Agricultural Biotechnology

"This page is Intentionally Left Blank"

Agricultural Biotechnology

Hemant Rawat

Oxford Book Company

Jaipur India
I
ISBN: 978-81-89473-23-5

First Published 2008

Oxford Book COlllpany

267, lO-B-Schemc, 0pr 0:arayan ~l\\'as,
Gopalpura By Pas, Road,jalpur-3()2018
Phone: 01-t1-2S9rO::', Fax ()1-I-12::")~:;2~
e-mail: oxfordbook(a;Slfy com
website: ww",:abdpubhshcr.Lom

©Reserved

Typeset by:
Shivangi Computers
267, lO-B-Scheme, Opp l\,ara~'an '\1\\",1"
Gopalpura By Pass Road, Jalpur 3( >:?.f II H

Printed at:
Rajdhani Pnn ters, DelhI

All Rights are Reserved No part of this publication may be reproduced, !'tored
in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electromc.
mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise, without ~hl'
prior written permission of the copyright owner. Responsibility for the filet"
stated, opinions expressed, conclusions reached and plagiarism, if any, in thiS
volume is entirely that of the Author, according to whom the matter ,
encompassed in this book has been originally created/ edited and resemblance
with any such publication may be incidental. The Publisher bears no t:
responsibili ty for them, wha tsoever. I
\
r
\
I'
 Preface

Agricultural Biotechnology is one of the most important

key technologies of the 21 century. It provides great potential
in the area of plant breeding. In this way, plants can be
developed that provide ingredients for healthier nutrition,
grow in unfavourable conditions or form substances that are
otherwise produced by means of a complex chemical process.
Through biotechnology not only the variety is improved, but
yield also improves through growing crops having resistance
to diseases, herbicides and pesticides.
Through understanding basic concepts of agricultural
biotechnology and adopting improved genetically mutated
seed varieties, the grower as well as the consumer is benefited
a great lot. Agricultural Biotechnology" presents all the latest
techniques of plant tissue culture, transformation and
bioengineering at the outset and discusses .in detail various
issues of plant breeding, cloning, disease resistance, and
herbicide and pest resistance.
The book makes elaborate presentation on radio-
immunoassays, enzyme immuno-absorbent assays, genetic
recombination, pharmaceutical products and solar energy that
have immensely impacted the field of biotechnology.
Hemant Rawat
"This page is Intentionally Left Blank"
 Contents

Preface v
l. Introduction 1
2. Plants and the New Regimes 33
3. Agro-Food Studies 59
4. Evolving Policies of Biotechnology 85
5. The Alternative Agriculture 111
6. Modern Science of Agriculture 148
7. Green Revolution 180
8. Agriculture Biotechnology in 21st Century 192
9. Importance of Agriculture Biotechnology 203
10. Future of Agriculture Biotechnology 252
Index 274
 ,I
i
I
"This page is Intentionally Left Blank"

I
 Introduction

BIOTECHNOLOGY AND PLANTS

Biotechnology is being used as a tool to give plants new
traits that benefit agricultural production, the environment,
and human nutrition and health. The purpose of this
publication is to provide basic information about plant
biotechnology and to give examples of its uses. The goal of
plant breeding is to combine desirable traits from different
varieties of plants to produce plants of superior quality. This
approach to improving crop production has been very
successful over the years. ~cn cllrtcl~
propwty 1M
Access 10 ~ GenMic R.....c:es
For example, it would be beneficial
to cross a tomato plant that bears sweeter
fruit with one that exhibits increased
disease resistance. To do this, it takes
many years of crossing and backcrossing
generations of plants to obtain the desired
trait. Along the way, undesirable traits
may be manifested in the plants because
there is no way to select for one trait Fig. Plant breeding
without affecting others. Another limitation of traditional plant
selection is that breeding is restricted to plants that can
sexually mate.
Advances in scientific discovery and labouratory
techniques during the last half of the twentieth century led to
the ability to manipulate the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) of
2 Introduction

organisms, which accelerated the process of plant

improvement through the use of biotechnology.
MODERN PLANT BIOTECHNOLOGY
Plants are made of millions of cells all working together.
Every cell of a plant has a complete "instruction manual" or
genome (pronounced "JEE-nom") that is inherited from the
parents of the plant as a combination of their genomes.
Genes are found within the genome and serve as the
"words" of the instruction manual. When a cell reads a word,
or in scientific terms "expresses a gene," a specific protein is
produced. Proteins give an individual cell, and therefore the
plant, its form and function. Genes (words) are written using
the four-letter alphabet A, C, G, T. The letters are abbreviations
for four chemicals called bases, which together make up DNA.
DNA is universal in nature, meaning that the four chemical
bases of DNA are the same in all living organisms.
Consequently, a gene from one organism can function in any
other organism.
The ability to move genes into o _Thymine
P I!!I Adenine
plants from other organisms, thereby _Guanine
producing new proteins in the plant, CJ Cytosine
O-DeoxyribQs.
has resulted in Significant (sugar)
P-Phosphale
-Hydrogen
achievements in plant biotechnology Bond
that were not possible using
traditional breeding practices.
Clearly, the ultimate solution to
each of these problems is reducing
population growth, a difficult
challenge that is further complicated
Fig. DNA
by social, political, economic and
religious considerations. In the hope that national and
international efforts will help to stabilize world population in
the next few decades, our challenge is to use the power of plant
biotechnology toward the solution of the numerous problems
caused by population growth by increasing productivity, by
reducing crop losses, and by protecting and conserving the
environment.
Introduction 3

Plant biotechnology is not a magic bullet that will solve

all of these problems, yet it is becoming abundantly clear that
it is the best tool that we have and it can, if used wisely and in
a timely fashion, make significant contributions. It is rather
ironic that at a time when international agriculture is under
increasing pressure to meet the food needs of the ever
increasing population, and when plant biotechnology is
beginning to make significant contributions to food
productivity and environmental safety, it has become the
target of well coordinated and sustained attacks by many
environmental and self-appointed watchdog groups,
particularly in Western Europe and in some of the developing
countries. In India, we had faced similar attacks during the
1970' sand 1980' s.
However, after extensive public debate, protest
demonstrations, court challenges and congressional hearings,
a federal regulatory framework was developed that has served
the public and the private interest well. It has allowed the plant
biotechnology industry to grow and introduce its products into
the market place. The Indian consumers and farmers have
accepted and benefited from transgenic products. Transgenic
crops are being grown this year on nearly 100 million acres of
Indian farmland, accounting for 74% of our soybean, 71 % of
our cotton and 32% of our com acreages.
It is fortunate and encouraging that China and India, the
two most populous countries in the world, with increasing
demand for food and worsening environmental problems,
have recognized the importance of plant biotechnology in
agriculture and have established active and successful research
and development programmes in plant biotechnology,
targeting many regional vegetable and fruit crops, in addition
to such staples as wheat, rice, maize, soybean, various pulses,
canola, and cotton. It is not too far-fetched to expect that within -
the next few years these two countries will plant the largest
acreages of transgenic crops in the world.
Argentina and South Africa are two other developing
countries that are increasing their planting of transgenic crops.
4 Introducticm
Indeed, at the present time, nearly 10% of the global acreage
of transgenic crops is planted in the developing countries. Thus
the argument that plant biotechnology is a tool of the
industrialized countries for the exploitation of the developing
world is no longer sustainable. It is our hope that the success
of plant biotechnology in these countries will encourage
similar efforts in other parts of the developing world.
It is true that the first generation of transgenic crops, which
contain genes for resistance to herbicides and insects, did not
provide any direct benefits to the consumer. Nevertheless,
there are numerous indirect benefits, such as the reduced use
of pesticides and herbicides, reduced tillage leading to soil
conservation, reduced use of natural resources such as
petrochemical products and water for the manufacture,
transport and application of agro-chemicals, and reduced
labour costs. By producing more food on the same amount of
land transgenic crops promote conservation and biodiversity
by saving wildlife habitats and precious forests from being
converted into farmland.
Reduced use of pesticides has already shown a marked
decrease in illness and death caused by pesticide poisonings
in China and South Africa (nearly 500 cotton farmers in China
die each year of acute pesticide poisoning). The vital role of
agriculture and food production in human health and
nutrition, in poverty alleviation, and in social and political
stability, is well known. This was recognized as far back as
1970, when Norman Borlaug was awarded the Nobel Peace
Prize for his work that led to the Green Revolution and that
helped to save hundreds of millions of lives in the developing
countries.
Plant biotechnology too can contribute to international
peace and security by increasing food production, producing
safer and healthier foods, protecting our rather finite natural
resources and the environment, and improving human health.
It is, therefore, morally and socially irresponsible and
indefensible to prevent or delay the applications of plant
biotechnology to problems of hunger, health and rotection
of the environment.
In troduction 5

The opponents of plant biotechnology would have us

believe that it is an unnatural and unsafe process that produces
harmful products, and that it is totally different from plant
breeding and selection that account for almost all of our
modern crops. The indisputable fact, however, is that humans
have engineered crops for nearly 10,000 years. Almost all of
our major crops - such as maize, wheat, potato, tomato and
others - are man made. Indeed, none of our modern crops are
capable of surviving in the wild without human care.
The molecular and genetic principles of plant
biotechnology and plant breeding and selection are the same.
Plant biotechnology is no different from breeding and selection
or for that matter from radiation and chemically induced
mutation breeding, except that it is extraordinarily precise and
predictable, and is not restricted by taxonomic boundaries. No
compelling evidence has ever been presented to show that
transgenic crops are innately different the non-transgenic
products of breeding and selection.

t~
oot ~ssue cunu",~ to :~:'::;ted
::'U~fd:~:entiated and grown In

'i
"
lIQuid QJlture

with badena
culture I carrying
'" mature plant attered T -4 plasmid
mature plant ,(herbu:ide-suscePtible ~.

':~~=- ~
embryo
grows I n t o "
:::=~'~i
that have
Incorporated
8 plant ~ • foretgn DNA
~ ,
redifferentiation of
sek:ted cells Into embryos

Fig. Transgenic Crops

In retrospect, however, we must share some of the blame
for the perception that plant biotechnology is different from
plant breeding and selection. During the 1970's and 1980's,
when there was a great deal of euphoria over the production
of somatic hybrids, doubled-haploid breeding lines and
transgenic plants, the plant biotechnology community made
a serious error in strategy and judgment when it distanced
6 Introduction

itself from breeding and selection and established a separate

identity for itself.
It was us who placed the spotlight on the process and not
the product. This has come to haunt us now as it has attracted
undue and undeserved attention and opposition. It was also
an error not to engage early in the debate on transgenic plants, .
and to permit the opponents of plant biotechnology to dictate
the agenda.
As responsible members of the world community, and as
scientists, we cannot, and should not, be silent observers of
this debate. We must play an active role in the debate on plant
biotechnology and make an informed and professional
contribution to the public dialogue, emphasizing the many
benefits of transgenic crops to human health and the
environment. The opposition to transgenic foods in Europe and
elsewhere is based exclusively on political and ideological
differences rather than on any credible scientific evidence. On
two rare occasions an attempt was made to present scientific
arguments against the use of transgenic crops. These involved
the allegedly harmful effect of pollen from Bt maize plants on
the larvae of the Monarch butterfly, and the alleged transgene
contamination of maize in Mexico.
More detailed investigations by several research groups
have since refuted these claims and showed them to be of
dubious scientific value. Indeed, in the Mexican maize story,
the journal Nature, in an unprecedented action in its more than
100 year history, was forced to disown the paper published in
its own pages.
The consumer, tl}e farmer and the biotechnology industry
have been ill served by the sustained campaign of
misinformation and unsubstantiated claims of dangers to
public health and the environment by transgenic crops and
their products. After more than ten years and thousands of
field trials in many countries, after nearly a decade of
commercial plantings on hundreds of millions of acres, and
after transgenic food products having being used by hundreds
Introduction 7

of millions of humans and farm animals, there is not a single

documented instance of illness reported in any human or
animal, or of ecological or environmental damage. What then
is the basis and rationale for the many restrictions still placed
on the field planting and human use of transgenic foods?
The enviable and unblemished record of transgenic crops
and their products is the strongest evidence for their safety
and wholesomeness. The opponents of plant biotechnology
should compare this record with that of the many drugs
approved for human use in the United States. In an exhaustive
study published recently in the Journal of the Indian Medical
Association, it was reported that 20% of the 548 drugs
approved for human use during the past 25 years were later
found to have serious or life-threatening side effects. Seven of
the drugs possibly contributed to 1002 deaths, and 16 were
forced to be withdrawn from the market. In comparison, not
a single transgenic food product has ever been shown to have
any harmful effects, and none has been withdrawn because of
adverse reactions in humans or animals.
The plant biotechnology community has already done
more for the environment and the developing countries than
the self-proclaimed environmental groups and the so-called
friends of the poor. Indeed, the opponents of plant
biotechItology have done much harm to their professed cause
by slowing down and/or preventing the planting and
utilization of transgenic crops around the world. The
contributions of the plant biotechnology community, on the
other hand, are socially and morally responsible and of
considerable humanitarian value. We have every reason to be
proud of these contributions.
The rules and regulations adopted for transgenic crops
in the 1980's were both prudent and necessary. At that time
there were many unknowns about transgenic crops and about
their possible effect on humans and the environment. There
was a need to establish a database to satisfy the concerns of
the general public as well as the scientific community. Three
federal agencies, the United States Department of Agriculture,
8 Introduction

the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug

Administration, were given oversight responsibilities for
transgenic crops.
The resulting open and transparent system established in
the United States has worked well and has served its purpose.
It has done much to gain the confidence and support of the
American public for plant biotechnology and its products. In
light of the demonstrated safety of transgenic crops to humans,
animals and the environment, the question must be asked
whether it is any more necessary, or even advisable, to
continue the expensive, time consuming and burdensome
requirements for the public release of transgenic crops and
their products (field trials of transgenic crops are 10-20 times
more expensive than of similar plants developed by
conventional means).
I propose that based on our considerable experience and
on the vast amount of information gathered about the safety
of transgenic crops over the past decade, it is time for our
regulatory agencies to consider whether some or all of the
current regulatory requirements can be gradually relaxed and
ultimately suspended, except in those rare instances where
there is the clear likelihood of risk to human health and the
environment. Genuine concerns about gene flow and
development of resistance to antibiotics, and pests or
pathogens, can be met adequately with currently available and
emerging technologies.
The process of deregulation of transgenic crops,
controversial and difficult as it may be, needs to begin now
because the continuation of the present rules and regulations
is entirely unnecessary, unjustified and counterproductive. In
order to be effective and acceptable, the process should be open
to all points of view. The decisions, however, must be based
on science and facts and not on political or ideological
considerations. Nearly two decades ago, the United States
played a leading and useful role in establishing the rules and
regulations for the field planting, evaluation and human use
of transgenic crops. It should now playa similar role in having
these restrictions relaxed and removed.
Introduction 9

It is clear that the challenges we face in the 21st century

are greater than those we faced in the last century. Of all the
available technologies, plant biotechnology offers the best hope
for producing more and better food, fiber and pharmaceuticals,
and for protecting, preserving and improving the environment
for the benefit of humankind. My owrrronfidence in plant
biotechnology comes from knowing that the science behind it
is sound, that it is well tested and proven, that it benefits the
consumer, the farmer and the industry, and that it protects
and conserves the environment.
It is for these reasons that I am convinced that plant
biotechnology will within the next two decades become an
integral part of the international agricultural system. With the
United States, China, and lately India, three of the most
populous countries in the world serving as examples, we have
taken the first steps toward achieving that objective.
Introducing Genes into Plants
To genetically modify a plant, the thousands of bases of
DNA comprising an individual gen..: are transferred into an
individual plant cell where the new gene becomes a permanent
part of the cell's genome. This process makes the resulting
plant "transgenic." Transfer of DNA into plant cells is done
using various "transformation" techniques that are the result
of discoveries in basic science.
One method to transfer DNA into plants takes advantage
of a system found in nature. The bacterium that causes" crown
gall tumors" injects its DNA into a plan~ genome, forcing the
plant to create a suitable environment for the bacterium to live.
After discovering this process, scientists were able to "disarm"
the bacterium, put .new genes into it, and use the bacterium to
harmlessly insert the desired genes into the plant genome.
In the "biolistic" or "gene gun" method, microscopic gold
beads are coated with the gene of interest and shot into the
plant cell with a burst of helium. Once inside the cell, thE' gene
comes off the bead and integrates into the cell's genome.
 10 Introduction

It was also discovered that plant cells could be

"electroporated" or mixed with a gene and "shocked" with a
pulse of electricity, causing holes to form in the cell through
which the DNA could flow. The cell is subsequently able to
repair the holes and the gene becomes a part of the plant
genome.
When using these methods, new genes are successfully
introduced into only a small percentage of the cells, so
scientists must be able to "pick out" or "select" the transformed
cells before proceeding. This is often done by concurrently
introducing an additional gene into the cell that will make it
resistant to an antibiotic.
A cell that survives antibiotic treatment will most likely
have received the gene of interest as well; that cell is
. subsequently used to propagate the new plant. There is a
concern that the gene giving antibiotic resistance could
naturally be transferred to bacteria once the transgenic plant
is in the wild, making bacteria resistant to antibiotics that are
used to fight human infection. Scientists are currently devising
ways to select for tnmsformed cells that will alleviate this issue.
Timeline of Plant Biotechnology
1700s - Naturalists identify hybrid plants
1R60s - Austrian botanist and monk Gregor Mendel
studies pea plants and recognizes that specific traits are passed
from parents to offspring - these traits are eventually
discovered to be genes
1900 - European botanists begin to improve plant
productivity using genetic theories based on Mendel's work
1922 - Farmers purchase hybrid seed corn created by
crossbreeding two corn varieties
1953 - Structure of DNA is discovered - marking the
beginning of modern genetic research
1970s - Hybrid seeds are introduced to developing
countries to increase food supplies
Introduction 11

1973 - Genetic engineering is used to precisely

manipulate bacterial DNA
1983 - First GM plant is created; a tobacco plant resistant
to an antibiotic
1985 - GM plants resistant to viruses, bacteria, and
insects are f:eld tested
1986 . EPA approves the release of th3e first GM crop
(herbicide resistant tobacco)
1990 - First successful field trial of GM cotton (herbicide
resistant)
1992 - FDA decides GM foods will be regulated as
conventional foods
1994 - FlavrSavr Tomato becomes the first GM food to
be approved for sale
1995 - Herbicide resistant canola, corn,
2000 - Cotton, soybeans, sugar beet as well as insect or
virus resistant corn, cotton, papaya, potato, squash, tomato
approved in the U.s.
2001 - "Golden rice" which may help prevents millions
of cases of blindness and death caused by Vitamin A and iron
deficiencies undergoes continued testing
As a result of intensive studies,
OH
the present inventors have found that
when a shoot having a growing point HO
is used as a tissue for gene o
introduction and a desired gene is
HO 'Q:J'~ 0 ....• ~ fi OH
introduced into a base part of the
shoot, the desired gene is efficiently h " ' OH OH
OH
introduced into a cell of the base part '---_ _ _ _ _ _ _--'
and furthermore, the base part of the Fig. Polyphenols
shoot to which the desired gene has been thlls introduced has
high ability to redifferentiate a desired sene-introduced
adventitious bud. Thus, the present invention h as been
accomplished.
12 Introduction

The present invention can be applied to any plants

regardless of their species. However, effects of the present
invention can be particularly obtained in plants in which gene
introduction is considered to be difficult, such as trees and the
like. In the present invention, the shoot to be used as the tissue
for gene introduction means an elongated normal bud or
adventitious bud.
Also, in order to further improve the transformation
efficiency, it is preferable to use, as the tissue for gene
introduction, a tissue or part having high redifferentiation
potency such as a young tissue having a low content of
polyphenols which become the cause of browning of tissues.
From this point of view, a hypocotyl obtained by germinating
a seed and an elongated apical bud or lateral bud of a plant
cultured in a culture vessel are selected in the present invention
as suitable tissues for gene introduction.

