple answers. Biotechnology has huge potential benefits and huge risks, and we need to address both as we move forward. The huge potential benefits include increased productivity of arable land, which could relieve pressure on forests. They include decreased pesticide usage. But the huge risks include severe ecological disruptions—from gene flow and from enhanced invasiveness, which is a very antiseptic word for some very scary stuff." I asked if he thought that, absent biotechnology, the world could feed everybody over the next forty or fifty years without ploughing down the rain forests. Instead of answering directly he said, "Biotechnology could be part of our arsenal if we can overcome some of the barriers. It will never be a panacea or a magic bullet. But nor should we remove it from our tool kit." Sandalow is unusual. Very few credentialed greens talk the way he does about biotechnology, at least publicly. They would readily agree with him about the huge risks, but they wouldn't be caught dead speaking of huge potential benefits—a point I will come back to. From an ecological point of view, a very great deal depends on other environmentalists' coming to think more the way Sandalow does. Biotech companies are in business to make money. That is fitting and proper. But developing and testing new transgenic crops is expensive and commercially risky, to say nothing of politically controversial. When they decide how to invest their research-and-development money, biotech companies will naturally seek products for which farmers and consumers will pay top dollar. Roundup Ready products, for instance, are well suited to U.S. farming, with its high levels of capital spending on such things as herbicides and automated sprayers. Poor farmers in the developing world, of course, have much less buying power. Creating, say, salt-tolerant cassava suitable for growing on hardscrabble African farms might save habitat as well as lives —but commercial enterprises are not likely to fall over one another in a rush to do it. If earth-friendl