Epicotyl -""fA~_]\

Cotyledon -,r-_ _ Seed coat

Bean seed (dicot)

Fig. Hypocotyle
However, the shoot must have at least one end having a
growing point and a base part having no growing point. For
example, when a hypocotyl is used as the tissue for gene
introduction of the present invention, the shoot can be obtained
by cutting off a root and a part having a base of root from a
hypocotyl after germination of a seed while leaving the apical
bud and apical bud primordium as they are.
In this case, the one end having a growing point means a
shoot end having an apical bud and the like, and the base part
having no growing point means a part having the end face
formed by cutting off a root and the like.
Introduction 13

Also, when an elongated apical bud or lateral bud of a

plant is used as the tissue for gene introduction of the present
invention, it can be obtained by simply cutting out from the
plant. In this case, the one end having a growing point means
a shoot end having an apical bud and the like similar to the
case of the hypocotyl, and the base part having no growing
point means a part having the face cut out from the plant. That
is, the desired gene is preferably introduced into the end face
of the base part of the shoot generated when a shoot is
prepared as the tissue for gene introduction.
In the present invention, an adventitious bud is
differentiated by introducing a desired gene into the base part
having no growing point, while keeping the growing point of
at least one end. As the desired gene, various genes such as a
gene which can provide an industrially excellent character and
a gene which cannot always provide an industrially excellent
character but is necessary in studying gene expression
mechanism can be selected and us~d.
A desired gene can be
introduced into the base part of the
shoot indirectly via Gemini virus,
Brome mosaic virus, Agrobacterium
tumefaciens (hereinafter referred to
as "A. tumefaciens"), Agrobacterium
rhizogenes and the like viruses and
Fig. Agrobacterium
bacteria, by insHting the desired
gene into an appropriate vector, or directly by the particle gun
method and the like.
For example, in a gene introduction method using
Agrobacterium, an appropriate vector into which a desired
gene has been inserted is introduced into Agrobacterium in
advance, and the desired gene is introduced into a tissue for
gene introduction by infection with the Agrobacterium. The
. infection of the Agrobacterium is carried out, for example, by
soaking the tissue for gene introduction in a solution in which
the Agrobacterium is suspended.
14 Introduction

Also, since the infection of the Agrobacterium occurs in a

wound of the plant tissue, when a shoot in which a wound is
formed on its base part is soaked in an Agrobacterium
suspension, the wound is infected with the Agrobacterium and
the desired gene is introduced into the base part of the shoot.
When a hypocotyl is used as the tissue for gene
introduction by cutting off roots and the like or elongated
apical bud or the like is used by cutting out it from a plant,
the infection occurs at the end face (cut surface) of the base
part of the shoot formed by the cutting. That is, in these cases,
the desired gene is introduced into the base part of the shoot
by merely soaking the tissue for gene introduction simply in
the Agrobacterium suspension.
Furthermore, a plant tissue is surely infected with the
Agrobacterium when a tissue for gene introduction is soaked
in the cell suspension and then co-cultured with the
Agrobacterium for several days by introducing the tissue on
a solid medium. As the coculturing medium, a well known
basal medium such as MS or WPM, or a modified composition
thereof to suit for the tissue for gene introduction to be infected
with the Agrobacterium, can be used by supplementing it with
a carbon source and a medium solidifying agent and, if
necessary, with plant hormones such as auxins, cytokinins and
the like appropriately.
In this case, generally, 10 to 30 gil sucrose is used as the
carbon source; 5 to 10 gil agar or 1 to 4 gil gelan gum is used
as the medium solidifying agent; 0.01 to 5.0 mg/l zeatin,
benzyladenine or the like is used as the cytokinins; and 0.01
to 2.0 mg/l naphthaleneacetic acid (NAA), indolebutyric acid
(IBA). indoleacetic acid or the like is used as the auxins. Also,
infectivity of the Agrobacterium is increased in some cases by
adding 10 to 200 mgll acetosyringon to the above coculturing
medium.
On the other hand, when a desired gene is introduQed by
a particle gun, the above coculturing medium can be used as
the medium for gene introduction treatment. In this case, a
tissue for gene introduction is placed on the medium with its
Introduction 15

position into which the desired gene is to be introduced,

namely the base part of the shoot, upside, and the gene
introduction is carried out by manipulating the particle gun
in the usual way.
In general, when a desired gene is introduced into a tissue
for gene introduction, a selectable marker gene is introduced
together with the desired gene, and expression of the selectable
marker gene is used as an index of the introduction of the
desired gene. In the method of the present invention, the
transformation efficiency can be further improved by using a
cytokinin-related gene as the selectable marker gene.
Herein, the cytokinin-related gene is a gene which acts in
a direction of increasing the influence of cytokinin in the
introduced plant cells and thereby increases adventitious bud
differentiation ability of the cells. Examples of the gene include
the ipt gene as an A. tumefaciens-derived cytokinin synthesis
gene, the Escherichia coli-derived .beta.-glucu~onidase gene
as a gene which activates inactive cytokinin, the Arabidopsis
thaliana-derived CKll gene which is considered to be a
cytokinin receptor gene and the like. Particularly, the ipt gene
used in Examples of the present specification is a gene which
is most well known and whose function has been revealed.
Isoprenoid cytol<inins-nucleotides

J
HN

t):r~FOH
~~
cis-zeatub riboside phosphate

H~~
~
'w~r-~ N¢r:J~r-~
~~ ~~
Isopentenyfadenosine phosphate dlhydrozeatin riboside phosphate

Fig. Isoprenoid cytokinins

Also, the desired gene, the cytokinin-related gene and
other nucleotide sequences and genes which are optionally
16 Introduction

introduced may be introduced by inserting them into the same

v.'ctor or be introduced by inserting them into different vectors
with no problems, so long as they are incorporated into the
same cells of the tissue for gene introduction. However, when
the genes and the like are incorporated into the same vector,
it is necessary to arrange them such that the presence of one
side of genes and the like does not inhibit expression of the
other side of genes and the like. .
An adventitious bud can be differentiated from a tissue
after the gene introduction by culturing the tissue using an
appropriate medium. A composition of the medium suitable
for the adventitious bud differentiation varies depending on
each plant, but in the case of the genus Eucalyptus, the MS
medium in which the concentration ratio of ammonia nitrogen
and nitrate nitrogen is changed to 1:3 (hereinafter simply
referred to as "modified MS medium") can be used as the
medium for adventitious bud differentiation (the shoot
regeneration medium) after diluting it to 1 to 4 folds and
supplementing it with 10 to 30 gil sucrose, 1 to 4 gil gelan gum
or 5 to 10 gil agar, and 0.2 to 5.0 mgll zeatin and 0.01 to 1.0
mg/l NAA as plant hormones.
However, when a cytokinin-related gene is used as the
selectable marker gene, the plant hormones may not be added
(may be hormone-free) or auxin alone may be added. Also,
when a gene is introduced by the above Agrobacterium
method, antibiotics such as carbenicillin, ticarcillin, cefotaxime
and the like are added to the medium in an amount of 10 to
10,000 mg/l to inhibit the Agrobacterium growth. It is
preferable that the temperature is from 15 to 30.degree. C. and
the light intensity is from 0 to 200 .mu.mo1!m.sup.2/s. Since
the growing point of a shoot preserved at the time of the gene
introduction is not particularly required in the subsequent
steps, it can be cut off at an appropriate stage.
The tissue cultured using the shoot regeneration medium
differentiation differentiates the adventitious bud generally
several weeks after commencement of the culturing. In this
case, a callus may grow slightly prior to the adventitious bud
Introduction 17

differentiation. The desired gene is introduced into the thus

differentiated adventitious bud at higher frequency than the
differentiated adventitious bud differentiated by introducing
the gene into a segment based on the conventional method.
However, when the gene introduction is carried out using
a cytokinin-related gene as a selectable marker gene, the
adventitious bud into which the desired gene has been
introduced may sometimes show morphological abnormality
such as multiple bud or the like due to the induction of
morphological abnormality by the gene. Even in that case,
however, an adventitious bud having normal morphology can
finally be obtained by removing influence of the cytokinin-
related gene when the cytokinin-related gene is used in
combination with a DNA factor having leaving ability.
A plantlet into which the desired gene has been
introduced can be regenerated by cutting out the thus obtained
adventitious bud and transplanting it on a rooting medium
containing, for example, 0 to 1.0 mg/ml auxins, for rooting.
The present invention is based on the knowledge that a desired
gene is efficiently introduced into cells of a base part of a shoot
having no growing point when the base part is subjected to a
gene introduction treatment while keeping a growing point
on at least one end of the shoot, and that the base part of the
shoot into which the desired gene has been introduced in this
manner has higher ability to redifferentiate an adventitious
bud into which the desired gene has been introduced, in
comparison with the case of introducing the desired gene into
the base of the shoot from which growing point has been
removed.
The reason for this is not necessarily clear. However, it is
considered that the growing point which is present in at least
one end of the same shoot is contributing to this in some forms.
Since plant tissues and cells are always damaged at a certain
degree in carrying out gene introduction and the recovering
strength from this damage is reinforced by the presence of a
growing point, it seems that active growth ability is also
maintained in the gene-introduced cells, and thereby acts
advantageously on the introduction of the desired gene, and/
18 Introduction
or redifferentiation of an adventitious bud into which the
desired gene has been introduced.
In addition, the base part of the shoot having no growing
point is generally considered to be a part suitable for rooting.
Accordingly, it is considered that when a gene is introduced
into the part using a cytokinin-related gene as the selectable
marker gene, difference in the ability differentiating an
adventitious bud becomes sharply large between the gene-
introduced cells and not-introduced cells and, as a result, the
cells into which the desired gene has been introduced
selectively differentiate adventitious buds. Thus, the use of
such a gene as the selectable marker gene more
advantageously results in the differentiation of the
adventitious bud into which the desired gene has been
introduced.
According to the present invention, introduction efficiency
of a desired gene can be improved by the method for
introducing a gene into a plant. Furthermore, in the present
invention, an adventitious bud into which a desired gene has
been introduced are differentiated efficiently from a tissue
introduced with the desired gene. Thus, according to the
present invention, introduction efficiency of the desired gene
into an adventitious bud is particularly improved.
The present invention can be applied to many plants, and
the effect of the present invention has a great meaning
particularly for a plant in which gene- introduction has been
considered to be difficult. That is, according to the present
invention, gene introduction into industrially important tree
species can be carried out and the present invention opens a
way for preparing a transform ant which can be practically
valued. The present invention is explained below based on
Examples in details; however, the present invention is not
limited thereto.
Example 1
Seeds of Eucalyptus camaldulensis (hereinafter referred
to as "E. camaldulensis") were sterilized by soaking them in
70% ethanol for 1 minute and further soaking in 2% aqueous
Introduction 19
sodium hypochlorite solution for about 2 hours with stirring,
washed thoroughly with sterile water and inoculated onto a
germination medium, preserved for 2 days or more in a
refrigerator of 4.degree. C. for accelerating germination, and
then cultured at 25.degree. C. under whole light condition of
40 .mu.mol/m.sup.2/s in light intensity to effect their
germination. In this case, a 2-fold diluted modified MS
medium (hereinafter referred to as camaldulensis basal
1/

medium") was supplemented with 10 gil sucrose and 8 gil agar

and used as the germination medium.
One to two weeks after the inoculation of seeds onto the
germination medium, roots and seed leaves were cut off from
the thus germinated seedlings to collect each hypocotyl
keeping back apical bud alone on its one end, and a pBI121
vector was introduced into its base part having no growing
point. NPTII indicates a kanamycin-resistant gene, and 355-
GUS-T indicates a GUS gene to which a 35S promoter and a
terminator are connected at the 5' side and at the 3' side,
respectively.
That is, the pBI121 vector was introduced into A.
tumefaciens EHA105 in advance by electroporation (using
GENE PULSER II manufactured by Bio-Rad), followed by
culturing overnight in YEB liquid medium and diluted to
OD.sub.630=0.5 with the camaldulensis basal medium to
prepare a cell suspension, and then the hypocotyl collected in
the above manner was soaked in the cell suspension.
Next, after discarding excess cell suspension, the
hypocotyl was cocultured with the Agrobacterium at
25.degree. C. for 2 days in the dark using the shoot
regeneration medium supplemented with 40 mg/l
acetosyringon, to thereby infect it with the pBI121 vector-
introduced Agrobacterium. In this case, the camaldulensis
basal medium was supplemented with 2.0 mgll zeatin, 0.3 mgl
I NAA, 10 gil sucrose and 8 gil agar and used as the shoot
regeneration medium.
The pBI121 vector used herein is a vector prepared by
inserting the GUS gene as a model of the desired ·gene and a
20 Introduction

kanamycin-resistant gene (NPTII gene) as the selectable marker

gene. Thus, the cells are introduced with the GUS gene and
kanamycin-resistant gene by the introduction of the pBI121
vector, and show GUS activity and kanamycin resistance.
The hypocotyl after co culturing was transplanted onto the
shoot regeneration medium further supplemented with 500
mgll ticarcillin and 50 mgll kanamycin for the selection of
pBI121 vector-introduced cells and cultured at 25.degree. C.
under whole light conditions of 40 .mu.mol/m.sup.2/s in light
intensity by sub-culturing it using the same medium
composition at an interval of 2 weeks, and 3 months after the
Agrobacterium infection, the thus differentiated and elongated
adventitious bud was rooted using a rooting medium.
As the rooting medium, the Eucalyptus basal medium was
used after supplementing it with 0.05 mg/l IBA, 500 mg/l
ticarcillin, 150 mgll kanamycin, 10 gil sucrose and 2.5 gil gelan
gum. When the experimentation was repeated three times on
50 hypocotyls, differentiation of adventitious buds was started
to be observed 6 weeks after the Agrobacterium infection in
each case, and finally, rooting from buds originated from 6 of
the 150 hypocotyls (hereinafter referred to as "buds of 6 lines")
was observed after 4 months.
When a GUS activity test was carried out on the buds in
accordance with the method of Jefferson et al., its expression
was confirmed in buds of 5 lines. That is, the transformation
efficiency in this case was {fraction (6/150)}.times.l00=4.0%
based on the kanamycin resistance and {fraction (5/
150)}.times.l00=3.3% based on the GUS activity.
Comparative Example 1
Introduction of the GUS gene and kanamycin-resistant
gene and subsequent regeneration of plants were carried out
in the same manner as in Example 1, except that those which
were prepared by cutting off roots, cotyledons and apical buds
from the germinated seedlings of E. camaldulensis seeds were
used as the hypocotyls for gene introduction.
As a result of the test on 320 hypocotyls, rooting was
observed finally in buds of 8 lines, and the GUS activity was
Introduction 21

observed in buds of 6 lines among them. That is, the

transformation efficiency in this case was {fraction (8/
320)}.times.l00=2.5% based on the kanamycin resistance and
{fraction (6/320)}.times.l00=1.9% based on the GUS activity.
Examp/e2
Instead of the kanamycin-resistant gene of pBI121 vector
used in Example 1, a pIPTlO vector having A. tumefaciens
P022-derived ipt gene was introduced as the selectable marker
gene into the hypocotyl base of E. camaldulensis prepared by
cutting off roots and seed leaves and keeping only the apical
bud on its one end, and adventitious bud was differentiated
in the same manner as in Example 1. iptP-ipt-T indicates the
ipt gene to which the promoter of the ipt gene itself and a
terminator are connected at the 5' side and at the 3' side,
respectively, and the others.
In this case, however, the hypocotyl was precultured for
1 day using the shoot regeneration medium prior to infection
with Agrobacterium. Also, plant hormone and kanamycin
were not added to the medium for adventitious bud
differentiation after the Agrobacterium infection. Apical buds
of hypocotyls were cut off after 10 weeks from the
Agrobacterium infection.
When tests were carried out using 40 hypocotyls, growth
of some calli was observed prior to the differentiation of
adventitious buds in this case. Accordingly, the GUS activity
test was carried out on the adventitious buds differentiated
from calli and also on the calli themselves, 3 months after the
Agrobacterium infection.
As a result, the GUS activity was found in calli derived
from 20 hypocotyls (hereinafter referred to as "calli of 20
lines"), 6 lines among the calli of 20 lines differentiated
adventitious buds, and adventitious buds of 4 lines among
them showed the GUS activity. That is, on the GUS activity
basis, the transformation efficiency into calli was {fraction (20/
40)}.times.l00=SO.0%, and the transformation efficiency into
adventitious buds was {fraction (4/40)}.times.l00=10.0%.
22 Introduction
Comparative Example 2
Adventitious buds were differentiated by introducing the
GUS gene and the ipt gene using the pIPTlO vector in the same
manner as in Example 2, except that those in which roots,
cotyledons and apical buds were cut oft" from germinated
seedlings of E. camaldulensis seeds were used as the
hypocotyls for gene introduction.
When tests were carried out using 98 hypocotyls, growth
of some calli was observed prior to the differentiation of
adventitious buds in this case, too. As a result of the GUS
activity test 3 months after the Agrobacterium infection, the
GUS activity was found in calli of 40 lines, and 5 lines among
the calli of 40 lines differentiated adventitious buds. However,
the GUS activity was not able to be found in any of the
adventitious buds. That is, on the GUS activity basis, the
transformation efficiency into calli was {fraction (40/
98)}.times.l00=40.8%, and the transformation efficiency into
adventitious buds was {fraction (0/98)}.times.l00=0.0%.
Example 3
Seeds of Eucalyptus globulus .-------::NH:-:------.
(hereinafter referred to as "E. H O n. 0OH
globulus") were sterilized by soaking
them in 70% ethanol for 1 minute and 0 0

:8
further soaking in 2% aqueous sodium HOVNH.
hypochlorite solution for about 4
hours with stirring, washed HO 0

thoroughly with sterile water and NH.

HO 0
inoculated onto a germination
medium, preserved for 2 days or more HO
in a refrigerator of 4.degree. C. for H,N
accelerating germination, and then L - - -F-i-g-.K-a-n-a-m-y-o-·n-....
cultured at 25.degree. C. under whole
light conditions of 40 .mu.mol/m.sup.2/s in light intensity for
the germination. In this case, the MS medium was
Introduction 23

supplemented with O.S mgll zeatin, 20 gil sucrose and 9 gil

agar and used as the germination medium.
One to two weeks after the inoculation of seeds onto the
germination medium, roots and cotyledons were cut off from
the thus germinated seedlings to obtain the hypocotyls each
keeping apical bud alone on its one end, and the GUS gene
was introduced into its base part having no growing point,
together with the kanamycin-resistant gene as a selectable
marker gene.
That is, the hypocotyl was soaked in a'pBI121 vector -
introduced Agrobacterium cell suspension prepared in the
same manner as in Example 1, and after discarding excess cell
suspension, cocultured with the Agrobacterium at 25.degree.
C. for 3 days in the dark using a medium for adventitious bud
differentiation supplemented with 40 mgll acetosyringon, to
thereby infect it with the pBI121 vector-introduced
Agro1?acterium.
In this case, the concentration of the nitrogen source alone
in the modified MS medium was changed to 1/2, and the
resulting medium was supplemented with 1.0 mgll zeatin, O.OS
mgll NAA, 20 gil sucrose and 9 gil agar an.d used as the
medium for adventitious bud differentiation.
The hypocotyl after coculturing was transplanted onto the
medium for adventitious bud differentiation further
supplemented with SOO mg/l ticarcillin and 100 mgll
kanamycin for the selection of pBI121 vector-introduced cells
and cultured at 2S.degree. C. under whole light conditions of
about 40 .mu.mol/m.sup.2/s in light intensity by sub-culturing
it using the same medium composition at an interval of 2
weeks, to thereby differentiate adventitious buds. In this case,
the apical bud of hypocotyl was cut off after 1 month of the
Agrobacterium infection.
When tests were carried out on 182 hypocotyls, growth
of some calli was observed prior to the differentiation of
adventitious buds in this case, too. Accordingly, the GUS
activity test was carried out on the adventitious buds
24 Introduction

differentiated from calli and also on the calli themselves, 3

months after the Agrobacterium infection.
As a result, the GUS activity was found in calli of 40 lines,
12 lines among the calli of 40 lines differentiated adventitious
buds, and adventitious buds of 6 lines among them showed
the GUS activity. That is, on the GUS activity basis, the
transformation efficiency into calli was {fraction (40/
182)}.times.lOO=22.0%, and the transformation efficiency into
adventitious buds was {fraction (6/182)}.times.lOO=3.3%.
Comparative Example 3
Introduction of the GUS gene and kanamycin-resistant
gene and subsequent regeneration of plants were carried out
in the same manner as in Example 3, except that those which
were prepared by cutting off roots, seed leaves and apical buds
from the germinated seedlings of E. globulus seeds were used
as the hypocotyls for gene introduction.
When tests were carried out on 220 hypocotyls, growth
of some calli was observed prior to the differentiation of
adventitious buds in this case, too. As a result of the GUS
activity test carried out 3 months after the Agrobacterium
infection, the GUS activity was found in calli of 9 lines, 2 lines
among the calli of 9 lines differentiated adventitious buds, and
the adventitious bud of 1 line among them showed the GUS
activity. That is, on the GUS activity basis, the transformation
efficiency into calli was {fraction (9/220)}.times.l00=4.1%, and
the transformation efficiency into adventitious buds was
{fraction (1I220)}.times.lOO=0.5%.
Examp/e4
The pIPTlO vector was introduced into the hypocotyl base
of E. globulus prepared by cutting off roots and seed leaves
and keeping only the apical bud on its ont: end, and
adventitious bud was differentiated in the same manner as in
Example 3. In this case, however, plant hormone and
kanamycin were not added to the medium for adventitious
bud differentiation.
Introduction 25

As a result of tests on 120 hypocotyls, adventitious buds

were differentiated from 22 hypocotyls until 4 months after
their infection with Agrobacterium, and the GUS activity was
found in the adventitious buds of 8 lines among them. That
is, the transformation efficiency into adventitious buds in this
case was {fraction (8/120)}.times.100=6.7% based on the GUS
activity.
Comparative Example 4
Adventitious buds were differentiated by introducing the
GUS gene and the ipt gene using the pIPTI0 vector in the same
manner as in Example 4, except that those which were
prepared by cutting off roots, seed leaves and apical buds from
the germinated seedlings of E. globulus seeds were used as
the hypocotyls for gene introduction.
As a result of tests on 180 hypocotyls, adventitious buds
were differentiated from 18 hypocotyls until 4 months after
the infection with Agrobacterium, and the GUS activity was
found in the adventitious buds of 6 lines among them. That
is, the transformation efficiency into adventitious buds in this
case was {fraction (6/180)}.times.100=3.3% based on the GUS
activity.
'ExampleS
Each stem of a hybrid aspen (Populus
sieboldii.times.Populus grandidentata) Y-63 growing in vitro
was cut out keeping a node, inoculated onto a germination
medium and cultured at 25.degree. C. under a whole light
condition of about 40 .mu.mo1!m.sup.2/s in light intensity, and
the normal bud grown from the node was allowed to elongate
to a length of about 1 em. In this case, the modified MS medium
was supplemented with 0.5 mgll zeatin, 20 gil sucrose and 9
gil agar and used as the germination medium.
Next, the normal bud was cut out from around its base
with the stem to obtain a short shoot having an apical bud on
its tip, and the GUS gene was introduced into the base part of
the shoot together with the ipt gene as a selectable marker
gene. That is, the cutting faee of the base part of the shoot,
26 Introduction

which was formed when the normal bud was cut out from the
stem, was soaked in a 2-fold diluted suspension of the pIPTI0
vector -introduced Agrobacterium prepared in the same
manner as in Example I, and after discarding excess cell
suspension, the shoot was inoculated into a medium for
adventitious bud differentiation supplemented with 40 mg/l
acetosyringon and cocultured with the Agrobacterium at
25.degree. C. for 2 days in the dark, to thereby infect it with
the pIPTlO vector-introduced Agrobacterium. In this case, the
modified MS medium further supplemented with 20 gil
sucrose and 9 gil agar was used as the medium for adventitious
bud differentiation.
The shoot after the coculturing was transplanted onto the
medium for adventitious bud differentiation further
supplemented with 500 mg/l carbenicillin and cultured at
25.degree. C. under whole light conditions of about 40
.mu.mollm.sup.2/s in light intensity by subculturing it using
the same medium composition at an interval of 10 days, to
thereby differentiating adventitious buds. In this case, the
apical bud of the shoot tip was cut off after 1 month of the
Agrobacterium infection.
As a result of the test on 30 shoots, adventitious buds were
differentiated from 25 shoots until 40 days after the infection
with Agrobacterium, and the GUS activity was found in the
adventitious buds of 8 lines among them. That is, the
transformation efficiency into adventitious buds in this case
was {fraction (8/30)}.times.l00=26.7% based on the GUS
activity.
Comparative Example 5
Adventitious buds were differentiated by introducing the
GUS gene and the ipt gene in the same-manner as in Example
5, except that a shoot having a length of about 5 mm prepared
by cutting off the apical bud of its tip part was used as the
segment for gene introduction use.
As a result of the test on 43 segments, adventitious buds
were differentiated from 25 segments until 40 days after their
Introduction 27

infection with Agrobacterium, and the GUS activity was found

in the adventitious buds of 4 lines among them. That is, the
transformation efficiency into adventitious buds in this case
was {fraction (4/43)}.times.100=9.3% based on the GUS activity.
Desired. gene GUS gene GUS gene Selectable marker gene
ipt gene kanamycin-resistant gene Transformation efficiency
(GUS activity basis) Callus 50.0% 40.8% 22.0% 4.1 %
Adventitious bud 10.0% 0.0% 3.3% 0.5% Compo Compo Ex. Ex.
4 Ex. 4 Ex. 5 5 Plant E. camaldulensis hybrid aspen Desired
gene GUS gene GUS gene Selectable marker gene ipt gene ipt
gene Transformation efficiency (GUS activity basis) Callus -
- - - Adventitious bud 6.7% 3.3% 26.7% 9.3%
Also, the GUS gene-introduced calli in Examples 2 and 3
showed higher probability to differentiate GUS gene-
introduced adventitious buds than those in Comparative
Examples 2 and 3. Furthermore, the probability in Example 2
is {fraction (4/20)}.times.100=20.0% because GUS gene-
introduced adventitious buds were differentiated from 4 lines
among 20 lines of the GUS -gene-introduced calli, the
probability in Comparative Example 2 is {fraction (0/
40)}.times.100=0% because 40 lines of GUS gene-introduced
calli were obtained but all of them did not differentiate GUS
gene-introduced adventitious bud, the probability in Example
3 is {fraction (6/40)).times.100=15.0% because GUS gene-
introduced adventitiou& buds were differentiated from 6 lines
among 40 lines of the GUS gene-introduced calli, and the
probability in Comparative Example 3 is {fraction (1/
9)}.times.100=11.1% because a GUS gene-introduced
adventitious bud was differentiated from 11ine among 9 lines
of the GUS gene-introduced calli.
As the reason for this, it is considered that the GUS gene-
introduced calli in Examples 2 and 3 actively differentiated
adventitious buds as a whole in comparison with the GUS
gene-introduced calli in Comparative Examples 2 and 3. The
adventitious bud differentiation ratio from the GUS gene-
introduced calli supports the reason.
28 Introduction

That is, the adventitious bud differentiation ratio in these

cases was {fraction (6/20)}.times.l00=30% in Example 2,
{fraction (5/40)}.times.l00=12.5% in Comparative Example 2,
{fraction (12/40)}.times.l00=30% in Example 3 and {fraction (2/
9)}.times.l00=22.2% in Comparative Example 3. It is considered
that such an improvement in the adventitious bud
differentiation ratio is due to an influence of the apical bud
kept on one end of the hypocotyl used as a tissue for gene
introduction in Examples 2 and 3.
Whiie the invention has been described in detail and with
reference to specific examples thereof, it will be apparent to
one skilled in the art that various changes and modifications
can be made therein without departing from the spirit and
scope thereof. All references cited herei!l are incorporated in
their entirety.
Changes made to plants through the use of biotechnology
can be categorized into the three broad areas of input, output,
and value-added traits. Examples of each are described below.
Input traits
An "input" trait helps producers by lowering the cost of
production, improving crop yields, and reducing the level of
chemicals required for the control of insects, diseases, and
weeds.
Input traits that are commercially available or being tested
in plants:
• Resistance to destruction by insects
• Tolerance to broad-spectrum herbicides
• Resistance to diseases caused by viruses, bacteria,
fungi, and worms
• Protection from environmental stresses such as heat,
cold, drought, and high salt concentration (credit:
Agricultural Research Service, USDA)
Output Traits
An "output" trait helps consumers by enha!lcing the
quality of the food and fiber products they use.
Introduction 29
Output traits that consumers may one day be able to take
advdntage of:
• Nutritionally enhanced foods that contain more starch
or protein, more vitamins, more anti-oxidants (to
reduce the risk of ce;:-tain cancers), and fewer trans-
fatty acids (to lower the risk of heart disease)
• Foods with improved taste, increased shelf-life, and
better ripening characteristics
• Trees that make it possible to produce paper with less
environmental damage
• Nicotine-free tobacco
• Ornamental flowers with new colors, fragrances, and
increased longevity
"Value-added" traits
Genes are being placed into plants that completely change
the way they are used.
Plants may be used as "manufacturing facilities" to
inexpensively produce large quantities of materials including:
• Therapeutic proteins for disease treatment and
vaccination
• Textile fibers
• "3iodegradable plastics
• Oils for use in paints, detergents, and lubricants
Plants are being produced with entirely new functions that
enable them to do things such as:
• Detect and/or dispose of environmental contaminants
like mercury, lead, and petroleum products
Canola Plants
Canola plants grown in the presence of a high
concentration of salt. Non-genetically modified canola (non-
GM) or canola genetically modified to have high, medium, or
low tolerance to salt.
Plants with "input traits" that are commercially available
include:
30 Introduction

• Roundup Ready soybean~ canol a, and com: resistant

to treatment with Roundup herbicide that may result
in more effective weed control with less tillage, and/
or decreased use of other, more harmful herbicides
• YieldGard corn and Bollgard cotton: express an
insecticidal protein that is not toxic to animals or
humans which protects the plant from damage caused
by the European com borer, tobacco budworm, and
bollworm
• Destiny III and Liberator III squash: resistant to some
viruses that destroy squash
Plants may become available with "output traits"
including:
• High laurate canola and
high oleic soybean having
altered oil content to be
used primarily in
industrial oils and fluids
rather than food
• High-starch potatoes that
take up less oil w hen ~==-';':=:==--==~_..J
frying Fig. Canola plants
• Longer shelf-life bananas, peppers, pineapples,
strawberries, and tomatoes
• Soybeans with higher levels of isoflavones; compounds
that may be beneficial in reducing some cancers and
heart disease
• Plants that produce vaccines and pharmaceuticals for
treatment of human diseases
• Com with improved digestibility and more nutrients
providing livestock with better feed
ISSUES WITH GMP

Benefits and Risks

The list of plants and plant-derived prod'...:.cts made as a
result of modern biotechnology is ever- increasing. Many
Introduction 31

transgenic plants, such as herbicide resistant soybeans, have

been widely 'ldopted by producers signifying their satisfaction,
while other products, such as the delayed softening
"FlavrSavr" tomato, are no longer on the market.
Some of the potential benefits from using transgenic plants
include:
• Reduced crop production costs and increased yields
• Healthier, more nutritious foods
• Reduced environmental impact from farming and
industry
• Increased food availability for underdeveloped
countries
Potential risks associated with transgenic plants include:
• Introduction of allergenic or otherwise harmful
proteins into foods
• Transfer of transgenic properties to viruses, bacteria,
or other plants
• Detrimental effects on non-target species and the
environment
Safety, Regulation, and Labelhg
At the Federal level, the Food and Drug Administration,
the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of
Agriculture extensively review products of biotechnology to
ensure that they are safe for public use and the environment.
GM foods require labeling only if they differ significantly
in safety, composition, or nutritional content when compared
to their non-GM counterparts. Additionally, the FDA requires
a GM food to be labeled if it contains a known allergen unless
data have shown that there is no allergy risk.
In Organic Products
Organic standards reflect a zero tolerance" policy
II

concerning transgenic products and organisms. Organic food

producers are taking precautions to minimize the risk of
unintentional contamination of their products with transgenic
ones.
32 Introduction

The Indian Food Inspection Agency, Health India, and

Environment India strictly regulate agricultural biotechnology
products. They currently require GM foods to be labeled if they
differ significantly in composition or nutritional value and
support a voluntary labeling policy for others.
The acceptance of GM crops by the European Union has
been more reserved. However, recent statements made by
European Union officials suggest that their position may be
changing as they are calling for their policies regarding GM
crops to be based on scientific principles rather than on public
opinion and misconceptions .
."
.$ Percentage of U.S. Crop that was Genetically Modified (2001)
-0 100
o
:; 90
~ &0

i'o
Cl 60
69 rut

~
~ 50
t;j 40
r=. 30
r-=--,
~ 20
~ 10
I I
I I
;fi. 0 Colton Canota Com
In 2001. U S. farmers planted an increased amount of crops that
were genetically modified to be reSIstant to pests a"d herbcides.

Europe currently favours labeling of all GM foods and a

system that would allow for "identity preserved" processing
in which foods would be guaranteed to contain no genetically
modified products.
 ®
Plants and the New Regimes

GLOBAL REGIMES
Biotechnology, along with closely related issues of food,
farming, and intellectual property rights, has become a
flashpoint in multilateral trade and environmental negotiations
between developing nations. Sharp disagreements about trade
in genetically engineered products and about the patenting of
living things have sparked disputes about the powers and
scope of emerging institutions of global governance.
Central to these controversies are tensions between the
principles and jurisdictions of the World Trade Organization
(WTO) and those of the international Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD) and the new Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
In addition, there are contradictions within the biodiversity
convention itSelf. The WTO, established in 1994, fosters market
based regulation of biotechnology and genetic resources. The
CBD, which was ratified in 1993, does this as well but also
invokes environmental and social criteria for management of
biodiversity and biotechnology.
Contrasting understandings of biotechnology's effects arE'
pivotal in these disputes. New agricultural biotechnologies
promise control over the traits and reproduction of food crops
and livestock. Advocates of crop genetic engineering argue that
transgenic crops can increase world food production while
limiting environmental damage from agriculture. Their critics
contend that claims about the precision and power of genetic
34 Plants and the New Regimes

engineering are dangerously exaggerated. Widespread

adoption of transgenic crops would at best permit only
temporary food production increases, they say, and would
endanger agricultural genetic diversity, the livelihoods of
farmers, and the food security of countries that depend on food
imports.
Genomic mapping and molecular bioengineering have
opened new opportunities for capital accumulation in
agricultural research and development, technology licensing,
and sales of seed, food, and pesticides. These new profit
opportunities have speeded the mergers of agribusiness,
pharmaceutical, and chemical corporations and takeovers by
these firms of seed and biotechnology research companies.
One result is the consolidation of technological and genetic
resources, economic clout, and political influence in a handful
of transnational corporations. These firms are in a position to
dominate international markets in agrochemicals, germplasm
(seeds and varietal breeding lines) of major commercial crops,
and biotechnology itself (equipment, expertise, genome
databases, and other proprietary information).
Facilitating this trend is the expansion of intellectual
property rights (IPRs). In some countries, those who discover
or devise new types of plants, animals, microbes, or genes;
novel uses for them; or processes for altering them at the
molecular level may be granted patents or other private-
ownership rights to such inventions.
These "life patents" are controversial in part because they
enable patent holders, which are primarily corporations based
in the global North, to profit from products they have
developed from crop varieties and medicinal materials
obtained from the biodiversity-rich global South, sometimes
by means of only minor modifications. Because such patents
restrict the rights of farmers to save or exchange seeds, critics
contend, they may undermine food security. In addition, many
indigenous peoples' groups and some governments object on
moral or political grounds to the private ownership of living
things.
Plants and the New Regimes 35

Meanwhile, public institutions have become dependent

on private-sector partnerships for access to privately owned
materials and techniques. As a result, for-profit companies are
gaining growing influence over the research agendas of
universities and the priorities of public agricultural research
and extension services around the world. Moreover, the trend
toward intellectual enclosure-the use of IPRs to restrict what
scholars and research organizations may publish or share with
students, colleagues, and the public- has begun to impede
access to new technologies and the exchange of scientific
knowledge.
Such concerns have raised the stakes in long-simmering
international controversies about food, farming, and trade
policies and intellectual property rights. These debates have
grown more heated as many governments and social
movements have begun to question the benefits of economic
globalization and the terms on which it is taking place. In the
1990s, concerns about the growing power of the multinational
Ugene giants" added fuel to this fire.
New global environmental institutions, particularly the
Convention on Biological Diversity and its Cartagena Protocol
on Biosafety, have become staging grounds for resistance to
WTO rules and to the market-based management of genetic
resources that the WTO supports. This resistance is rooted in
preexisting patterns of inequitable resource flows and the
resulting inequality, mainly between the gene-rich global
South and the technology-strong North.
During the past two decades, developing countries have
fought to include in international environmental accords
provisions that offer opportunities to redress-or at least not
replicate-the exploitative relations of the past. As a result,
the new environmental treaties provide openings for the
inclusion of social equity and environmental justice as
principles of international governance. Nevertheless, these
new institutions contain their own contradictions. The CBD
embodies a deep tension between market-oriented and
alternative or pluralist approaches to biotechnology regulation
36 Plants and the New Regimes

and resource management, a tension reflected in ongoing

disputes about the role of intellectual property and
biotechnology in the treaty's implementation.
Southern governments and activist nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs) have represented the CBO as
counterbalancing the more narrowly economic principles of
the WTO. However, the United States is determined to make
the WTO the primary, overarching regime for regulation of
biotechnology trade and food and environmental standards,
-and to limit the purview of the CBO and its offspring, the
biosafety protocol.
This agenda is linked to Indian agricultural and
technology export goals. The continuing repercussions of these
disputes are evident in the WTO and other multilateral forums,
particularly with regard to intellectual property rights to the
raw materials and products of biotechnology. These disputes
have contributed to shifts in the pattern of alliances between
major grain-exporting industrial countries, especially the
United States and its former European allies, as wen as the
developing countries of South and India, Africa, and much of
Latin America.
ECONOMIC GOVERNANCE
At stake in the conflict between the w1b and the CBO is
a model of global economic governance that subordinates
social, environmental, and -ethical concerns to the overriding
objectives of economic growth and trade liberalization. U. S.
delegates to the biosafety protocol and WTO talks insist that
the genetic-resource inputs to and the genetically altered
products of biotechnology are ordinary commodities, subject
to standard rules of transnational commerce and to the
jurisdiction of the WTO and its Agreement on Trade Related
Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).
Biotechnology's raw materials (seeds and plant and
animal samples), its technological tools and related knowledge
(genetic information, databases, and product formulas), and
its products, according to this view, should be managed as
Plants and the New Regimes 37

private property, freely bought and sold, with minimal

labeling requirements or restrictions on their import, export,
and use. Any benefits from the commercial sales of genetically
engineered products ought to be allocated strictly under the
terms of standard, two-party business contracts.
The theoretical rationale implicit in this approach is a
neoliberal version of environmental economics. It assesses-the
values of genetic and other natural resources in terms of their
world-market prices or the dollar costs of replacing them,
regardless of the fact that lack of hard currency leaves the
world's majority with no purchasing power in global resource
markets.
Neoliberal environmental economics takes scant account
of nonmonetary and long-term values of ecosystems and their
components, or of the place-specific values of nature to local
communities. Instead, this economics constructs food,
ecosystems, and organisms as stocks of industrial raw
materials, fungible units of natural capital and genetic
information for sale to the highest bidders.
Yet agro-biotechnology and related food-security and
environmental issues are proving difficult to subsume under
this economic reductionist paradigm. The conceptualization
of biodiversity as an export commodity and a technological
input is contested by some governments and by networks of
indigenous peoples and other NGOs. In WTO negotiations,
Southern-country coalitions have attempted to delay
implementation of the TRIPS Agreement and to widen TRIPS
loopholes that permit the use of social and moral criteria in
national policies on intellectual property.
These TRIPS critics argue that uniform application of
WTO rules will foster even greater North-South inequality and
that the TRIPS Agreement in particular conflicts with the CBD.
In the words of Cameroon's ambassador to the European
Union, Philomenon Yang, speaking on behalf of the African
Group of CBD delegations, liThe TRIPS Agreement creates
potential for disastrous conflicts between the technologically
advanced and the less technologically advanced countries.
38 Plani's and the New Regimes

It will endanger the traditional rights of farmers and of

local communities all over the world ... [and] greatly
jeopardize the application of the [Biodiversity] Convention. "
The U. S. government wants to strengthen WTO TRIPS rules
that make it illegal under most circumstances for local citizens,
businesses, or government agencies to duplicate or use
proprietary medicines, plant varieties, gene sequences,
therapeutic techniques, or research technologies.
The U. S. goal of obtaining stronger TRIPS rules for crop
varieties is supported by Australia, Canada, a few Latin
American food-exporting states, and, with reservations, by
some European governments and Japan.
Against these eco nomic powerhouses stands a large
group of developing countries that are opposed to the
strengthening of TRIPS. In the period leading up to the Seattle
Ministerial Conference, more than one hundred developing
countries endorsed proposals to roll back the 1993 TRIPS
accord. Conflicting efforts to amend TRIPS have continued in
the WTO's Council for TRIPS.
The U. S. position is that "unimproved" genetic materials
taken from crops developed by informal breeding or from wild
organisms belong to whoever would make use of them, as part
of humankind's" common heritage." As such, the United States
recognizes, these genetic-resource inputs of biotechnology are
covered by the CBO, which requires that its member
governments make their genetic resources accessible to others.
In contrast, access to and regulation of biotechnology industry
outputs-genetically engineered products, their genetic
recipes, and the tools and know-how for producing them-
fall outside the CBO mandate, in the U. S. view, because they
are private, tradable commodities and thus subject to WTO
rules and to intellectual property rights.
While the CBO was being negotiated from 1989 to 1992,
the United States pressed this position forcefully in the
Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade (GATT IV). These negotiations transformed the GATT
into the WTO, expanded its purview to include trade in
Plants and the New Regimes 39
agriculture and services as well as in goods, and added the
TRIPS Agreement. The United States, the main force in the
WTO, wanted member governments to open their markets to
foreign exports and investments, especially in industries where
the Vnited States is relatively strong, such as agriculture,
financial services, computer electronics, entertainment media,
and biotechnology.
The TRIPS accord, initiated and pushed by a coalition of
European, Japanese, and U. S. multinational corporations,
stipulates that WTO parties must adopt laws to enforce patents
lIin all fields of technology". It requires WTO member
countries to recognize the proprietary rights of local or foreign
citizens or enterprises to crop varieties, whether conventional
or genetically engineered, and to genetically altered
microorganisms and other biotechnological innovations.
During the GAIT IV talks, developing countries were able
to obtain small but significant exceptions to the blanket
requirement for IPR coverage of living organisms and related
technologies. Section 5, Article 27, Section 3(b) of the TRIPS
Agreement allows WTO member governments to exclude from
patentability "plants and animals other than microorganisms,
and essentially biological processes for the production of plants
or animals other than non-biological and microbiological
processes. However, Members shall provide for the protection
of plant varieties either by patents or by an effective sui generis
system or by any combination thereof."
The TRIPS accord also permits states to adapt their IPR
regimes in ways necessary to safeguard the environment,
morality, or ordre publique. As a further concession to
developing countries, TRIPS was slated for review in 2000-
2001. As the ramifications of IPRs in crop and medical
biotechnology have become more apparent, developing-
country WTO members have requested reconsideration of the
application of TRIPS rules to food crops, microorganisms, and
"essentially biological" processes and have called for the
recognition of non-economic factors in environmental and
biotechnology regulation.
40 Plants and the New Regimes

These ongoing disputes highlight the limitations of "free

trade," economic efficiency, and private property as the
paradigmatic principles of global governance. The grdwing
perception that trade liberalization favours the economically
strong helped to precipitate the WTO ministerial meltdown
in Seattle and has contributed to continuing deadlocks in the
WTO.
The issues of biotechnology regulation and private
property in organisms and their parts are especially
inflammatory. They not only raise unprecedented questions
about the powers and rights of individuals and companies to
own and manipulate life but also are linked to controversies
about international economic inequality and environmental
justice.
The CBn Battleground
In contrast to the WTO, the Convention on Biological
Diversity establishes an arguable basis in international law for
taking non-economic criteria into account in biotechnology
regulation. At the same time, contradictions built into the CBD
make it a source of continuing conflict between market-
oriented and equity-oriented approaches. Because the CBD is
a framework treaty that requires further elabouration to be
put into practice, its parties meet every two years to adopt
guidelines for its implementation.
CBD articles addressing access to genetic resources,
distribution of the benefits these resources provide, the transfer
of biotechnology, biosafety, and related intellectual-property
issues have been hotly disputed throughout this process. Some
CBD articles commit signatory countries to goals that, at least
implicitly, conflict with the privatization and market-based
valuation of nature.
The CBD recognizes the sovereignty of states over genetic
and other resources within their territories. It calls for the in
situ and ex situ conservation of biologkal diversity, including
crop genetic resources, for protection of the "traditional
lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of
Plants and the Nezl' Regimes 41
biological diversity" of "local and indigenous" communities
and of the" customary use of biological resources in accordance
with traditional cultural practices".
The CBO also calls for prior informed consent as a
precondition for access to local genetic resources, for national
policies to promote conservation and sustainability, and for
equity and "fairness" in genetic-resource trade and in the
distribution of technology and its benefits.
Given the disparities in economic power between
transnational corporations and most developing countries and
communities, and the ubiquitous economic incentives and
opportunities for short-term exploitation of natural resources,
none of the above objectives is likely to be achieved by means
of the market mechanisms and private-property systems
fostered by the WTO. In addition, resolutions by the CBO's
Conference of the Parties have recognized alternatives to
individual or corporate property rights, such as collective
property and indigenous traditions of shared knowledge,
concepts not recognized in the WTO.
However, there are other CBO provisions that foster a
commodity-based framework for resource management. The
influence of these market-oriented approaches has been
amplified by the "green-developmentalist" bias of the
Secretariat of the CBO.
Why-in a treaty initiated as a conservation compact, with
a focus on wilderness, forests, and wildlife-have
biotechnology and IPRs become so pivotal? The answer lies
both in patterns from the past (the long history of removal of
genetic and other resources from colonized regions) and in the
political economy of the present (the importance of IPRs and
other private property rights to the global extension of
commodity relations and the unequal impacts of economic
globalization in different world regions).
The controversies about life patents and genetic-resource
access are linked to the economic agendas of countries with
growing biotechnology industries. These agendas, in turn,
arouse fears among food-import-dependent and genetic-
42 Plants and the New.Regimes

resources-provider countries that the growth of giant

biotechnology-agrochemical firms and the extension of IPRs
will lead to their further impoverishment and dependency. To
see these connections, we need to recall the context in which
these CBD conflicts arose.
Contrasting Biodiversity Convention
The Convention on Biological Diversity is one of two
international conservation treaties launched at the 1992 Earth
Summit in Rio de Janeiro. Its primary objectives are "the
conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its
components and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits
arising out of the utilization of genetic resources, including
by appropriate access to genetic resources and by appropriate
transfer of relevant technologies, taking into account all rights
over those resources and to technologies, and by appropriate
funding".
The original sponsors of the CBD definitely did not intend
to investigate the degree to which existing international power
relations, dominant development models, or present
international distributions of resources contribute to
environmental crises. These contentious issues, however, are
proving to be inseparable from the more narrowly defined
environmental goals of the treaty's original sponsors.
The Northern states (mainly Germany, France, and, later,
the United States) that first called for a global conservation
treaty in the mid-1980s wanted to limit the expansion of
polluting industrialization in the global South, particularly
increased emissions of greenhouse gases, and to preserve some
critical mass of tropical forests as a carbon sink.
They also hoped to slow the rate of species extinctions and
the destruction of "wilderness" areas and to guarantee
continued Northern access to the biological resources of
Southern regions. In contrast, the immediate goal of most
Southern-government signatories was to obtain additional
foreign aid in the context of shrinking overall development
assistance.
Plants and the New Regimes 43

Some diversity-rich countries also hoped that the CBD

would help them to establish their own biotechnology
enterprises or at least to obtain revenues from the export of
their genetic resources under the terms of bioprospecting
contracts with Northern pharmaceutical firms and research
institutions. Negotiation of the CBD from 1989 to 1992
involved intense disputes, mainly between the G77-plus-
Chinabloc of Southern states and the more powerful
industrialized nations of the OECD (Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development).
When conflicts over the draft text could not be resolved,
the disputed text was either excluded, as in the case of
proposals for strong forest-conservation language, or
diplomatically finessed. As a consequence, key provisions of
the CBD are ambiguously worded and open to conflicting
interpretations.
These contradictions might remain moot were it not for
the activism of transnational alliances of social movements and
NGOs. In contrast to other agencies of global governance (such
as the WTO, the World Bank, and the International Monetary
Fund) and in contrast to many other United Nations bodies,
the Cb D has permitted, and even depended on, the
contributions of civil-society organizations.
Mainstream conservationist NGOs have helped to draft
CBD decisions. Advocacy-oriented networks of NGOs, in
alliance with Southern states and some European states, have
pushed for the CBD to take on issues of biotechnology and its
environmental hazards and social consequences, much to the
consternation of the Indian government.
The paradoxical role of the India sheds light on the treaty's
inten~-d tensions and external pressures. The Reagan
administration, lobbied by conservation biologists and
mainstream environmental organizations, was an early
supporter of plans for a single, global conservation accord. Less
publicized was the desire of agricultural and biotechnology
interests to guaral,tee continued access to Southern genetic
resources.
44 Plants and the New Regimes

During the CBD negotiations, the United States and the

OECD negotiating bloc worked to ensure that the convention
would make it easier for firms and research institutions to
continue to survey and select crop varieties and
pharmacologically active substances from the territories of
other states. This goal took shape as CBD Article 15, "Access
to Genetic Resources, " which establishes that "Each
Contracting party [to the CBD] shall endeavour to create
conditions to facilitate access to genetic resources for
environmentally sound uses by other contracting parties and
not to impose restrictions that run counter to the objectives of
this convention .... Access, where granted, shall be on mutually
agreed terms ... subject to prior informed consent".
Crop Patents
The concept of "genetic resources, which emerged in
/I

environmental discourse in the 1980s, refers to the information

contained in the genomes of plants, animals, and
microorganisms, many of them as yet "undiscovered" - that
is, unknown to Western science-and in danger of extinction.
Organisms containing pharmacologically active compounds,
found in greatest abundance in tropical regions, are potential
sources of medically and comlvoercially important drugs or
models for new synthetic drugs.
As advances in biotechnology and information technology
made possible the rapid screening, genetic mapping, and
molecular manipulation of natural substances, genetic
resources came to be seen as an important raw material for
the Indian economy. By the late 1980s, the perceived value of
the medicinal genetic resources of the tropics, especially
rainforests, had soared, albeit temporarily.
Another form of genetic resources of great interest to U.
S. negotiators was agricultural biodiversity: the myriad
unique, locally specialized foodcrop varieties bred and
conserved by farmers worldwide. Genetic, varietal, and crop
diversities are the cornerstones of the survival strategies of
many small-scale cultivators, the sector that still produces most
of the world's food. Locally adapted crops and their wild
Plants and the New Regimes 45

relatives are also important to large-scale commercial

agriculture as sources of traits for crop improvement because
crop varieties, especially in industrial, monocrop farming
systems, must be altered continually to defeat pests and
diseases that have adapted to existing varieties and pesticides.
Most of the crops produced in the world's major
agricultural exporting regions- Europe, the United States,
Canada, Australia, Brazil, India and South America's Southern
cone-are derived from plants originally domesticated in Latin
America, Southeast Asia, and western Asia. Samples of some
of these varieties are conserved in public and private gene
banks, and firms and research agencies from the relatively
gene-poor" global North have tapped these collections most
II

frequently.
But while the CBD was being framed, developing
countries were already challenging the right to use crop genetic
resources without compensation for their owners. The decade
preceding the CBD had seen unresolved North-South disputes
over asymmetrical international flows of genetic resources and
profits derived from them.
Until the 1980s, genetic resources in fields, farms, and gene
banks had been treated by seed companies, botanic gardens,
and research institutions as a global commons, free for the
taking. In the early 1980s, however, governments of the South
began to object to the treatment of genetic resources in their
territories as a worldwide open-access resource. They sought
international recognition of their rights to produce and market
useful plants and needed medicines, including those based on
processes or substances patented in other countries.
Under pressure from Mexico and other diversity-rich
states, the UN Food and Agricultural Organization's
Commission on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture adopted the International Undertaking on Plant
Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (IU) in 1983. The
original (1983) version of the IU declared all plant genetic
resources, including varieties covered by intellectual-property
46 Plants and the New Regimes

claims in their countries of origin, to be part of the "common

heritage" of humankind.
The Southern sponsors of this particular reinterpretation
of "common heritage" intended it to mean that their farmers
or enterprises would not be blocked by patents or other forms
of IPRs from reproducing, breeding, and selling hybrid or
genetically engineered plants or seeds. Industrial-country
governments and transnational firms strenuously resisted this
interpretation.
In response to U. S. charges of patent "piracy, " Southern
spokespeople raised the issue of "biopiracy, " pointing out that
brand-name pharmaceuticals and crop varieties being
exported to their countries were in many cases derived from
medicines and crops discovered or bred in the global South.
At least, they argued, the new biodiversity treaty ought to
recognize their right to be compensated for the profitable
development by others of their own biological patrimony.
As a condition for promising access to their genetic
resources, Southern governments and NGOs insisted that the
CBD both recognize the principle of national sovereignty over
genetic resources and also include provisions for the sharing
of genetic resource benefits with resource providers and for
the transfer of new biotechnologies to developing countries.
The United States and the OECD negotiating bloc agreed to
accept this as a compromise, but declined to en90rse any
explicit formulas for defining "fair" compensation, "equitable"
benefit sharing, or "appropriate" technology transfer.
The U. S. delegation insisted that in addition to providing
access to genetic resources, the new treaty should endorse "the
adequate and effective protection of patents and other
intellectual property rights". As a countermeasure, India won
inclusion of a sentence to the effect that the IPR reference
should not be applied in a way that undermined the CBD's
objectives.
Disputes over IPRs and biotechnology nearly derailed the
CBD negotiations. Then, the administration refused to sign the
treaty when it was launched at the Earth Summit, on the
Plants and the New Regimes 47
grounds that its IPR references were not sufficiently strong.
In short, the government's commitment to promote the
international expansion of its agricultural, pharmaceutical, and
technology industries prevailed over environmentalists' desire
for a comprehensive conservation treaty.
The White House alleged that the new convention
"threatened to retard biotechnology and undermine the
protection of ideas". This defensive, even paranoid, response
has its roots in the importance of biotechnology and other high-
technology sectors to the United States' international economic
position and in the growing importance of intellectual property
to industries.
By the 1980s, protection of proprietary technology and
related intellectual property rights had become a cornerstone
of trade policy. Exports of new technologies-along with
agrochemicals and the food surplus produced by state-
subsidized agriculture- were seen as counterweighing
negative trade balances in other sectors. Federal policymakers
were swayed by industry arguments that genetic engineering
was about to produce a bonanza of therapeutic compounds
that would be commercialized only if they were covered by
IPRs.
Biotechnology lobbyists were in close touch with White
House officials during the early CBD talks, and the Japanese,
British, and other OECD delegations shared many of their
concerns. Industry representatives argued that the treaty could
be invoked to pressure them to cede technological secrets to
potential competitors and that it might undermine goals in the
GATT IV trade talks.
The United States also tried to prevent the adoption of
the CBD language calling for international regulation of
genetically engineered organisms and their products. This
CBD provision established the grounds for the biosafety
protocol and was energetically advocated by a coalition of
Southern states and transnational NGOs. It was included in
the convention text over strong u.s. and Japanese objections,
with the details to be negotiated at a later date. Later, at the
48 Plants and the New Regimes

second conference of the CBD parties in 1994, a coalition

spearheaded on the NGO side by the Third World Network,
the German Green Party, and Greenpeace International, among
others, convinced the CBD parties to begin protocol talks, a
process that is still embroiled in controversy.
Six months after the CBD was introduced in 1992, the
Clinton administration convened a review of the treaty by
representatives of three biotechnology firms and three
conservationist groups,- who concurred that the CBD's IPR
provisions were, after all, adequate. The president then signed
the convention, but the Senate has not ratified it. In any case,
conditions attached to the White House interpretation of the
CBD would reduce U.s. obligations under the treaty to the
same sort of market-based determination of genetic-resource
and biotechnology distribution that would prevail even
without the CBD.
A proposed "statement of understanding" to be attached
to the U.S. signature, should the Senate decide to ratify the
CBD, declaims that" As such, the WTO TRIPs agreement will
function as a '£loor' for substantive protection for intellectual
property rights by GATT TRIPs parties under the biodiversity
convention" .
This interpretation of the TRIPS Agreement is the opposite
of the interpretation of the CBD by those NGOs and Southern
states who see it as a basis for opposition to TRIPS and other
WTO free-trade rules and to the uncompensated
commoditization of biodiversity. Indeed, the more that the
United States has pressed in the WTO and other forums for
genetic-resources IPRs and market-based resource valuation,
the more that gene-rich countries have insisted on their right
to limit access to their biological resources by taxonomists and
plant breeders as well as by bioprospectors.
Brazil and other "megadiversity" countries interpret the
CBD provisions recognizing national sovereignty over
biodiversity as a sort of national-level property right. They
hope to sell their genetic resources or use biodiversity access
as a bargaining chip to obtain aid, technology, or other benefits.
Plants and the New Regimes 49

Such a commodity-based approach is unlikely to work to their

advantage, however, in a global genetic-resources market
where providers have little power and supply exceeds
demand.
Differing interpretations of the CBD and its purview
continue to provoke controversy as its member governments,
with the United States as a powerful, nonmember presence,
battle over the treaty's implementation. I have argued that
there is an internal tension in the CBD between an approach
based on private property and globalized, market-based
resource management, and a more pluralist approach that
recognizes differences in the development needs, cultures, and
property-rights systems of various countries and communities,
as well as differences in how they use and value genetic
resources.
This tension grows out of global inequalities produced
during the colonial era and compounded since then as would-
be developing countries attempt to enter-or are pushed to
join-an integrated world economy from a position of
disadvantage. The tension between market-based and equity-
oriented frameworks also reflects disunity within the political-
economic project of modem environmentalism.
Over the past two decades, a green-developmentalist
approach has come to dominate both the discursive practices
of mainstream conservationist organizations and the greening
policies of the World Bank. This approach has also influenced
multilateral envIronmental institutions, including the CBD.
Green developmentalism proposes that environmental
problems can be corrected by market solutions. In this
world view, "natural capital" can be assigned property rights
and can be traded transnationally.
Forest, mineral, and water resources and ecosystem
services, as well as organisms and their parts, are assigned
monetary prices based on actual or hypothetical markets. The
result is a pan-planetary metric for valuing resources and
managing their exchange. This universalizing discourse makes
it possible to speak of the "global" management of
50 Plants and the New Regimes

environmental problems and to act on the assumption of

compatibility between capitalist growth and ecological
sustainability.
The discursive practices of green developmentalism also
further the shift from the direct appropriation, or "primitive
accumulation, " of genetic resources-the mode that prevailed
for more than five hundred years-to the market exchange of
genetic raw materials. In theory, green developmentalism
provides nature with the means to earn its own right to survive
in a world-market economy. Conservation projects are to be
financed by Lxports of environmental assets-access to
ecotourism sites, rights to use ecological services (e.g., carbon
emission credits) and intellectual property rights to medicinal
plants, shamans' recipes, traditional crop varieties, and the
genetic information they contain.
Other greendevelopmentalist policies include "green
conditionalities" attached to development aid; "capacity-
building" projects to re-educate Southern inhabitants, train
environmental managers, and construct environmental
regulatory agencies within Southern states; and biodiversity
surveys and assessments. These discursive practices revalue
the South's natural resources from a "global" (read Northern)
perspective.
However, this revaluation of Southern resources
according to methods of Western taxonomy and neoclassical
economics constitutes a devaluation of those resources. The
denomination of biodiversity values in dollars discounts the
greater part of the values of Southern natural resources to the
people who live in direct interdependence with those
resources: their tangible use-values, their symbolic values, and
their exchange values in local and domestic markets.
To obtain their "fair share" of the "benefits 10f
biodiversity" as promised by the CBD, diversity-rich countries
and indigenous communities are encouraged to assert their
own intellectual property rights to genetic resources in their
territories and then sell those rights. Prominent conservation
biologists have argued that selling rights of access to living
Plants and the New Regimes 51
pharmacies will provide resources and incentives to preserve
natural areas.
As the Smithsonian's leading conservation scientist told
a World Bank workshop, prospects for saving biodiversity are
now linked to biotechnology's new ability to "generate wealth
at the level of the molecule." Bioprospecting agreements have
proliferated between Southern suppliers (governments,
parastatals, and NGOs and Northern buyers.
NGO critics of bioprospecting as a strategy for benefit
sharing contend that it will facilitate the mining of Southern
genetic raw material by bioprofiteers and reinforce the idea
that, having paid a "fair market price" for this property, drug
and seed firms are justified in selling products derived from
collected materials back to their countries of origin at vastly
higher prices.
Meanwhile, some of the early proponents of
bioprospecting have since concluded that "regrettably, genetic
prospecting may not help much in the struggle to preserve
habitats rich in biological diversity" and that the prospects of
substantial bioprospecting resource transfers from North to
South are negligible.
These analysts acknowledge that, given the economic and
legal resources of transnational biotechnology firms and the
fact that genetic-resource supplies already exceed industry's
demand, most gene-source countries are in a weak position to
bargain for "fair" compensation. Most local, direct providers
of organic samples and knowledge are in a worse position,
especially when national governments do not acknowledge
their rights.
Furthermore, the United States holds that if there is to be
any sharing of the benefits of genetic resources, it should be
at this initial, bioprospecting stage-when the commercial
value of the resources sold is unproved and the sale price
low - rather than after higher-priced products have been made
by altering the natural materials or discovering" new uses
II

for them. This early valuation would offer little to providers

of medicinal and crop samples but is consistent with the U. S.
52 Plants and the New Regimes

position that genetic resources "enhanced" by biotechnology

are ordinary commodities subject to free-market rules.
The Commodification of Genetic Resources
The administrative body of the CBD has been markedly
influenced by the green-developmentalist perspective of
Western governments and environmental organizations such
as the World Conservation Union (IUCN). Interpretations of
the CBD mandate prepared by the Secretariat of the CBD
reflect this influence. One such document's proclamation that
"modern biotechnology offers the potential to invent
sustainable systems of the future, to be accompanied by a new
paradigm for ind ustry" reveals how central biotechnology has
been to the interpretation of the treaty.
Indeed, the word biotechnology appears six times in the
CBD text and merits an entire section, Article 19, the only CBD
article heading that addresses the distribution of the benefits
of biodiversity. "The private sector is the key player in benefit-
sharing arrangements," the aforementioned secretariat
document states flatly. Another secretariat note identifies a
"policy setting" conducive to benefit sharing as one that
encourages "access legislation, incentives, partnerships and
contracts". This emphasis on market transactions and business
partnerships illustrates how CBD administrators have
promoted the market based management of genetic resources.
Case studies compiled by the secretariat interpret
biodiversity benefit sharing almost exclusively in terms of
North-South bio-prospecting deals. In effect, access to
"biodiversity benefits" under the CBD is being made
contingent on the participation of diversity-rich countries in a
global genetic-resource market. But when CBD documents
define biodiversity benefits as benefits to be derived from the
commercialization of genetic resources by biotechnology
industries, they fail to recognize that biodiversity benefits
already exist-that is, that the benefits of natural resources are
known and valued by people who depend on them directly
for sustenance, shelter, aesthetic pleasure, and spiritual
significance.
Plants and the New Regimes 53
This equation of biodiversity benefits with genetic
resources !educes biological variety to its purported essence
as a commodity, separable from its complex interrelationships
with the rest of nature and society. It is as if the values of
biological variety come into existence only when its genetic
information is "developed" -codified, counted, and
commercialized-by biotechnology. A broader
conceptualization would centre on the incalculable present and
future benefits of healthy ecosystems and diversity-based
farming systems both to people locally and-insofar as such
eco-social systems may conserve and generate biodiversity-
to people in all countries.
Measuring the value of a country's biological resources
on the basis of their commercial potential, or in terms of the
market costs of replacing them, is compatible with the
dominant discourse of environmental managerialism.
However, this green-developmentalist approach privileges
those aspects of nature that can be removed from their local
contexts, transformed by investment, and sold.
The approach fosters a view of ecosystems as warehouses
of potential commodities to meet the demands of foreign
consumers rather than as the bases of local and national life,
as the sources of material necessities and meanings, and as
the biophysical contexts of cultures. In this way, green
developmentalism divorces the problems of biotechnology and
genetic-resource management from the development needs of
gene-rich but hard-currency-poor countries.
The globalized, market-based management of biodiversity
requires clear property rights to natural resources, and the
CBD secretariat has devoted what might seem, in a
conservation treaty, inordinate attention to intellectual
property. Conference decisions and secretariat documents
display an almost schizophrenic· ambivalence. The
predominant assumptions in these documents support
Northern intellectual-property models and their international
extension, but references to IPRs are counterbalanced in nearly
every statement by references to "alternative systems" or to
54 Plants and the New Regimes

the "concerns of indigenous and local peoples" about the

impacts of IPRs.
This controversy has been kept alive by the active
influence in the CBD and related international forums of social
movements that oppose the privatization of genes and
associated knowledge. On the basis of ethical, equity, and
ecological concerns, the NGOs and indigenous peoples' and
farmers' organizations that constitute this transnational
movement have denounced the patenting and
commoditization of life.
With the support of S·.. reden and a number of Southern
states, these organizations have energetically re&isted Northern
proposals that the CBD recognize the WTO as the appropriate
body for settling international disputes over property rights
to organisms and knowledge about natu'e. In light of fears
among many Southern delegations of losing sovereignty to
multilateral trade bodies; growing doubts about the benefits
of industrial agriculture and the safety of genetic engineering;
and questions about the fairness of intellectual-property
regimes, these NGOs have found a growing audience among
developing-country delegations.
BIOTECHNOLOGY AND PROPERTY IN LIFE
What became known as the Cartagena Protocol on
Biosafety of the CBD was finally negotiated, after significant
concessions from the United States, in January 2000. Because
the protocol stipulates that countries may decline to accept
exports of genetically engineered "living modified organisms",
U.S.-based agribusiness interests have seen it as a threat to
their export markets. Nevertheless, a united front of European
and developing country delegations forced significant
concessions from the United States delegation.
The United States-led Miami Group of six grain-exporting
states gave up its opposition to protocol rules for the labeling
of exports of genetically altered organisms meant for release
into the environment, and dropped its proposed language that
would have asserted the primacy of the WTO over the CBD.
Plants and the New Regimes 55

Included over U.S. objections was a provision allowing

governments to take account of the socioeconomic impacts of
transgenics in deciding whether to permit imports of particular
organisms.
This principle may yet coh.Je with WTO rules against
"unfair" barriers to trade, rules in which criteria of economic
efficiency are preeminent. Although thirty-eight states had
ratified the protocol as of November 2002, it will not become
international law until 50 governments also ratify it.
Substantia~ disagreements remain over whether states or
enterprisLs will be held liable for environmental or health
damages resulting from the use of their genetically engineered
products; over specific requirements for labeling, transport,
and" contained use" of genetically engineered organisms; and
over the interpretation of the precautionary "principle" or
precautionary "approach" -both terms appear in the
protocol-which contrasts with the guidelines that frame U.S.
biotechnology regulatory policy.
In June 1999, a coalition of developing-country CBD
members asked the CBD's sdentific advisory body to call for
a worldwide moratorium on the field testing and
commercialization of "terminator technologies." These genetic
engineering methods are being developed by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture and commercial biotechnology
firms to produce crops with seeds that will not germinate. By
hard wiring property rights into plant genomes, these
technologies would enable companies to control their
privately-held crop genetic resources in cases and places where
their IPR claims are not recognized.
The advent of terminator technology, which confers no
agronomic value to plants, has added to widespread
skepticism about industry claims that transgenic crops are
designed to benefit the hungry and increase the productivity
of poor farmers in the developing world. Although the
economic purpose of the technology-enlarging seed markets
by preventing farmers from saving seed-is perfectly in
keeping with the letter and spirit of the WTO, it is arguably at
56 Plants and the New Regimes

odds with the CBD's commitments to conserving crop

biodiversity and the relevant practices of local communities.
In regional forums such as the European Union Parliament
and the Organization of African Unity, governments,
environmental ministries, and NGOs have called for
recognition of the CBD's precedence over the WTO in matters
pertaining to biodiversity. The negotiation of the International
Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture was deadlocked for seven years over debates
about IPRs, genetic-resource benefit sharing, and biopiracy.
The treaty that finally emerged from this process in
November 2001 reflects an uneasy compromise that has not
yet resolved issues of access to an valuation of crop genetic
resources. Disputes about private property in genetic
information and in biotechnology tools have also embroiled
the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
(CGIAR), which is the world's largest multilateral network of
seed banks and crop-research centers, the World Intellectual
Property Organization, and even the World Bank.
In August 2001, the UN Sub-Commission for the
Promotion and Protection of Human Rights passed a stinging
resolution against the Wto Trips Agreement, noting conflicts
between TRIPS and "economic, social and cultural rights" in
relation to the need for technology transfer and
the consequences for the enjoyment of the right to food
of plant variety rights and the patenting of genetically
modified organisms, "bio-piracy" and the reduction of
communities' (especially indigenous communities') control
over their own genetic and natural resources_ and cultural
values, and restrictions on access to patented pharmaceuticals
and the implications for the enjoyment of the right to health.
The report on which the resolution was based, which
described the WTO as a "nightmare" for poor countries,
prompted an official complaint by top WTO officials. The
repercussions of these disputes echo in the WTO. A United
Statesbacked proposal to establish a WTO body on
Plants and the New Regimes 57

biotechnology, seen by critics as an attempt to outflank the

Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, was rejected by Europe and
by developing countries at the failed 1999 WTO ministerial
session in Seattle.
Developing countries continue to call for reform of the
TRIPS requirement that all countries enforce patents on
microorganisms and property rights to animals and plants. The
African Group wants to remove references to plants and all
life forms from TRIPS, whereas India wants language inserted
that would require disclosure of the source of genetic material
on patent applications. The Philippines Department of
Agriculture has recommended that governments "get life
forms (plants and animals) and\ biodiversity (and indigenous
knowledge) out of the jurisdictipn of WTO".
India, Brazil, and the Afri~an negotiating bloc, among
others, have asked that the WTO's Council for TRIPS take into
account biodiversity, traditional knowledge, benefit sharing,
farmers' rights to save and share seeds, socioeconomic welfare,
and the ethics of patenting of life forms.
The majority of council delegations have asked the council
to "harmonize" TRIPS with the CBD. The U. S. delegation
adamantly opposes this and objects to granting the CBD
secretariat observer status in the council, insisting that the only
issue to be discussed is the progress of TRIPS implementation.
Even if the majority is able to block or slow TRIPS
implementation at the international level, the United States
may achieve its goal of standardized IPRs by pressuring
reluctant 'countries to include IPR promises in bilateral trade
pacts or by threatening to reduce aid to countries that do not
comply. Regional trade accords, including the North American
Free Trade Agreement and the U.S.-proposed Free Trade Area
of the Americas, include requirements that signatories
maintain IPR regimes compatible with those of the United
States. Bilateral trade deals, such as the recent agreement
between the United States and the government of Vietnam,
contain provisions requiring the new U. S. trade partner to join
the UPOV (International Union for the Protection of New
 58 Plants and the New Regimes

Varieties of Plants) convention, the international IPR

agreement which the United States regards as the acceptable
regime for plant-variety protection.
Nevertheless, enforcement of IPRs at the local level may
be difficult in the face of growing defiance by social
movements. Even where governments feel forced to comply
with globalized IPR rules, many citizens are refusing to do so.
In India and Bangladesh, Thailand and the Philippines, and
many Latin American countries, organizations of farmers have
linked their demands for land tenure and support of domestic
agriculture and rural livelihoods to their opposition to crop-
variety IPRs, life patenting, and food-crop biopiracy.
International farmers' organizations such as Via
Campesina and NGOs such as Genetic Resources Action
International, the Malaysia-based Third World Network, and
the United States-based Institute for Agriculture and Trade
< Policy stress the connections between food security (of people),
food sovereignty (of nations), and preservation of agro-
biodiversity and diversity-based farming systems.
Thus, a high-stakes battle continues over whether food,
farming, and biotechnology will be understood and governed
as a problem of corporate technoscience, economic efficiency,
and universal legal standards, or whether the broader issues
of who really lyenefits and who loses from genetic engineering
of crops, privatization of research, and world-scale
consolidation of agro-economic power will be addressed by
emerging institutions of global governance. In the CBO and
in the WTO, these international battles have brought to the
surface deep discontent with persistent and widening
inequalities in the postcolonial world order.
 Agro-Food Studies

NEW RESEARCH
At the fag end of the millennium, even casual
acquaintance with the media in advanced capitalist economies
reveals the palpable unease and mistrust enfolding the nature-
society coproductions more conventionally known as agro-
food systems. This unease is more acute in India, where cases
of "extreme food events" and the systemic breakdown of food
provision, particularly in livestock production, have occurred
with disturbing frequency in recent years.
A litany of these "extreme food events" would include
mad cow disease in Britain and its pandemic translation
throughout Western Europe in 2000-2001, episodic yet
recurrent food-contamination scares, the Belgian dioxin crisis,
and 1999 reports of untreated sewage, septic tank residues,
and slaughterhouse effluent being used in several animal feed-
processing plants in France. Nor is food safety the only register
of public disquiet, which would give the entirely misleading
impression that this mistrust can be rectified by appropriate
regulatory measures and better risk management techniques.
Mistrust of industrial food-provisioning, at least in
Western Europe, also reflects ethical opposition to the
em;ronmental harms wrought by industrial agriculture and
intensive-confinement livestock practices, and fears that the
centralizing and homogenizing forces of agro-food
globalization are threatening the material and symbolic
 60 Agro-Food Studies

content of foodways, which are potent bearers of cultural

identity.
To adapt Jean Brillat-Savarin's aphorism, there is unease
about what we eat, how we produce it, and what it means for
what we are and might become. More than ever, food is a
signifier for political, social, and cultural struggles over the
metabolic reciprocities between nature and society, which are
the material and discursive metrics of everyday life. As Daniel
Miller and others have realized, personal choices about food
can give voice to socioecological commitments whose cumula
tive expression in biopolitical activism potentially can change
the way we live in the world.
Agricultural biotechnologies (ABTs) and genetically
engineered organisms contribute to the general disquiet over
food provisioning in distinctive ways, exacerbating the
instinctive anxieties of the omnivore's paradox, already fully
aroused by the events recounted above. ABTs sound the alarm
on virtually all registers: food safety, environmental harms,
and the further concentration of economic power over the food
supply-that is, power over our habitual metabolic
interactions with agricultural nature and, hence, over the
material and cultural expressions of our corporeal identity.
At this fundamental level, extreme food events and novel,
genetically engineered foods create unease because of what
they reveal about society's relations with nature and their
possible transformation. Starting in Western Europe and some
developing countries, but now gathering momentum in the
United States and Canada, social mobilization against ABTs
and genetically engineered foods is manifest at different scales,
from the street protests against the World Trade Organization
in Seattle and nongovernmental organizations' efforts to
influence the regulation of the Convention on Biological
. Diversity to the destruction of test sites of GE crops and
consumer movements to deny shelf space to genetically
engineered food products in supermarkets.
ABTs and the new realities they portend are now being
interrogated on a radically more comprehensive scale than at
Agro-Food Studies 61
any time over the past two decades. This interrogation already
has successfully exposed points of weakness and vulnerability
in this technoscientific enterprise: its life-sciences business
model has been summarily abandoned, the material and
discursive claims of the technology have been called into
question, and it is losing ground in national and international
regulatory struggles.
In short, the commercial deployment of ABTs and the
threatened ubiquity of genetically engineered foods have
opened a new front of biopolitical mobilization. Here, if only
incipiently, spaces for an ecological politics and forms of social
organization are emerging that reject modernist
instrumentalist ielations with nature. With this background, I
offer some reflections on the main theoretical approaches to
ABTs in agro-food studies, as well as discussion of critical
engagement with the "new" biopolitics of agriculture and
food. For present purposes, the field of agro-food studies is
identified with the "critical" rural sociology and the "new"
political economy of agriculture, which emerged from the later
1970s.
The imprint of classical Marxism and agrarian question"
1/

problematics is still discernible in the agro-food studies

literature on ABTs. This legacy is particularly evident in the
conceptual primacy of the labour process and the consequent
privileging of product:con-centered analytics. Within this
conceptual armature, I examine several subthemes that
elaborate the "vectors of incorporation" of ABTs by private
capitals. A schematic survey of this literature is undertaken
in the chapter's first section.
Although the labour process-commodification perspective
remains preeminent in the agro-food studies literature on
ABTs, several contributors recently have begun to explore the
advantages of the nondualist, relational ontology of actor-
network theory in uh'l.~rstandi.og the new socioecological
constellations of humn,l and nonhuman entities associated
with agricultural technoscience. These recent developments
are reviewed in the second section. A concluding section notes
62 Agro-Food Studies

several lacunae in the literature and considers future directions

of research on ABTs.
AGRI-BIOTECHNOLOGIES
Until quite recently, analyses of ABTs in agro-food studies
were firmly rooted in the agrarian question problematics and
deductivist epistemology of classical Marxism. This
importation typically was mediated by neoMarxist debates in
development theory and peasant studies, with their focus on
agrarian transition and the fate of Third World peasantries as
commoditization processes intensified. In these classical
agrarian question problematics, inflected by Third World
debates, family-labour forms of production and the immediate
labour process constituted the key units of analysis.
Theoretical trajectories in the new agro-food studies thus
were strongly informed by the recovery of the classical Marxist
tradition and embraced its production-centered analysis of
agrarian change. These epistemological foundations and
problematics were not seriously interrogated until the later
1980s. Even so, the labour process, a cornerstone of Marxist
political economy, with its embedded ontological and
epistemological priorities, has retained an unexplained place
in putatively revised, poststructuralist and actor-oriented
approaches in agro-food studies.
These comments are a rather circuitous way of recogruzing
the continuing preeminence of the labour process as a meso-
level organizing concept in agro-food studies. The corollary
is that social and technical relations of production are
privileged analytically. These legacies are easily detected in
those "first generation" approaches to ABTs, which attempt
to furnish a general framework of analysis.
Although ABTs are represented as a new technoscientific
paradigm, the analysis is anchored in the agricultural labour
process and its transformation via commodification of seed
production and plant breeding. In an italicized passage, Jack
Kloppenburg stresses that "the seed, as embodied information,
becomes the nexus of control over the determination and shape
Agro-Food Studies 63

of the entire crop production process." The wider structural

implications of ABTs in terms of industrial appropriationism
and substitutionism, or institutional change and new property
forms, for example, are similarly ushered through the
privileged gateway of production.
This obligatory passage-point into the circuits of capital
also is seen in the preoccupation with industrial concentration,
reflecting the redistribution of power toward upstream farm-
input sectors as agrochemical and pharmaceutical companies
take up dominant positions in ABTs and the seed industry.
Broadly speaking, this labour process-commodification
perspective has provided the general, overarching analytical
framework of choice for addressing ABTs in agro-food studies.
The "first generation" analyses approached ABTs by
problematizing the boundaries between agriculture and
industry. This analytic move provided the basis for more
systemic and historically informed studies of agroindustrial
development by drawing attention to the contingent nature
of this division of labour. Nevertheless, the farm labour-
process is taken as the privileged locus of the transformative
contradictions generated by agrotechnoscientific innovation.
The work of Kloppenburg, for example, is first situated
generally on the classical Marxist terrain of agriculture as a
"recalcitrant sector" and then takes up the specific theme of
the vectors of capitalist penetration of public plant-science and
its gradual institutional reconfiguration as "capitalist
property". The commodification of the seed is conceptualized
as a process of primitive acc'umulation, a process whose
highlights are the innovation of hybridization-which
"functions to uncouple agricultural producers from the
autonomous reconstitution of their own means of
production" -politically driven shifts in the institutional
division of labour between public and private plant breeding,
and changes in intellectual-property regimes to facilitate the
private appropriation of plant genetic. resources.
Kloppenburg's purpose is to explain how the seed, "which
is perhaps the element of agricultural means of production
64 Agro-Food Studies

most central to the entire farm production process", is

commodified and becomes a capitalist force of production.
Agricultural biotechnologies are emblematic of this historical
trajectory because "what is now occurring in the seed sector
is one instance of a much broader technological transformation
that is galvanizing changes in the social organization of all
production processes in which organic substances or life forms
playa significant role".
My colleagues and I apply the commodification approach
to on-farm means of production more widely (implements,
motive power, nutrient cycles, pest control, seeds, energy) and
argue that the biophysical processes of agricultural production
and food consumption have constituted natural, though
historically contingent, constraints to the industrialization of
agricultural use-values. Unable to reproduce natural
production processes fully by direct transformation, industrial
capitals have adapted in singular ways to the sectorally
differentiated properties of agricultural nature (biological time,
photosynthesis, land, climate) and the physiology of human
nutrition.
These differences, we argue, are analytically significant
as a major source of variation in the historical dynamicS,
specificities, and contemporary configurations of social
production in agro-food commodity networks. The concept of
appropriationism is used to designate the historically
discontinuous, piecemeal "but persistent undermining of
discrete elements of the agricultural production process, their
transformation into industrial activities, and their re-
incorporation into agriculture as inputs".
Elements of natural production processes are
progressively internalized by industrial capitals via
proprietary science and technology as individual sectors of
capitalist accumulation and reproduction. In brief, in
agriculture, where industrial capitals confront a natural
production process, agricultural biotechnologies constitute "a
generalized advance in the capacity of industrial capitals to
manipulate nature".
Agro-Food Studies 65

Whether in explicit or implicit terms, the framework

adopted by my colleagues and I and by Kloppenburg posits a
contingent, ongoing tension between agriculture as a
recalcitrant sector and its full assimilation by industrial capital.
Though with differing emphases, these studies broadly explore
the cumulative effects and convergence of several
interdependent processes of incorporation -cognitive,
technoscientific, economic, and regulatory-that progressively
extend the commodity form to new spheres of the farm
labourprocess. In this context, the technoscientific paradigm
constituted by biotechnology is identified as the catalyst of
assimilation.
Nature is transmuted into a force of production. This
reconfiguration represents the vector of "domestication" of
recalcitrant biological processes, hitherto inaccessible to
technoscientific manipulation and the reductionist endeavors
of industrial capitals. In this framework, biotechnology,
actually or potentially, has swept away the technological
foundations of the recalcitrance or exceptionalism of
agriculture.
For example, we formulated the basic question of the
agricultural labour process-commodification approach in the
following terms: "If biotechnology represents a qualitative
breakthrough'in that nature can now be reconstituted
industrially, does that mean that the food system is open to
assimilation within the broader transformations of the
industrial system?".
The answer we gave at that time could not be clearer; the
dichotomous tension is sundered definitively. "In this
perspective, biotechnology marks the end of the pre-history
of the food industry and its incorporation within the broader
dynamics of the industrial system and post-industrial society".
However, with what now seems fortunate prescience in the
light of contemporary biopolitical activism, we suggested that
"The frontiers of substitutionism are likely to be defined as
much by consumer tastes and loyalty to organic whole foods
as technical and engineering constraints".
66 Agro-Food Studies

Vectors of Incorporation
The labour process-commodification approach clearly has
furnished the preferred analytical framework for research on
ABTs in agro-food studies. A recent critique and extension of
"first generation" analyses attests to the continuing influence
of this approach. This same theoretical perspective also frames
a number of subsidiary research themes, which emerged in
the 1980s and early 1990s as social scientists came to grips with
the wider implications of ABTs.
A full account of these complementary studies, whose
scope ranges from the institutional intricacies of regulatory
change to the ethics of genetic engineering, exceeds the more
limited purview of this essay. However, with some
qualifications, these subsidiary studies follow the same
analytical threads Kloppenburg (1988) traces in his history of
plant improvement: that is, "the commodification of the seed,
the changing division of labour between public and private
research institutions, and the appropriation of plant genetic
resources" .
A particularly rich vein of scholarship on ABTs is devoted
to the constellation of political-economic forces that determine
the shifting demarcation line between basic and applied
research, and the corresponding realignment of the
institutional division of labour between public- and private-
sector research. The changing division of labour in the U. S.
agricultural research establishment, and notably the
institutional "capture" of the land-grant university system,
dominated work on ABTs in the 1980s.
These studies grappled with the political-economic and
ideological issues raised by the mounting evidence of
corporate penetration of American research universities, where
"biotechnology was born". As Edward Yoxen puts it, the
capitalist incorporation of molecular biology has reached the
point where "the industrial exploitation of recombinant DNA
research by corporate capital can be serviced directly from the
academic research labouratory".
Agro-Food Studies 67
With remarkably few exceptions, the agro-food studies
literature has been reluctant to follow Yoxen's lead and venture
seriously into the history of science. However, the emergence
of the "university industrial complex" and the vital
contribution of academic scientists to the nascent
biotechnology industry are explored fully in Martin Kenney's
outstanding and prescient book Biotechnologt;: The University-
Industrial Complex.
This study crowned a wave of related papers investigating
the emerging social division of labour in agricultural
biotechnology and plant-breeding research. Much of this work
on institutional change is associated with Fred Buttel and his
colleagues, then in the Department of Rural Sociology at
Cornell University.
The rapidly changing matrix of agricultural research
policy, scientific practices, and public research institutions and
the international reach of agricultural biotechnologies also
distinguish the scholarship of Lawrence Busch, Bill Lacy, and
their collabourators in this same period.
A second strong theme of agro-food studies research on
ABTs in the 1980s focused on patterns of innovation and
industrial concentration, and their impacts on agricultural
production and rural social structures. In a pioneering paper,
Jack Kloppenburg (1984) assesses the prospective structural
consequences of ABTs by ~tending the historical tendencies
already observed in the development and diffusion of hybrid
com. As in this earlier case, "Biotechnology, too, promises to
create a vast new space for the accumulation, concentration,
and centralization of capital".
This Schumpeterian notion is reinforced by other
analytical foci, including the capitalist subordination of public
agricultural research and plant breeding, the development of
herbicide-resistant crops, the loss of farmer autonomy,
acceleration of the technological treadmill, and continued
genetic erosion. If the concentration of intellectual-property
ownership in corporate hands is added to these foci, a
remarkable continuity emerges between the scholarship of the
68 Agro-Food Studies

early 1980s and the contemporary political-economic analysis

of ABTs.
Afurther parallel can also be drawn with current activist
opposition to the rising corporate control of global agro-food
systems, opposition that has captured public attention since
the street battles at the 1999 WTO meetings in Seattle. Other
contributors approached the socioeconomic impacts of ABTs
by examining innovation patterns, typically through the prism
of new opportunities for accumulation, the implosion of
sectoral barriers to entry, and the industrial reorganization and
concentration in the agro-food system as a whole.
These studies focus on the upstream and downstream
industrial sectors, notably the chemical-pharmaceutical
complex, to draw out the implications of ABT innovation for
farming and for social-production relation~ in farming. For
example, John Wilkinson and I suggest that the generic
capacity to engineer living organisms "prefigures a new bio-
industrial paradigm".
DJIA. NASDAQ. & Burrill Select Perfonnance

100~~~--------------------~~~~--~~

_20%.L..---------------------------------------I
Dec-02 Jan-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 Apr-03 May-03

Fig. Biotech select index

"Biotechnologies now threaten to implode the long-
standing organization of the food system arotlnd specialized
commodity chains .... There is the capacity simultaneously to
relocate agricultural production in factories and industrial
production in fields". Although countervailing tendencies are
likely to set up tensions between alternative models and
trajectories, we argue that ABTs will accentuate the shift
toward a more demand-oriented agro-food system.
Agro-Food Studies 69
Biotechnology as the generic catalyst of wider impulses
toward bioindustrialization also underpins projected scenarios
of change in the social organization of agriculture. These
processes include the amplification of the observed trend
toward large-scale, intensive, continuous production systems
and the introduction of all-purpose agricultural "biomass
refineries." Such developments are predicted to lead to greater
concentration of land ownership and more widespread
contract production and part-time farming.
From the early 1980s, innovation studies with a more
action-oriented policy research perspective began to appear
in the agro-food studies literature. These studies were
galvanized by the field testing and approaching commercial
adoption of genetically engineered organisms, which gave
concrete expression to concerns about environmental safety,
rural structural change, and demands for regulatory processes
with greater democratic participation.
Struggles over the licensing of recombinant bovine growth
hormone (rBGH) crystallized these issues acutely in the United
States. The rBGH controversy also exposed the conflicted
politicS of ABT research in the U. S. land-grant university
system and other public institutions involved in the innovation
process.
A third and continuing strand of agro-food studies
scholarship on ABTs examines the political-economic
repercussions and contested politics of changing intellectual-
property regimes in plant breeding and genetic resources. As
in the case of rBGH, the academic literature in the 1980s was
strongly informed, if not led, by parallel activist contributions,
notably from members of RAFI, or the Rural Advancement
Foundation International. These interactions have intensified
since the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio as part of the ongoing
struggles to shape the emerging supranational institutions of
global environmental governance, and notably in this context,
the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which regulates international
commerce in living modified organisms.
70 Agro-Food Studies

Contributors in the 1980s quickly grasped the import of

the landmark rulings that extended and consolidated property
rights to microorganisms, plant germplasm, and rDNA
techniques and other processes involved in plant genetic
research. The dramatic institutional shift to allow the
commodification of life forms-" ownable artifacts, whilst also
being a part of nature" - has been analyzed from various
angles in agrofood studies.
Several accounts trace the institutional origins and
evolving structures of intellectual property rights in plant
breeding before 1980, when the U. S. Supreme Court's decision
in Diamond v. Chakrabarty overturned the "product of nature"
principle, which had earlier dominated this field of patent law.
Other scholars surveyed this same terrain but from specific
institutional standpoints to evaluate the implications of these
new legal and social conventions for particular groups of
actors.
This scholarship, for example, investigated university-
industry relations and the public and private communities of
agricultural scientists and research administrators. However,
in agro-food studies, the issues arising from the patenting of
life forms were explored most vigorously at the international
level.
Academics and activists exposed the institutional
dimensions of NorthSouth power asymmetries and the
inequalities embedded in the governance structures of
international agricultural research, such as the Consultative
Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) system,
and the associated collection and transfer of germplasm as
"common heritage" resources. Jack Kloppenburg deserves
much credit for bringing the "North-South seed wars" and
questions of political-economic control over international plant
genetic resources into agro-food shldies, and other scholars
soon followed his lead.
More recently, issues of access to and ownership and
conservation of international genetic resources have faded
from prominence in this literature. This decline, paradoxically,
Agro-Food Studies 71

has coincided with the rising salience of these questions on

national and international policy agendas as Greenpeace,
Friends of the Earth, and other leading environmental groups
have reinforced the longstanding campaigns of more
specialized, agrienvironmental organizations, such as RAFI
and Genetic Resources Action International (GRAIN).
Although incomplete, this survey of the earlier literature
on ABTs reveals some strong continuities with contemporary
scholarship, in terms of both theoretical perspective and more
specific concerns, such as genetic erosion, decline of farmer
autonomy, and centralized control of agro-food networks on
a global scale. Discursive continuities also persist, despite Fred
Buttel's suggestion that the days of extravagant rhetoric
characteristic of biotechnology in "its formative years, roughly
the mid-1970s to late 1980s," are now past.
In this period, Buttel argues, virtually all the
protagonists -leading molecular biologists, venture capitalists,
small startup firms, government officials, and environmental
and public-interest groups-embraced it as epoch-making and
revolutionary. "As late as the end of the 1980s, most academic,
policy and activist treatments of biotechnology were
essentially agreed on its magic bullet character and
transformative potential". At the turn of the millennium, the
implication that this viewpoint is no longer shared seems
premature, even if more pragmatic assessments can
increasingly be found.
The tropes of these formative years are still actively
deployed in the rancorous exchanges between supporters and
opp'Jnents of ABTs. For each group, the discursive starting
point remains the promise of the technology: golden rice
versus Frankenfoods, precision breeding versus superweeds,
and so on.
A brave new socionatural world is on offer, which, if
realized, would empower the networks of human and
nonhuman entities involved in its construction. Some recent
work on technoscience and relational ethics in agro-food
studies, particularly extensions of actor-network theory, seek
72 Agro-Food Studies
to elucidate such biopolitical choices by adopting an explicitly
nondualist framework of analysis. These new approaches
represent a reflexive theoretical project to overcome the
abstraction of nature in mainstream agro-food studies by
interrogating its modernist ontological foundations.
New Perspectives
Although the labour process-commodification perspective
retains a1).alytical appeal, it is clearly a product of its times. As
Kloppenburg observes, "The model of change that emerges
from this analysis is fundamentally dialectical-the forces arui-
relations of production are mutually conditioning". Human
praxis is ontologically central, and nature is firmly located on
the opposite side of the modernist divide. At best, nature is
endowed with certain qualities of "resistance," which are
identified, for example, with "biological barriers" to capital
and "secrets of life" that are inaccessible to science.
However, in this characterization, nature is figured as a
passive entity whose latent properties will be revealed only if
it is acted upon by industrial technoscience. Following the
Enlightenment antinomy between nature and society, nature
is other, which industrial society is driven to subjugate and
appropriate.
As depicted in From Farming to Biotechnology, the
agricultural labour process has indeed presented historically
contingent biophysical limits to industrial appropriation and
substitution. Yet, although nature and industry are drawn as
oppositional categories, in analytical terms, industry is the only
actor. This unexamined ontological choice precludes the
conceptualization of nature as a lively, active, and formative
presence and so underplays what arguably are the truly
revolutionary material dimensions of biotechnology.
Unwittingly and implicitly, with this choice the analysis is
captured by the engineering metaphor of life propagated by
industrial capital, with its omnipotent technocratic discourse
of precision, efficiency, and benign evolutionary improvement.
This observation is not intended to deny the incisiveness
of the labour process framework as an analytical vantage point
Agro-Food Studies 73

to address social cui bono issues and rural structural change as

nature is reconfigured as a productive force. Clearly, such a
denial would fly in the face of historical and contemporary
evioence of the salience of production as a terrain of theory
and praxis. Nevertheless, the ontological critique of late post-
industrial capitalist political economy can fruitfully be
extended by bridging the modernist divide between nature
and society in order to imagine and construct alternative
socioecological worlds.
As already noted, agency in "first generation" approaches
to ABTs is uniquely identified with human intentionality and
human action on an objectified, but now less recalcitrant,
nature. This instrumentalist ontology, with its purified
categories of nature and society, is closed to notions of the
relational materiality of nature, offers no theorization of the
lively entities emerging as social partners in these
technoscientific practices, and fails to entertain nonhuman
perspectives and shared consequences.
An alternative conceptualization of nature, one that
attributes active properties to nonhuman entities, would focus
analytical attention on the interrelational negotiation of new
socionatural realities, which are now being constituted with
the commercial diffusion of genetically engineered crops in
India. Such an approach also would make explicit the ethical,
environmental, and political choices associated with different
human -nonh uman assembla ges and "socio-ecologica I
projects". Hov;ever, as argued elsewhere, mainstream agro-
food studies remains transfixed by the modernist ontology.
Encouragin.31y, there are recent signs of a reflexive "turn" to
give analytical salience to "the status of nature" and to
interrogate the modernist divide.
Natural-Technical Intermediaries and Agro-SociaJ Networks
The analytical richness and potential of actor-network
theory (ANT) in agro-food studies have been expressively
revealed in these reflexive explorations. However, apart from
an illustrativ<" vignette, these analytical resources so far have
not been def'lOyed in work on ABTs. This is a major omission
74 Agro-Food Studies

in agro-food studies, and efforts to rectify this position deserve

high priority on the ABT research agenda.
Lawrence Busch and his colleagues in a recent series of
papers on the rapeseed (canola) commodity sector have
undertaken the most systematic work on agricultural
technoscience from an actor-network perspective. This
impressive research elucidates the endogeneity of technical
change and the processes by which knowledge-commodity
transformations become ecosocially embedded. ANT is used
to analyze the rise and institutionalization of rapeseed
technoscience by conceptualizing technological innovation as
a process of network building.
Thus, instead of considering technology as an exogenom
factor to the system of commodity production, the network
approach does not differentiate between human and
nonhuman elements. In such analyses, society does not
transform technology, nor does technology cause the
transformation of society. Rather, "the very actor-networks ...
simultaneously give rise to society and to technology."
Moreover, Arunas Juska and Lawrence Busch find ANT
to be particularly helpful in uncovering points both of
analytical entry and of political action in cases where, as with
ABTs, processes of network formation, extension, and
reconfiguration are dynamic and in flux. In this perspective,
"it becomes evident that the relationships mediated through
the network are contingent in nature: they can be disrupted;
they can collapse; they can be organized according to different
principles; they can be constantly changed and renegotiated".
In a second paper, Busch and Keiko Tanaka deploy the
concept of symmetry, which ANT extends to nonhumans, to
give "an explicit portrayal of non-human actors over time and
space" in "the complex networks known ... as commodity
chains", such as rapeseed (canola). The product grades and
standards constitutive of commodities represent "rites of
passage" for both nature and people.
"Thus, by transforming nonhumans and subjecting them
to multiple rites of passage, we co-produce nature, society,
Agro-Food Studies 75

[and] the capitalist market". The symmetry of these

qualification processes also extends to their ethical dimensions,
which infuse these modes or "rites" of mutual socialization of
humans and nonhumans.
In a later analysis of the globalization of rapeseed
networks, Busch and Juska contend that the political economy
of agriculture perspective and its "categorical apparatus" are
"inadequate" to the task at hand. The political economy
approach is underspecified because "in true Baconian style,
nature is recast as resources to be transformed", as passive.Jn
contrast, the political economy of actor networks reveals how
the strategic positions of human and nonhuman actors and
the geometry of power in networks are negotiated, modified,
and transformed temporally and spatially.
A more recent paper investigates these questions in finer
historical detail by examining the reciprocal and contingent
relationships between agricultural research and agricultural
production, and the changing strategic positions of nation-
states as the rapeseed sector has become more globalized since
the mid-1970s.
This brief review of rapeseed technoscience provides some
indication of the purview and analytical purchase of ANT.
With its symmetrical ontology and method, ANT offers a
penetrating conceptual repertoire for the analysis of ABTs.
Lively eco-social coproductions and category fusions of the
natural and artifactual are particularly in evidence in the
everyday practices of agro-food networks in an era of
genetically engineered organisms.
Thus Bruno Latour extends an invitation to reject the
purified categories of "society" and "nature" and focus instead
on "the blind spot where society and matter exchange
properties". These transactions are brought centre stage i:1
order to expose the inescapable sociomateriality of the entities
mobilized into the heterogeneous associations that hold society
together.
The constant interchange of human and nonhuman
properties in network formation has created "mixtures
76 Agro-Food Studies

between two entirely new types of being, hybrids of nature

and culture". These processes of mediation, in turn, constitute
the foundation of modern technosciences, which "multiply the
non-humans enrolled in the manufacturing of collectives and
'" make the community that we form with these beings a more
intimate one".
Rather than engage in a lengthy exposition of ANT, its
merits and limitations, the point to emphasize is that we have
a non dualist, relational, and processual framework in which
nonhumans are actively present, performati ve, and
consequential. In this significant respect, although otherwise
confessedly modest in its claims, ANT challenges the silences
and abstractions of production-centered analyses. That is, it
furnishes an ontology and conceptual language with which
to address the implosions, natureculture hybrids, and newly
socialized intermediaries emerging from the heterogeneous
engineering practices of agro-food technoscience.
ANT's terms of engagement and insistence on "the
permeable boundary running between humans and non-
humans" resonate strongly with the ethical and relational
concerns of biopolitical activism. An ethical standpoint, a
relational moral philosophy, is discernible in ANT's framing
of the construction of our world, its insistent reference to
crossovers and the exchange of properties between human and
nonhuman entities. As Jonathan Murdoch notes, actor-network
theorists "force us to look afresh at the categories, divisions
and boundaries that frequently divert our attention away from
the nonhuman multitudes which make up our world".
This imperative recalls Latour's analysis of Louis Pasteur's
research on the anthrax bacillus. That is, the bacilli, once
"translated" from the natural competition found in the
farmyard to Pasteur's labouratory in Paris, encounter a new
environment, an altered state, where they can thrive. Following
Latour, Elizabeth Bird observes that "In the labouratory,
nature-in the form of Pasteur's "natural-technical object"-
becomes an actor negotiating a new reality. In the terrr:s of that
context, the microbes become actors in shaping a new
environment" (258, original emphasis).
Agro-Food Studies 77

Latour continues, "Training microbes and domesticating

them is a craft.. .. Once these skills have accumulated inside
labouratories, many cross-overs occur that had no reason to
occur anywhere else before". Similarly, when analyzing
Pasteur's discovery of the microorganism responsible for lactic
fermentation, Latour draws attention to the change in
ontological status that this step involved and observes that "in
his labouratory in Lille Pasteur is designing an actor".
The analytical parallels and possibilities of extending this
approach to the transgenic "natural-technical objects" of
ABTs-such as Roundup Ready soybeans and Bt com, not to
mention the unintended progeny of horizontal gene transfer-
are clear. In a brief vignette on ANT, I suggest that agri-
biotechnological innovation can be analyzed in terms of the
practices deployed to reconfigure or "translate" existing agro-
food networks by enrolling genetically engineered organisms
(GEOs) and foods.
In effect, corporate networks, such as Aventis, DuPont,
and Syngenta, are seeking to displace previous socionatural
orderings and to realign agro-food networks in ways that
support and "naturalize" the diffusion of GEOs into rural
environments, crops, and animals. Thus, agri-biotechnologies
II

introduce new mediators into the intimate corporeal relations

of agro-food networks, promising new corporealities and,
quite literally, new bodies".
Biopolitical mobilization, notably in Western Europe, has
raised material and ethical concerns against this reordering of
agro-food networks in marshaling opposition to the
environmental release of GEOs and the incorporation of
genetically engineered foods into human bodies. This
mobilization directly challenges the industrial, technoscientific
problematization of ABTs, variously framed as the answer to
world hunger, as an improvement on nature, or in terms of
the inevitability of technical change.
In this modernist instrumental perspective, nature is
objectified as a field of resources awaiting domination and
exploitation by the relentless advance of technoscience. Against
78 Agro-Food Studies

this dualist rationality, green biopolitical activism is informed

by a relational ethics and by precepts of shared community.
These biopolitics of ABTs reveal the "clash of divergent
ontologies" provoked by struggles to realign agro-food
networks into new socionatural orderings.
By undermining the modernist ideology of nature as
externalized and objectified, ANT provides theoretical
resources to address nature and its lively materiality directly.
This attention to how "socionatures" are constructed broadens
critical engagement with capitalist technoscience and political
economy and informs our understanding of the heterogeneous
associations fostered by this ordering of the socioecological.
The dimensions of this political space are amplified if we
interpret ANT as an ethical discourse of how to live in the
world. This perception of ethicat as well as materiat
embeddedness speaks directly to the problema tics of
biopolitical activism, as noted above.
Even a cursory understanding of ABTs brings recognition
of the new socionatural assemblages emerging, under the aegis
of capitalist technoscience, to construct new worlds. In turn,
this recognition suggests the need for conceptual frameworks
that explicitly bring normative judgment and political critique
to bear on these new collectives and respond to Donna
Haraway's interrogation of technoscience: how, for whom, and
at what cost?
Acknowledgment of our partnership in these human-
nonhuman assemblages would be an initial step toward the
development of forms of social organization that encourage
democratic choice between alternative orderings and the
worlds they bring forth. For these purposes, we need
ontologies that reveat not abstract, our interactive, relational
production of worlds we inhabit with others. The novel
socionatural assemblages of capitalist agro-food technoscience,
which herald new actors and new realities, underline the
significance of theoretical and political choice.
In this re-encounter with agro-food studies research on
ABTs, "the theoretical and thematic continuities of this literature
Agro-Food Studic~ 79

emerge insistently. Indeed, in theoretical terms, there is a

powerful sense of deja vu, of involution even, and alternative
perspectives remain firmly on the margins. In the preceding
sections of this chapter, I emphasized both the primacy of the
labour process commodification approach and its ontological
limitations for comprehending the new socionatures
constituted by ABTs.
This framework constrains efforts to find common ground
with the relational ontology and moral economy that inform
the biopolitics of environmental movements and Green
activists. Such serious limitations, in short, lend urgency to
theoretical renewal in agro-food studies and, more generally,
to the "greening" projects and explorations of Red-Green
rapprochement now under way in various fields of critical
social theory.
These projects unmask the political agendas and
instrumentalist ethics imbricated in modernist ontological
antinomies and their reification. At the risk of repetition, the
agro-food studies literature on ABTs has as its analytical focus
the ensemble of institutional processes and social relations that
have led to the commodification of nature or, as Yoxen has it,
to "capitalizing life".
This labour process conceptualization, with its emphasis
on the subsumption of nature and its manipulation as a
productive force, sees this transition exclusively from the
standpoint of the social. Nature is subsumed by purposive
social agency, whose dynamic is to be found in the laws of
accumulation and social relations of the capitalist mode of
production. There is no place here for the relational materiality
of nature, its liveliness, or its "boomerang" qualities. This
framework does not entertain either notions of natural-social
co-productions or the consequences of these assemblages for
entities with whom we share this world.
The labour process perspective, in short, does not lend
itself to an assured engagement with the new constituencies
Of agro-food biopolitics. However, "this is not to dismiss the
strengths of this perspective. Rather, it is ... to observe that
80 Agro-Food Studies

this theoretical lens or 'framing' device does not focus directly,

for example, on the new socionatural relations, interspecies
metabolisms and exotic corporealities unleashed by
agricultural biotechnologies .... these new constellations or
assemblages of nature-society relations are key catalytic
elements of bio-political activism in agro-food networks".
This review also has drawn attention to thematic
continuities, although clearly the scale and intensity of social
mobilization have grown sharply with the accelerating
deployment of ABTs. These thematic links are amply reflected
in this volume. Issues of governance, although not known as
such in the 1980s, form a recurrent body of concern. Two
themes, already identified previously, have retained particular
salience.
The first theme concerns the ways in which ABTs heighten
the concentration of industrial control in agro-food systems-
"a global oligopoly" in William Boyd's estimation. Exploring
the deep structures of monopoly" within a commodification
/I

of nature framework, Boyd extends the analysis of ABTs into

the era of life sciences multinationals, genomics, and the
competitive imperative to capture value by integrating
vertically from proprietary intellectual-property platforms to
seed marketing and contract farming.
A social constructivist-commodification perspective also
frames the contributions of Scott Prudham and Dennis Kelso
to this collection. Following Richard White, Prudham adopts
the metaphor of nature as an organic machine to describe the
transformation of living organisms into technologies and
commodities. Within this framework, he is particularly
concerned to track the harnessing of public science to private
innovation in the development of forestry biotechnology, the
concomitant restructuring of university-industry-state
relations, and how this trajectory is shaped by the specificity
of recalcitrant nature.
In warning against technological fetishism, Prudham
insists that biotechnologies be seen not as things but as bundles
of social relations with historical lineages in order to emphasize
Agro-Food Studies 81

that technological change is socially produced. Although

Kelso's analysis of the deployment of biotechnology in
commercial salmon aquaculture broadly fits with the labour
process-agrarian transition problematic of agro-food studies,
his main concern is to reject its technological determinist
inflections.
This endeavor brings Kelso into closer engagement with
issues that have been strangely muted in this literature until
recently and especially with the sources, forms, and resources
of sociai resistance to biotechnological innovation. Kelso's
account of trans genie salmon embraces not only mobilization
around questions of food safety and environmental risk but
also the defensive stance of salmon farmers against the
perceived technological threat to the aquaculture industry as
presently constituted.
In elabourating these questions, Kelso draws attention to
the politics of scientific uncertainty and state regulation,
highlighting the strategic importance of discursive struggles
to form public perceptions of nature and the natural. This
discussion, together with the chapters by Julie Guthman,
Frederick Buttel, and Rachel Schurman and William Munro,
begins to address important lacunae in the agro-food studies
literature.
The second thematic grouping is around governance
issues and focuses on continued First World-Third World
tensions over access to genetic resources and the perceived
asymmetries of power articulated by intellectual property
rights regimes and, notably, the 1994 WTO TRIPS accord.
These ongoing tensions find expression in the contested
politics, shifting alliances, and arcane regulatory processes of
new multilateral institutions of global governance-the WTO
and CBD-and their disputed mandates in the conjoined
policy arenas of international economics, trade, and
environment.
Environmental governance emerges in another
contemporary guise in the chapter by Astrid Scholz. Her
analysis traCE:S the vagaries of the utilitarian rationale for
82 Agro-Food Studies

biodiversity conservation as the imj-'ortance of natural product

screening in the R&D strategies of transnational
pharmaceutical corporation's waxes and wanes, exacerbating
the inequities of power embedded in private bioprospecting
agreements.
The contribution by Frederick Buttel similarly can be
situated within the global governance thematic; however, like
Kelso's chapter, it also provides a bridge to some neglected
issues. Buttel's wide-ranging account encompasses the
institutional architecture of the globalization regime, the power
brokering of the GATf-WTO transition and the spoiling" role
II

of agro-food issues-festering EU-V. S. "food wars" (bananas,

beef, GEOs), unilateral trade sanctions, the
"environmentalization" of ABTs, the global farm crisis-in
revealing potential fault lines and pressure points in this
accumulation regime.
Taken in the aggregate, these individually contentious
issues have cumulatively resonated with growing force in
political, cultural, and institutional domains. Whether or not
GEOs prove to be the Achilles' heel of the globalization regime,
Buttel is surely right to stress that EU-U. S. disputes, and their
potential to galvanize social protest, are less about trade
liberalization than about the perceived threat of institutional
convergence, and especially the forced harmonization of
national regulatory structures and the further erosion of
cultural identity.
The bridge in Buttel's account rests on recognition of the
crucial nexus formed by the politicS of scientific research and
policy, environmental risk, food safety, regulation, and
consumption. These politics are complexly intertwined and
varied in their manifestation, ranging from agro-food
movements, environmental coalitions, and many forms of
direct action, inclltding street theater and green sabotage, to
NGO involvement in regulatory processes and consumer
pressure on food retailers and manufacturers.
This terrain remains largely unexplored in agro-food
studies, apart from limited incursions into one or other of its
Agro-Food Studies 83

arenas, such as the politics of rBGH consumption or the role

of ABTs in facilitating transition to demand-driven food
systems. This neglect is surprising in view of the considerable
prominence of these research themes in other fields of critical
social theory. In this context, work on the institutional matrix
of science, science policy, and regulation, as undertaken more
generally by Yoxen, Kay, Bud, and Wright, could fruitfully be
extended to developments in agriculture and food since the
1980s.
In the present volume, the chapters by Guthman and by
Schurman and Munro set some markers to follow in
addressing the research nexus identified above. Guthman
examines the contradictions that GEO labeling and right-to-
know legislation in the United States present for movements
seeking to build an effective politics of consumption, especially
the privatization of risk management for genetically
engineered foods and the political disarticulation that labeling
implies. In calling for research on "an emerging political
economy of risk," Guthman follows Haraway in emphasizing
the centrality of struggles for "the power to define what counts
as technical or political".
In this respect, it would be interesting to explore how
European consumer groups and environmental organizations
have avoided the pitfalls of labeling and convinced national
governments and the EU to redraw the boundary between the
technical and the political by agreeing to reopen previous
regulatory decisions to public scrutiny. Demarcation struggles
and boundary changes are the central theme of Schurman and
Munro's chapter. The chronology of events in the rising social
opposition to ABTs is becoming well-known, but there is a
dearth of careful analyses of antibiotech activism, its strategies
and modus operandi. Schurman and Munro begin to address
this hiatus by examining antibiotech movements in the North,
primarily in the United States.
In their view, the marked shift in public sentiment against
genetically engineered foods is not attributable to inchoate
consumer resistance or to spontaneous protest. Rather, this
84 Agro-Food Studies

dramatic change, and its economic and regulatory

repercussions, have been orchestrated by the social-movement
organization and mobilization of established civil-society
actors.
In pressing this argument, the authors provide valuable
insights into the wide array of social organizations articulated
by .this movement, its tactical sophistication, and its
networking skills, which facilitate operation across a variety
of institutional and spatial scales and in different regulatory
spheres and discursive arenas. Schurman and Munro leave
unanswered the thorny questions of representation and the
trans formative potential of the antibiotechnology movement.
However, it is to be hoped that this initial exploration will
encourage others to join them in investigating this serious gap
in the politics of agricultural technoscience.
In December 2000, completion of
the plant genome sequence of thale
cress (Arabidopsis thaliana) was
announced, the first of some 250,000
plant species. Agro-food
technoscience, here represented by
the public-private consortium,
including Monsanto, which
comprises the Multinational
Coordinated Arabidopsis thaliana
Genome Research Project, goes
marching on . Now, as in the 1980s, it
is vital that critical social scientists
Fig. Arabidopsis thaliana
join with the antibiotech movement
and other progressive forces in the struggle to submit this
enterprise and the worlds it would create to democratic debate
and public assent.
 Evolving Policies of
Biotechnology

LABORATORY TO FIELD
The timely development and rational introduction of R-
DNA modified organisms into the environment depend on the
formulation of sound regulatory policy that stimulates
innovation without compromising good environmental
management. Ecologists are unable to predict which
introduced species will become established and which will not,
and it is often not possible to explain successes or failure after
the fact.
The weighty publicity over biotech products and research
directions helped bring about a new configuration of public
advocacy. Transgenic animals were an issue that linked animal
rights organizations, environmentalists, and alternative
agriculture groups. The development of more refined genetic
screening techniques brought warnings from civil liberties and
disability rights advocates. Disclosures of rising expendihlfes
in the Department of Defense's biological defence programme
stimulated interest from activists in the disarmament
community.
Feminist-health advocacy groups began exploring the
impacts of genetic techniques on reproductive technologies.
Bioethicists, clinicians, and religious leaders began tackling the
thorny problems of human gene therapy. The prospect of
86 Evolving Policies of Biotechnology

major pharmaceutical advances through rONA research

provided the grist for debates in the international health
community on the priorities for developing vaccines. Food and
agricultural organizations questioned the impact of
biotechnology and the new patent provisions on control over
plant genetic resources.
It appeared that every major industrial innovation in
applied genetics tapped a wellspring of new issues that were
brought to the social agenda. Of these, the issue that ignited
the strongest public reaction during the early stages of the
biotechnology revolution was the introduction of genetically
engineered organisms (GEOs) into the environment. This
chapter examines the origins of regulatory oversight over
deliberate releases and the federal efforts at creating an orderly
transition from small-scale labouratory applications of gene-
splicing to large-scale releases of GEOs into the environment.
SOCIETAL CONCERN OVER GEOS
Why has there been so much concern over the risks of
releasing plants and microorganisms that have been modified
by genetic engineering techniques? Shouldn't the emphasis be
on the product and not the particular way the product is
created? There are three plausible explanations for the cultural
selection of genetically engineered products as a special area
of concern. First, the perception of risk associated with
deliberate release has largely been formed from prior concerns
about recombinant DNA research.
In other words, the environmental problems of genetically
modified organisms were inherited from earlier stages of the
genetics debates. Recombinant DNA-produced organisms are
what R. E. Kasperson calls a "social amplifier" in the public's
perception of risk. A second explanation is based upon the
notion that genetic engineering provides far greater specificity
and control over the product than one could achieve by plant
hybridization or breeding of animals. As a result of the
specificity of rONA techniques and their capability of joining
Evolving Policies of Biotechnology 87

quite distant forms of life, the novel life-forms span wider

species boundaries and are subject to fewer natural constraints.
By inserting a single foreign gene, a phenotypic property
of a bacterium may be radically a-Itered. Resistance to
antibiotics is such a property. The ability to change phenotypes
in the labouratory with such ease has heightened concerns
about deliberate release. Will nature have an opportunity to
accommodate to these sudden changes?
To the contrary, some scientists have argued that the
specificity of genetic modification makes modern gene-splicing
safer than conventional genetics, where genes get mixed
randomly and in large clusters. Following this line of
reasoning, the precision of gene-splicing means that the
resulting properties of the organism will be easier to predict.
According to plant geneticist Winston Brill writing in Science,
in conventional breeding it is impossible to predict the
properties of the progeny from most of the crosses.
Genetically engineered plants have greater specificity: "If
we compare plants derived from oreeding programmes with
those derived through genetic engineering, it is clear that, in
the latter case, the addition of a few characterized genes to
the plant results in properties that are relatively easy to
predict.'·
From another perspective, despite the specificity of rDNA
techniques, with them one might be capable of producing more
substantial changes in organisms with fewer genetic alterations
than with classical genetic techniques. The issue of whether
modern genetic engineering techniques are capable of
producing varieties of plants, microbes, and animals that could
never have arisen from the natural rearrangement of genes
remains unresolved. It is widely acknowledged that we
humans can at least accelerate or redirect the evolutionary
process even if we cannot create qualitatively new life forms.
A third reason why genetically engineered plants and
organisms designed for environmental release have attracted
more concern than the release of similar products prepared
88 Evolving Policies of Biotechnology

through conventional genetics is related to the reputed power

of the new technology. Gene-splicing has been the raison d'etre
of a technological revolution. This is not simply another
discovery in the slow, incremental growth of science. This
discovery has given birth to a new industrial process for
radically reconfiguring biological matter. The disclosure that
there is a new power to transform nature is one of the sources
of public and scientific anxiety.
It might be argued that if rONA technology embodies a
power to stimulate the growth of a multibillion dollar industry,
why should its risks be considered comparable to those of
conventional genetics? What is the likelihood that the
industrial potential of gene-splicing (gentechnics), which is,
let us say, a thousand times greater than that of conventional
biotechnology, will be unleashed without any increases in
environmental risks? It is certainly a question worth
considering.
Setting aside for the moment the body of scientific
argument about the potential risks of new biotechnologies,
there is an undisputed equation between technological power
and risk anxiety that must be considered in fully
understanding the public reaction to biotechnology. The
simultaneous pronouncements about power and safety seem
incongruous to a popular culture that has been sensitized to
technological failure.
In trying to comprehend the risks of releasing genetically
altered species into the environment, inevitably we are drawn
to comparisons. Two technologies of commensurate
transforming quality to gene-splicing are synthetic organic
chemistry and nuclear physics. Both of these technologies are
capable of creating new arrangements of matter in a fashion
analogous to the creation of novel species through biogenetic
engineering.
Risk assessment for synthetic chemicals has been in
progress for several decades. There have been some important
breakthroughs as well as notable impediments. The
identification of a chemical substance is a well-defined process.
Evolving Policies of Biotechnology 89

It is, therefore, possible to construct a precise inventory of

chemical compounds. The same is not true for biological
agents, at least in some practical sense. Microorganisms and
plants are classified by phenotype, and therefore the addition
or deletion of a few genes will not necessarily warrant a change
in the classification.
It is estimated that 60 to 80 thousand distinct chemicals
are used in industry out of a pool of several million that have
been synthesized. If a genetic identification system was used
for biological organisms, the number of extant chemicals
would pale against the number of distinct life-forms since, for
the latter, a single nucleotide change would be a differentiating
factor. Keeping track of novel organisms and establishing an
identification system is a problem of enormous complexity,
and probably unrealistic since genetic mutation is a constant
occurrence. Yet any serious regulatory effort in biotechnology
must address the identity question.
An obvious difference between inert chemicals and life-
forms is that the latter are self-reproducing. Throughout the
history of the chemical industry there have been countless
cases where toxic carcinogenic chemicals were disposed of in
lagoons and landfills. These chemicals saturate the soil and
eventually migrate to subsurface water supplies where they
contaminate drinking water. Once embedded in the earth,
many industrial chemicals are difficult to remove.
Entire neighborhoods in areas such as Times Beach in
Missouri and Love Canal in New York have been evacuated
because of toxic waste. In other, more manageable situations,
contaminated soil is removed or filtration methods are applied
to poisoned wells.
The mistaken release of a nuisance biological agent cannot
be handled by techniques developed for chemical
contamination. At the worst, the released organisms are
beyond recall and will grow to population orders of a
magnitude beyond the density of the inoculation. Moreover,
if a novel organism were introduced and subsequently found
90 Evolving Policies of Biotechnology

to be dangerous, geographical isolation and community

evacuation would simply not work.
Considerable progress has been made in standardizing
toxicological testing for chemicals. The use of accepted
methodologies, standardized target species such as germ-free
mice or rats, and microbial assays such as the Ames Test have
contributed to uniform standards of risk analysis.
Notwithstanding the progress, there are still many areas of
uncertainty and scientific debate.
Among them are questions about dosage and
extrapolation from animal to human effects. Also, human
epidemiological studies are frequently too insensitive to pick
up small increases in cancer incidence over a lifetime exposure.
While there are many effects of chemical exposure that are not
well understood, there is at least a basic methodology for
gathering the data.
There is no commensurate H
methodology for assessing the risks of
released organisms. Moreover, the Sr Asr
Sr
risks associated with certain chemical
releases are real. Their effects on
humans and the biotic world have
c>=<' c>=('
been observed. In contrast, the H CI CI CI

potential risks of genetically altered

life-forms are currently speculative. As Fig. Trihalomethanes
a result, the social demand for evaluating the risks of
bioengineered products designed for environmental use may
not evoke the same urgency as if the hazards were confirmed.
When chemicals enter the environment, it is not always
obvious what effects the breakdown products (metabolites)
will have on the ecology. Chlorine has been used extensively
to purify drinking water. Its use has been associated with the
appearance of chloroform, a potent carcinogen, and other
troublesome compounds called trihalomethanes. While there
may be risks in the continued use of chlorine, the alternatives
are not good. No safer method for purifying water is available.
We can never be sure how released chemicals will reconfigure
EvolVl1lg Policies of Biotechnology 91

themselves in ecosystems, but compared to the possibilities

of biological entities, the range of unexpected outcomes for
inert chemicals is probably much narrower since the biological
entities mutate.
A subclass of all possible mutations affects the phenotype
of the entity. Whether it is more complicated to predict the
mutational possibilities of a novel organism than to predict
the synthetic pathways and metabolites of a new chemical is
the subject of debate. Organisms are certainly more complex
than inert chemical compounds. That does not mean that they
are inherently riskier, but it does portend a high level of
complexity in analyzing environmental risks of genetically
novel entities in contrast to newly synthesized chemicals.
There are also some comparisons to be made between
biotechnology and nuclear technology. The number of radio
nuclides is relatively small, surely in comparison to industrial
chemicals. They are generally used in well-defined and
controlled settings. There are laws regulating the release of
ra,dioactive materials. Also, the health effect of radionuclides
in high and moderate doses has been studied and is reasonably
well understood. This is not the case, however, for low-dose,
long-term exposure.
Radioactive materials are detectible in minute quantities
with a sensitive monitoring device. To improve the confidence
of residents living in the vicinity of a nuclear power plant,
some communities have been provided with radiation
detection counters.
There is nothing analogous in biotechnology. In theory,
one can identify and track bacteria that have been released into
the environment. The organisms would have to be tagged in
a special way. Even then the identification can be a difficult
task depending upon the behaviour of the microbes and the
conditions of the environment. Each case is unique. At this
time, there are no standard methods of detection and no
cannonical procedures for distinguishing safe from deleterious
organisms. In comparison to bacteria, it is much simpler to
92 Evolving Policies of Biotechllology

detect the spread of an unwanted plant (a weed). But oncp.

released, plants, like bacteria, may be impossible to recall.
We have seen how, within a period of a decade, a single
critical discovery was the progenitor of an industrial
revolution. The investment, scientific, and corporate
communities moved expeditiously to capitalize on the
commercial opportunities of the new genetics. To whom was
this new industry accountable? How were the public policy
issues handled? What social guidance was imposed upon the
new technological direction? The next section discusses the
early regulatory response to environmental applications of
biotechnology.
NIH'S EARLY ROLE
Beginning in the 1980s, industry and university proposals
for field-testing genetically modified plants and organisms
triggered a major science policy 'debate in the United States
that spilled over to the European community. Those who have
followed the recombinant DNA controversy from its inception
will recognize that the current configuration of policy
alternatives is the result of a ten year historical process.
Initially, molecular geneticists cast the problem of genetic
engineering in technological terms. Gradually, public
perception of the problems associated with gene-splicing
focused attention on the ethical and ecological issues.
The emergence of a second
generation of genetics policy debates
brought participation from new
disciplines, new communities, new
public interest groups, and new
federal agencies. Public concerns
slowly shifted from the singular
issue of labouratory safety to a much
broader range of problems. And Fig. rDNA
while these changes were taking place, regulatory oversight
of biotechnology also shifted from the National Institutes of
Health to other governmental bodies.
Evolving Policie5 of BlOtecJ11loiogy 93

For nearly a decade, the agency that assumed primary

responsibility for the safe uses of genetic engineering was the
National Institutes of Health (NIH). Essentially a science-
funding agency under the Department of Health and Human
Services, the NIH established the Recombinant DNA Advisory
Committee (RAC) in 1974 atthe recommendation of Paul Berg,
the Stanford University biologist who provided leadership in
the early efforts to assess the risks of rDNA research.
According to Berg's plan, an international meeting of
biologists would result in a set of principles for safe handling
of rDNA molecules. Those principles were then to be used by
the NIH's newly formed scientific advisory committee to
establish guidelines for all genetic experiments involving the
cutting and splicing of foreign genetic material. Berg, along
with other scientists who organized the Asilomar meeting,
surmised that if the NIH did not act with dispatch in
responding to the potential risks of gene-splicing, Congress
might pass restrictive legislation. They viewed the passage of
such legislation as detrimental to the interests of biology;
particularly at stake was the legitimacy and progress of
molecular genetics.
First, biologists could lose influence over the risk
assessment and risk management process. Second, the field
of molecular genetics might become stigmatized as the only
discipline whose principal research method was regulated.
Third, there was considerable concern that rDNA legislation
would be inflexible and difficult to amend. Asilomar
organizers feared that biology would be saddled with
irrational requirements.
Written by scientists for the general use of scientists, the
NIH guidelines made their debut in June 1976. No explicit
references were made to industrial processes or non-NIH
supported uses of rDNA. The guiding principle behind the
development of the guidelines was containment. Since one
could not predict at the outset with any reasonable degree of
certitude that a foreign gene introduced into an organism
could not inadvertently transform it into an epidemic
94 Evolving Policies of Biotechnology

pathogen, the consensus at Asilomar was to construct a set of

containment provisions consisting of physical barriers, safety
operations, and carefully selected host organisms chosen
because they do not survive well outside of the labouratory
setting.
Each containment level was matched with a class of
experiments that was permissible under the stipulated
conditions. As scientists on the RAC and elsewhere became
more confident in the safety of rDNA techniques, labouratory
containment requirements were substantially relaxed.
The early NIH guidelines contained a provision that
restricted industrial applications of rDNA technology.
Cultures of rDNA organisms produced or handled in volumes
greater than ten liters (classified as large-scale) were prohibited
for NIH grant recipients. The large-scale prohibition was not
based upon a scientific assessment of risk. It was a convenient
threshold introduced by academic scientists to protect the use
of standard labouratory beakers in basic research.
A second provision of the NIH guidelines restricted
industrial activity by explicitly proSCribing the intentional
release of an rDNA organism into the environment. Since
absolute containment was nothing more than an idealization,
unintentional releases were considered unavoidable. However,
by limiting the volume of rDNA culture, the probability of
escape could be minimized. Also, since the volume of agent
released is correlated to survival and propagation, the large-
scale prohibition also supported the general containment
strategy.
Commercial interest in rDNA techniques grew rapidly in
the mid- 1970s. Estimates of industry growth vary. My own
count indicates that a minimum of 14 new biotechnology
enterprises (NBEs) were formed in 1976, the year the NIH
guidelines were introduced. During 1979, NBEs grew by at
least 26; and in 1981, at least 66 NBEs entered the
biotechnology industry.
The NIH had no legal jurisdiction over the research in
private companies. In practice, however, firms were not willing
Evolving Policies of Biotechnology 95
to risk the negative publicity that might arise if they violated
the NIH guidelines. The nascent biotechnology industry was
comprised predominantly of small firms started by relatively
young scientists, many of whom retained their university,_
affiliation. The close link between academe and industry may
help explain the high degree of compliance among new firms
with the standards adopted by the NIH.
Since these scientists were groomed on the NIH
guidelines, the complications of compliance that might have
beset a new industry were minimized. Despite a watchful
media, there is no evidence that the NIH guidelines were
flaunted by the biotechnology industry. Ironically, the few
cases where violations of the guidelines were reported took
place at universities.
Geoffrey Karny cited two factors responsible for
industry's compliance with the voluntary guidelines: "First,
the possibility of tort lawsuits provides monetary inducement
to comply with the Guidelines, which would probably be
accepted as the standard of care against which alleged
negligence would be evaluated. Second, the threat of statutory
regulations, which the companies have sought to avoid, always
exists."
Between 1976 and 1979 the NIH process for overseeing
rDNA research was put to its severest test. First, the city of
Cambridge, Massachusetts, issued a moratorium on rDNA
experiments requiring mo,.lcrately high physical and biological
containment. After a widely publicized citizen review process,
the city passed the country's first rDNA law in 1977. The law
departed from the NIH guidelines in a few minor respects.
More importantly, it symbolized the right of local government
to exercise control over where the research gets sited and the
safety conditions of its performance. Moreover, it established
uniform and legislatively mandated guidelines for both
publicly and privately funded research.
After the Cambridg~J rDNA law was passed, nearly two
dozen states and local .-:ommunities debated the issues.
Legislation was enacted in about half the jurisdictions. In
96 Evolving Policies of Biotechllology

response to local events and a national mood of concern

toward gene-splicing, fifteen distinct bills were filed in
Congress between 1977 and 1978 to regulate rDNA research.
Some of these bills would have shifted the regulatory authority
from NIH to a national commission.
These bills also varied in the degree to which local laws
were subject to federal preemption. Congress spent two years
debating the issue of an rDNA law. A compromise bill was
finally voted out of committee early in 1978, but for lack of
strong congressional leadership and interest it failed to reach
the House or Senate floor for a vote.
Congressional failure to enact legislation strengthened the
NIH's position as the sole agency overseeing rDNA activities.
Responding to continuing public concern over the research,
the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW,
currently the Department of Health and Human Services)
rewrote the RAC's charter and increased the size of the
committee from sixteen to twentyfive. The new charter, issued
in 1978, stipulated that one third of the committee was to
consist of individuals with expertise and interest in public
health and the environment.
The change in the composition of the RAC drew sharp
criticism from prominent scientists who argued that rationality
was being compromised by including nonscientists in what
was essentially a technical process. When the expanded RAC
met in early 1979, its agenda was filled with petitions for
relaxing containment requirements and approving additional
host-vector systems.
Over the next few years several important changes were
made in the rDNA guidelines that established a role for the
NIH in the review of field tests. A voluntary compliance
programme was established that gave the private sector access
to the NIH review process, while prohibitions against large-
scale rDNA activities and the intentional release of genetically
altered strains into the environment were removed.
After the decision by Congress not to enact rDNA
legislation, there was a strong residue of criticism that the NIH
Evolving Policies of Biotechnology 97

gUidelines could not protect society from the potential adverse

consequences of commercial gene-splicing. In response, NIH
developed a voluntary compliance programme for institutions
that did not fall under the agency's purview. This initiative
gave the fledgling biotechnology industry the opportunity to
gain the imprimatur from the NIH for both labouratory and
commercial-scale rONA work.
A firm wishing to participate in the programme first
submitted the composition of its institutional biosafety
committee (!BC) to the NIH's Office of Recombinant DNA
Activities for approval. Once !Be approval came, a firm could
file requests with the RAe following procedures similar to
those of university petitioners. One difference between the
NIH's handling of academic and industry proposals is that,
on the occasion of the latter, the RAe went into closed session.
Members were required to sign confidentiality pledges for
the protection of information deemed proprietary by the firm.
Some RAe members were opposed to having the committee
review proposals in closed session. One public interest member
refused to participate in the review of industry proposals. He
argued that oversight of the private sector was the
responsibility of those agencies of government with statutory
authority to protect workers, public health, and the
environment.
Since the NIH lacked authority to carry out these functions,
he felt his participation would give legitimacy to this extension
of the NIH's role. Another RAe member expressed the following
sentiment: "Voluntary compliance is the worst of all possible
worlds. You achieve none of the objectives of regulation and
none of the benefits of being unregulated. All you're saying is
'I give a stamp of approval to what I see before me without any
authority to do anything.' "
The programme was also the target of mainstream
critiques. As an example, in its 1981 report on biotechnology,
the Office of Technology Assessment wrote: "The most
significant limitation in the scope of the Guidelines is their
98 Evolving Policies of Biotechnology

nonapplicability to industrial research or production on other

than a voluntary basis. This lack of legal authority raises
concerns not only about compliance but also about NIH's
ability to implement a voluntary programme effectively."
In May 1979, the NIH's advisory committee went on
record opposing voluntary compliance by a vote of nine to
six, with six abstentions. The RAC voted that non-NIH funded
institutions should be required to comply with the guidelines.
This recommendation notwithstanding, the voluntary
compliance programme became a permanent part of the
guidelines in January 1980.
Many biotechnology companies considered it in their
long-term interest to secut:e RAC approval for their rDNA
activities. Regardless of how the firms' management felt about
the potential risks of gene-splicing, submitting (:xperiments for
NIH approval was excellent public relations. The voluntary
compliance programme helped the biotechnology industry
respond to the criticism that the private sector was operating
without regulations. When pressed by local communities to
demonstrate the safety of genetic experiments, a company's
most compelling response was that it complied with the NIH
guidelines.
In the wake of sporadic episodes of local opposition to
genetic engineering research, the biotechnology industry
sought a predictable and stable regulatory climate, but one
that would not impede research and development. The NIH
contributed to this goal, but with limited success. The
voluntary compliance programme proved functional to the
industry during its early years of development when there was
intense competition, investment instability, and the
uncertainties of local regulation. As the commercial activities
progressed from labouratory research to product development,
the NIH policies accommodated to the new stage of industrial
activity, particularly in their response to large-scale work and
the release of genetically modified plants and organisms into
the environment.
Evolving Policies of Biotechnology 99

LARGE-SCALE PROIDBITIONS
Provisions were built into the early NIH guidelines for
waiving the large-scale prohibition in cases where minimal
risks were balanced against important societal benefits. The
wording of the prohibition was clarified in the 1978 version
of the NIH guidelines. No exceptions to the prohibition against
the production of large scale cultures were permitted "unless
the recombinant DNAs are rigorously characterized and the
absence of harmful sequences established." Under NIH's
leadership the risk assessment paradigm was in large measure
still under the primary influence of geneticists.
For a short period of time, the NIH gave serious attention
to all phases of large-scale work with rONA molecules.
Proposals submitted to the RAe were required to include a
description of labouratory practices, specifications on physical
and biological containment, risk data, characterization of
genes, and the design of the fermentation equipment in
conjunction with the physical description of the facility. In
1980, the RAe published a standard that it planned to use for
reviewing large-scale proposals.
The committee's role in evaluating plant design and
operations for large-scale fermentation drew criticism from
some members. They argued that the RAe should confine itself
to advising the NIH on the nature of biological procedures and
not plant operations. The committee, after all, had no special
expertise in bioprocess safety engineering. It depended on
outside consultants for guidance in this area. Also, it was a
matter of some significance that molecular biologists on the
RAe found the review of plant design boring and
uninformative.
Other RAe members contended that if the voluntary
compliance programme was to mean anything, a
comprehensive review of large-scale operations was essential.
Since no other federal agency was engaging in this review, they
believed that it was the NIH's responsibility to fill the
regulatory void.
100 El10111ing Policies of Biotechnology

The internal debates over this issue were a poignant

reminder of the NIH's ambivalence in serving as overseer of
commercial genetic engineering. These debates also cast doubt
on the logic of having a biomedical funding agency guide a
nascent industry exclusively through a system of voluntary
measures. The peculiar nature of this regulatory programme
began to reveal its contradictions. For example, within the RAC
opposing factions interchanged positions.
Initially, the group most skeptical about the safety of
genetic engineering expressed opposition to the RAC's review
of industrial proposals, particularly large-scale ones. They
reasoned that the NIH was acting as de facto regulator without
enforcement powers or congressionally derived authority. If
the RAC refused to serve this function, members of this faction
believed that agencies like the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) and the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) would enter the field.
Concurre~ltly, there were other members of the RAC who
opposed broader federal involvement in biotechnology,
particularly legislative or rule-making actions. They viewed
NIH's continued role in overseeing commercial rDNA work
as essential to preempting such initiatives.
The unexpected reversal took place among committee
members around 1980. The pro-regulatory group grew less
sanguine about the involvement of other agencies in regulating
biotechnology. As a consequence, this faction began
supporting a stronger role for the RAe. Meanwhile, the
committee's regulatory minimalists, also confident that
broader agency involvement was unlikely, backed an NIH rQle
over commercial rDNA activities that were limited to issues
of pure genetics, namely, sequence characterization and
approval of host-vector systems.
The regulatory minimalists succeeded in so limiting the
RAC's review of the safety of rDNA products. By 1981, firms
taking part in the NIH's voluntary compliance programme
were no longer obligated to submit data on sterilization of their
fermentation system or their procedures for disposal of rDNA
cultures.
Evolving PolIcies of Biotechnology 101

This policy change was expressed in a proposition

adopted at the September 1980 RAC meeting: "The RAC will
determine if a given recombinant DNA containing strain is
rigorously characterized and the absence of harmful sequences
is established. Such a determination shall include specification
of a containment level. These determinations should not in any
way be construed as RAC certification of ~afe labouratory
procedures for industrial scale-up."
The potential release of rONA organisms through the
effluent of bioreactors did not attract any public attention.
While the EPA had jurisdiction over such biological releases
under the ('!ean Water Acts, a constituency for agency action
did not develop. The newly formed Committee (later Council)
for Responsible Genetics published an article on biogenetic
waste in its public interest bulletin GeneWatch.
However, the issue of biogenetic waste was not a rallying
point among environmentalists or the general public. It seemed
to lack some important features that influence risk selection.
First, it did not impart a clear and present environmental
danger. Second, the waste stream, even if it carried genetically
engineered organisms, did not excite the media. Bioeffluent
was not intentionally designed to alter nature. Since science
writers are captivated by the frontiers of science, there was
not much of a story in fermentation sludge.
Quite a different media and public reaction took place
when proposals appeared before the RAC requesting approval
to field-test genetically modified plants and bacteria. There is
an informative distinction to be made in the public reaction
between intentional and unintentional releases of genetically
modified life-forms. To fully grasp the distinction, we have to
look at the kinds of experiments proposed, the types of media
coverage they were given, the role of scientists in raising safety
concerns, and the development of a public interest
constituency.
Deliberate Release of Gems
As the RAC reduced its oversight over industrial
bioprocesses, it became more active in reviewing
102 Evolving Policies of Biotechnology

environmental releases of genetically engineered

microorganisms (GEMs). Consequently, field-testing was
given greater visibility in the media. From 1980 to 1984, when
companies and university scientists were preparing to field-
test their products, the NIH was the only federal agency with
active responsibility over deliberate release experiments
involving genetically altered plants or microorganisms.
Progressive relaxation of the rDNA rules finally led to the
removal of barriers to field-testing. The first revisions of the
guidelines in 1978 still prohibited "deliberate release into the
environment of any organism containing recombinant DNA,"
but individual waivers were permitted after proper public
notification, RAC review, and approval by the director of the
NIH.
The revised NIH guidelines of 1982 eliminated the entire
list of proscribed experiments. By June 1983, the prohibition
against intentional release of rDNA organisms was replaced
by a multitiered review process. Submissions for deliberate
release required approval by the RAC, the institution's
biosafety committee (IBC) and the NIH director, in addition
to various subcommittees.
Agricultural applications of biotechnology, widely
publicized in the media, were being readied for field trials.
By December 1983, the RAC had reviewed and approved three
proposals for releasing genetically altered life-forms. In each
case, the committee concluded that the tests posed no
significant risk to health or the environment.
The first three proposals for deliberate release came from
university scientists and therefore did not involve proprietary
information. In March 1980, a Stanford University scientist
requested approval from the RAC to field-test a com plant into
which had been inserted the com storage protein gene with
modified sequences. The genetically altered strain included a
new com protein gene that encoded all the amino acids
essential to humans (including an enhancement of lysine and
methionine, in which com is deficient).
Evolving Policies of Biotechnology 103

By genetically engineering the new com protein with the

full complement of the essential amino acids, its value to the
human diet would be improved . The RAC failed to come up
with a hazard scenario for the genetically modified corn;
nevertheless, the investigators were required to detas.sel the
plant to prevent pollen dispersion during the field trials.
Permission for the test was granted in August 1981. There was
no significant public reaction to the decision.
A second proposal for field-
testing was brought to the RAC by
a Cornell University scientist in June
1982. Tomato and tobacco plants
were transformed with DNA from
yeast and E. coli to provide them
with antibiotic resistance. In
reviewing the experiment, the RAC
Fig. E.coli
raised concerns about the possible
spread of antibiotic resistance and the effect of an itinerant
plant on the ecology. Neither of these concerns delayed the
committee's approval, which it gave on October 25,1982. When
the recommendation reached the director of the NIH, he
referred the proposal for a reading. After USDA approval was
given in February 1983, NIH accepted the field test in April
1983, nearly a year after the proposal was first brought to the
RAC
The third of the early field test proposals for genetically
modified life-forms proved to be the most controversial.
Ironically, it was viewed by some experts as among the safest
deliberate release experiments one could perform in the
environment. There was one important distinction between the
first two proposals and the third: the latter consisted of
genetically altering a soil bacterium. The difference between
plants and bacteria proved to be a critical factor in the public
perception of risk. Also, there was an established tradition of
introducing hybridized plants into the environment. However,
no analogous tradition existed for microorganisms. The
relative novelty of this field test was reflected in the RAC's
review.
104 Evolving Policies of Biotechnology

In September 1982,
scientists at the University of
California at Berkeley proposed
to field-test two soil organisms
(Pseudomonas syringae and
Erwinia herbicola) from which
about a thousand base pairs of
DNA sequences had been
deleted. In their natural state Fig. Erwinia herbicola
these organisms synthesize a
protein that provides a nucleation point for ice crystallization,
and are known as ice-nucleating agents (INA).
By excising the genes responsible for ice nucleation and
establishing the genetically modified organism in the
environment, scientists believed they could reduce the
temperature at which frost begins to form on crops.
When the proposal for field-
testing the microbes with the
deleted ice-crystallization gene
(denoted INA- or ice minus) was
first brought before the RAC, one
member expressed concern about
the role the organisms might play
Fig. Pseudomonas syringae
in the environment. Questions
raised about the effect of INA on precipitation patterns were
based upon some theories that INA + (normal ice-nucleating
agents) played a role in atmospheric weather. The precipitation
issue was not resolved by the committee. Nevertheless, the
RAC approved the field test, although by a small plurality
(seven yes; five no; two abstentions).
When the recommendation was transmitted to the director
of the NIH, more data along with additional safeguards were
requested. Several months later on the second round of review,
the RAC approved the proposal unanimously. The NIH gave
the final go-ahead for the field test in June 1983, some nine
months after it had initially received the proposal.
Investigators agreed to mark the strains of the ice minus
Evolving Policies of Biotechnology 105

organism with antibiotic resistance. which allowed them to

monitor the dispersal of the organism.
They also agreed to limit field-testing to a single location,
the University of California agricultural field station at
Tulelake in northern California, a site isolated from the major
fruit tree and citrus-growing regions of the state. Despite these
precautions, the RAC's decision on the field test for ice minus
was met with citizen opposition and litigation from the
Foundation on Economic Trends, Jeremy Rifkin's organization
based in Washington, D.C. Between 1980 and 1985 the RAC
reviewed five proposals for field-testing GEMs. Four were
approved and one was voluntarily withdrawn.
GENETICS AND THE ENVIRONMENTALISTS
In the mid-1970s, when rONA molecule research was still
an exotic technique, the public entry into the debate over its
safe uses was determined by several factors. First and foremost,
a group of distinguished biologists called attention to the new
technique by publishing letters in science journals that caught
the attention of the popular press. The international meeting
at Asilomar was attended by sci~nce writers, whose coverage
of the events dramatized the disagreements among biologists
at the meeting.
In drawing attention to the new discovery, the Asilomar
organizers did not intend for the fate of the new technology
to be decided by popular acclamation or democratic process.
However, some biologists, frustrated by the NIH's role in
setting safety standards, brought their concerns to university
campuses and local communities. To the public, it appeared
that scientists were polarized on the dangers of rONA research.
Second, the issues were dramatized through the world
press by the controversy that erupted in Cambridge,
Massachusetts, which pitted community values against the
interests of national science. The 1976 Cambridge rONA
controversy represented the birth of public involvement in
genetic engineering. Prior to that, the issues were debated
106 Evolving Policies of Biotechnology

exclusively in professional groups and on university campuses,

notably the University of Michigan.
Third, national environmental groups such as Friends of
the Earth, the Environmental Defence Fund, and the Sierra
Club devoted some attention to genetics issues between 1976
and 1979. But the commitment by these groups was limited
usually to a single staff person. Their activities were met with
skepticism, and in some cases, disapproval by some board
members who had ties to the biomedical community. Fourth,
but to a lesser extent, litigation had drawn public attention to
the issues. A resident of Frederick, petitioned the court to
enjoin the NIH from performing a risk assessment experiment
until an environmental impact statement was prepared. A
second suit filed by Friends of the Earth alleged that HEW
failed to comply with the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act when it established policies for
rDNA research.
Fifth, congressional interest in the safety of rDNA research
intensified in the mid-to-late 1970s. House and Senate hearings
provided a forum for activist scientists and environmental
lobbyists. The accumulated effect of these factors resulted in
heavy media coverage for both local and national events
related to gene-splicing experiments.
The subsequent public debate over the specific issue of
the deliberate release of genetically engineered organisms has
been fostered by a similar configuration of factors, namely,
scientist-critics, litigation, environmental coalitions, local
opposition to experiments, and congressional interest.
However, the old and new rDNA debates differ in the
weighting of these factors.
For example, Jeremy Rifkin has proven particularly
effective in drawing public attention to the environmental and
ethical issues associated with the deliberate release of GEOs.
Operating with the modest resources of his nonprofit
organization, Rifkin has utilized a variety of techniques,
including confrontational protests, litigation, and short-term
coalition building, to dramatize breaking issues in genetics and
public policy.
Evolving Policies of Biotechnology 107

Rifkin's philosophical opposition to genetic engineering

has been expressed in his writings and media accounts that
feature his work: "Genetic engineering represents the ultimate
negation of nature." On genetics policy, he has had more
impact on the media that any single group or individual in
the United States. His notable success as a publicist and
genetics critic can be explained by several factors. Rifkin can
act quickly since he is not accountable to a board of overseers
or a mass organization. He is able to identify and capitalize
on the weakest link of any policy process. With properly timed
and targeted litigation, Rifkin has been able to strike at the
jugular of the bureaucracy.
He has proven time and again that a well-placed lawsuit
is a magnet for media attention. Rifkin made his national debut
as a genetics activist in 1977 when he and a group of supporters
invaded a meeting at the National Academy of Sciences
devoted to rONA science and policy. His strategy at the NAS
is best described by the 1960s term "guerrilla theater," a
dramatically staged political confrontation. Fearing major
disruption of its conference, academy officials allotted Rifkin
time at the start of the programme for a statement. Meanwhile,
his associates, donning silk stocking face masks, stood like
motionless icons, projecting a grotesque apparition of human
mutants. While Rifkin took over the podium of the academy
auditorium, his colleagues stretched a banner across the stage
with a quote from Adolf Hitler that stated: "We will create
the perfect race."
On another occasion, Rifkin organized a signature
campaign of scientists and religious leaders who were asked
to support a statement against genetic manipulation of the
human germline. The list of supporters included individuals
of vastly different ideological persuasion. To have such a
politically diverse group on the same side of an issue was itself
a news event.
In the fall of 1983, when the RAe was reviewing a
proposal for field-testing ice minus, Rifkin brought national
attention to the problem of deliberate relec:se by filing suit
108 Evolving Policies of Biotechnology

against NIH on the grounds that its approval was given prior
to a full study of the environmental consequences. His suit was
supported by two organizations, Environmental Action and
the Environmental Task Force. To strengthen his case, Rifkin
received sworn affidavits from leading ecologists who opposed
the release of the ice minus strains, at least until more could
be learned about the environmental consequences.
Rifkin's lawsuits have been rallying points for critical
debate on genetics issues. Philosophically, he personifies the
modern genetics Luddite. But on a practical level, he has made
effective use of environmental law to impose a greater burden
of responsibility for assessing the risks and eliciting the ethical
consequences of new technologies. Ironically, he is secretly
applauded by many who, while they might differ with him
philosophically, find a certain degree of relief in slowing the
pace of regulatory approval.
Environmental groups, skeptical about deliberate release,
have been hesitant to act more aggressively because the
hazards of genetic engineering are still hypothetical. For Rifkin,
it was less important to prove the hazards exist than to rally
support against the hubris of science and reexamine its
assumptions about progress.
There is a striking comparison between the old and new
genetics controversies on the role of scientific participation.
In 1976, the molecular geneticists were taken to task for not
calling upon infectious disease epidemiologists to evaluate the
risks of transforming E. coli into an epidemic pathogen.
Subsequently, the infectious disease community did
participate in the risk evaluation.
Similarly, ecologists played no role in the rDNA debate
until the controversy over deliberate release erupted. Their
entry into the discussion over deliberate release carne when
the social and political context was ripe for their participation.
Ecologists are viewed as natural allies to environmentalists;
when the latter became involved in the debate over field tests,
they sought advice from the former.
Evolving Policies of Biotechnology 109

Also, the Committee on Science and Technology of the

House of Representatives made specific recommendations to
/NIH and USDA that they revise the memberships of their
advisory committees to include individuals specifically trained
in ecology and environmental sciences.
Finally, the EPA began developing its own policy on
deliberate release in the early 1980s. The agency is accustomed
to working with ecologists, for example, in evaluating pest
control methods. The first genetically engineered organisms
planned for environmental release were classified as biological
control agents. The EPA began hiring consultants to study the
potential environmental problems of releasing such agents.
A terrestrial ecologist from Oak Ridge National Lab
oratory, Frances Sharples, completed a study for the EPA in
1982 on the effects of the introduction of organisms with novel
genotypes into the environment. Microbial ecologist Martin
Alexander of Cornell University chaired an EPA study group
on biotechnology. In 1984, ecologists participated in an EPA
sponsored workshop at the Banbury Centre at Cold Spring
Harbor, New York, on the evolutionary consequences of
biotechnology.
Also, in 1985, with support from the EPA, the USDA,
national environmental organizations, and corporations,
ecologists, geneticists, public interest representatives, and
federal regulators met for four days at Cornell's biological field
station in Bridgeport, New York, to develop principles of
containment for genetically engineered organisms tested under
field conditions.
By raising the issues of biotechnology in the national
media, Rifkin also helped catalyze the concerns and
perspectives of ecologists on the problems of deliberate release,
particularly those who had not been brought in as consultants
to the major agencies. Eventually, letters from ecologists
appeared in Science, followed by responses from geneticists.
A dialogue was opened between molecular geneticists,
microbiologists, and ecologists on their approaches to risk
assessment. Soon it became evident that the issues over ice
110 Evolving Policies of Biotechnology :
minus unfolded into a larger debate about scientific culture,
epistemology, and disciplinary hegemony.
We will see how the ice minus bacterium became an
international symbol for resistance against biotechnology by
some groups like Earth First and the European Greens. To the
biotechnology industry, ice minus had quite a different
symbolic value as a product that could raise public confidence.
in a new technological frontier that promised to advance
agricultural efficiency while making peace with nature.
 The Alternative Agriculture

THE NEGLIGENCE
This chapter makes the claim that, despite the emergence
of alternatives, the trend towards genetic uniformity is likely
to be perpetuated owing to the emphasis now placed upon
new biotechniques. Biotechniques provide more powerful
tools to achieve genetically uniform ideal plants, but they
could also be deployed as part of strategies aimed at promoting
. deployment of in situ diversity. The argument presented here
is that biotechniques are closing the door which alternative
movements managed to prise open, if only briefly, in the 1980s.
Thls could be made in various ways, but here, the argument
is developed through analysis of the intellectual property
rights (IPR) issue, since this has radically affected the issue of
genetic resource control in recent years.
Support for biotechniques takes place against the
backdrop of a global economy in which concern to maintain
'technological leadership' and 'competitiveness' has prevented
serious consideration of important questions concerning
technological options, and the need to consider the matching
of ends with technological means. The more deep-seated this
concern, the more likely it becomes that institutional change
will underpin it, further legitim ising the same concern. This
is the domain of Arthur's self-reinforcing mechanisms. For this
reason I suggest that we are becoming increasingly locked in
to genetic- uniformity only moments after it seemed that the
112 The Alternative Agriculture
door was possibly opening for (again, possibly) genetically
more diverse alternatives.
GENETIC RESOURCE CONTROL
When southern com leaf blight hit the US maize crop in
1970, the solution was found not through re-introducing
genetic diversity, but in genes from Mayorbala maize found
in a West African field. West African germplasm was used at
virtually no cost to save US farmers from a disease that had
cost them $1 billion in 1970. That US farmers should have been
assisted so freely owed itself to the system of free exchange of
germplasm operating at the time, based on the principle that
biodiversity was 'the common heritage' of humankind.
The UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) had
discussed genetic resources at its founding conference in
Quebec in 1946, and with the International Bi~logical
Programme (IBP) hosted a conference on plant genetics in 1961.
Little was being done to address the issue of genetic erosion.
Most collecting of germ plasm was done by academics in
universities, and virtually all was done at a sub-national level,
an exception being that conducted on maize. The issue of crop
germ plasm conservation was highlighted by the work of Erna
Bennett, who in 1967 organised the second IBP/FAO
Conference on genetic resources and subsequently set up the
Crop Ecology Unit at the FAO in Rome.
Only a year after southern leaf blight destroyed much of
the US crop, a cold winter followed by a dry spring drastically
affected the wheat crop of the Soviet Union. Much of the land
was planted to the Besostaja variety which was neither cold
tolerant nor drought resistant. Wheat prices shot up, and when
famine hit the Sahel region in Africa, Malthusianism became
fashionable once more. Against this backdrop, Sir Otto Frankel,
Bennett's co-editor for a path-breaking book on the subject,
persuaded the 1972 Stockholm Conference on the Human
Environment to adopt a resolution calling for concerted action
on genetic resources. The need to conserve genetic resources
was at last being taken seriously as the advancing BCM mode
hastened their disappearance.
The Alternative Agriculture 113

Hambridge and Bressman recognised long ago the

tensions between free exchange in germplasm, and unfree
exchange of the product derived from it:
From its rivals a nation may get the wheat germplasm that
enables it to supply its own needs or overwhelm those rivals
in international trade ... Will nations have the wisdom to deal
with this situation, or will it lead to more bitter rivalries and
more deadly conflicts, as the beneficent science of chemistry
has enormously increased the deadliness of war? In his use of
modern science, man has proved again and again that he is a
bright child playing with fire.
The Wardian case, invented in 1829, facilitated an exodus
of germ plasm to one of a growing number of botanical
gardens. The 'botanical chess game' has played an important
role in shaping the international division of labour, a fact
recognised by Marx:
You perhaps believe, gentlemen, that the production of
coffee and sugar is the natural destiny of the West Indies. Two
centuries ago, nature, which does not trouble herself about
commerce, had planted neither sugarcane nor coffee trees
there.
Metropolitan powers appreciated that control over
commodity trade depended on restrictions on the movement
of germplasm. History is therefore replete with examples of
the heroic efforts of plant explorers in overcoming embargoes
on the movement of seeds, the breaking of which was in many
cases punishable by death.
Only in the post-colonial world did' free exchange' reach
its truly international apogee. Some interpret this as allowing
gene-poor northern countries in the developed world to
maintain access to germplasm residing in the gene-rich,
financially poor, countries of the developing south. Yet if, as
Galeano writes, the international division of labour was
organised 'not by the Holy Ghost but by men', so it was with
the system of germplasm exchange. As such, it could be
changed by men.
114 '1 he Alternative Agriculture

The Seed Industry

Unless they were crossed inbreds, farmers could save seed
for planting the following year without appreciable yield loss.
The first claims for plant patents were made in 1885. In 1922,
lawyers met in London to discuss patent protection for plant
varieties but no action followed. It was the nursery industry
which was primarily responsible for the passage of the Plant
Patent Act of 1930 in the United States. For nurserymen, the
obstacle to proprietary ownership of varieties lay in
competition from other nurserymen, not farmers, since trees
could easily be propagated in competing nurseries.
The Plant Patent Act of 1930 made it possible for asexually
reproduced plants to be patented, with the exceptions of
potatoes and Jerusalem artichokes. The rhetoric used in
support of the act, that breeding had made such significant
advances over the past decades, was actually completely
irrelevant as far as asexually reproduced plants were
concerned. Most of the work done by nurserymen lay in
multiplying varieties that had been discovered by chance, and
that were the, product of insect or wind pollination, raising
issues as to whether they should have been eligible for patents.
Fowler concludes that: 'The PPA did not recognise the
individual inventor or the creative act as much as it recognised
and rewarded the system that produced the new variety,
whether by luck or by designs'.
In France, ever since the tum of the century, rose breeders
had been seeking the same recognition as inventors of
machines. Early attempts were rejected by lawyers on grounds
that even full disclosure would not make it possible for
breeders to reproduce a variety. By 1928, however, there
existed in the Ministry of Agriculture de facto protection of
breeders' rights through an 'identity and purity service'.
The Italian High C;:ourt declared plant varieties patentable
in 1948, but confusion led to calls for a special plant patent
law. By 1957, with the view that plants and animals should
not be patented in the ascendancy, the International
Association of Plant Breeders for the Protection of Plant
'lhe Alternative Agriculture 115

Varieties accepted an invitation to host a conference in Paris

on plant breeders' rights (PBR), leading to the establishment
of the Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants
(UPOV) in 1961, whose International Convention was revised
in 1972, 1978 and 1991.
For the most part, PBR legislation has been true to the
UPOV Convention, requiring that plants pass the DUS test.
The 1960s and 1970s saw several couhtries either joining UPOV
or implementing a system of PBR of their own. Key to the
passage of these acts was the belief that sexually reproduced
plants could breed true, which, for sexually reproducing
plants, is only the case for pure-line varieties (those having
undergone four to nine generations of selfing). Also critical
was the definition (thought by many to be impossible) of the
term 'variety'.
The UPOV resorted to 'nothing other than a description
of the steps of the method of breeding', or more accurately,
pure-line (Mendelian) breeding. Hence, the extension of IPR
to plants through PBR was an institutional innovation shaped
by, and made possible by, changes in breeding techniques and
technology respectively. However, these were not institutional
changes waiting to be implemented as soon as these techniques
emerged. Just as there were technical options open to breeders,
so the institutional changes made represented a choice from
myriad possibilities.
PBR facilitated an increasingly international outlook on
the part of the seed industry. Modem varieties were spreading
across the globe, and notwithstanding some efforts to improve
disease resistance in new varieties, new seeds made increased
use of other inputs more likely. In the 1980s, policy-related or
structural adjustment lending undertaken by the World Bank
advised privatisation of input supply industries, and an
expanded role for private sector seed research and distribution,
especially in the development of hybrids. The emphasis began
to shift, as it had done in the developed world, away from the
public system in favour of reduced public sector involvement.
116 'the Alternative Agriculture

As late as the 1960s, there were few multinational

companies in the seed industry. A wave of acquisitions
occurred in the 1970s as seed companies were bought up by
transnational corporations, mainly food trading and
petrochemical companies. Food traders, seeking to open up
new export markets in the era of US 'food power', sought to
extend their activities upstream.
The development of high-input seeds by international
agricultural research centres had also led (agro-) chemical
companies to seek new markets in the developing world, so
these companies sought to market seeds through the same
channels. With PBR legislation in place in many developed
countries, seeds were no longer a weak link in the input supply
industry. UPOV, by creating a degree of harmonisation in PBR
legislation, fostered the emergence of a global seed industry,
whilst the horizontal integration of agricultural input supply
has deepened the inter-relatedness of inputs over time.
The Challenge to the BCM Paradigm
The BCM mode has corne under, and continues to operate
in the face of, considerable pressures for change. These are due
to its:
• Ecological impact;
• Impact on food quality and health (in farming, and in
consumption);
• Impact on rural communities;
• Being supported by state policies, and high levels of
farm support, which effectively exacerbate the
problems mentioned above.
It is beyond the scope of this book to address each of these
in detail. Suffice to say that, in the words of Almas and Nygard,
the BCM mode has produced 'some ofits own executioners'.
Aims to reform agricultural and farm support policies
seek, increasingly, to re-direct support towards
environmentally sound practices. These are generally believed
to imply reduced use of agrochemicals, and also seeds. To
The Alternative Agriculture 117

the extent that it continues to be allowed, seed-saving becomes

more economically attractive in times of low output prices.
In the spirit of challenges to the BCM mode, it is to the issue
of seeds and germplasm that we now turn.
Sowing the Seeds of Discontent
As the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations expanded their
efforts in international agricultural research, they began to seek
public funds to support their work. Following a meeting in
Belaggio in April 1969 organised by the Rockefeller
Foundation, 15 governments attended the first meeting of the
Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research
(CGIAR). The World Bank would provide a secretariat and
administer finances. International agricultural research, the
year after Norman Borlaug received a Nobel Prize for his work
on dwarf wheats in Mexico, had come of age.
In 1972, the CGIAR's Technical Assistance Committee
(TAC) convened a meeting in Beltsville, USA, to formulate an
international strategy for genetic resources conservation. After
much debate, the International Board for Plant Genetic
Resources (mPGR) was set up as part of the CGIAR network.
Under the IBPGR's system, the majority of the world's
gE:nebank accessions, mostly from developing countrks given
to believe that genetic resources were the common heritage of
humankind, were stored in genebanks in developed nations
increasingly predisposed to the notion of IPR over germ plasm. ,
In the late 1970s, developing countries were increasingly
concerned by mPGR statistics showing that of more than 1.9
million samples stored, 55 per cent were in developed
countries and another 14 per cent were held in the Northern
(donor) dominated CGIAIf-system. Collections were clearly
biased towards crops of interest to the developed countries,
the top cereal crops representing more than 75 per cent of
accessions in the pre-1980 period. At a 1981 mPGR/FAO/UNEP
conference, Latin American countries pressurised the mPGR,
successfully, to increase collections of crops less prominent in
international trade.
118 The Alternative Agriculture

By the end of 1981, despite opposition from US and UK

representatives, a Resolution tabled by the Mexican delegation
had. be~n passed at the FAO calling for the FAO Director
General to draft elements of an international convention on
plant genetic resources, and investigate the feasibility of
establishing a new international gene bank. Two years later,
at the FAO's biennial conference, Jose Ramon Lopez Portillo,
son of the former Mexican President, forced another vote
'which led to an International Undertaking on Plant Genetic
Resources (IUPGR) and the creation of an International
Commission on Plant Genetic Resources (ICPGR). The aim of
these moves was transfer of control over genetic resources from
the developed countries, and IBPGR in particular, to the
United Nations.
Under the IUPGR, the notion of free exchange was to be
respected, and it was not just land races that were to be
'available without restriction', but also 'special genetic stocks
(including elite and current breeders' lines and mutants),. This
angered the American Seed Trade Association (ASTA), who
were represented in the US FAO delegation. They charg~d that
the IUPGR struck:
at the heart of free enterprise and intellectual property
rights ... The definition includes unimproved and obsolete
varieties, land races, wild and weedy species, all of which the
seed industry believes appropriate to be preserved and freely
exchanged. However, it also includes improved elite varieties
and breeding lines within the definition of plant genetic
resources ... This puts the Undertaking in direct conflict with
the rights of holders of private property ... The anti-private
business bias of the Undertaking is clear.
The IUPGR also proposed establishing a network of base
collections under the jurisdiction of the FAO. Yet the
Undertaking was a mild and voluntary agreement rather than
a legally binding convention.
The Birth of Biotechnology
In the second half of the twentieth century, enormous
strides have been made in the life sciences, particularly
, in the
The Alternative Agriculture 119

discipline which has come to be known as molecular biology.

As a result of this growing body of knowledge, new
commercial opportunities appeared on the horizon based on
the use of tools developed through new discoveries in this
field. The idea that plants could be made resistant to pesticides
was no new idea. Wiebe and Hayes discussed it decades ago
with regard to the reaction of barley varieties to the application
of DDT. Yet work in biotechnology brought such a strategy
closer to hand, raising the possibility of breeding plants
designed to tolerate applications of proprietary chemicals.
The use of plasmids, in 1973 by Cohen and Boyer, to
mediate gene transfer made possible a new alchemy. In the
immediate aftermath, biotechnologists in the US showed
awareness of public unease regarding this new technology by
proposing a moratorium on certain types of research. Since
1977, guidelines laid down by the National Institutes of Health
(NIH) have been progressively relaxed. The desire to regulate
the industry has dwindled as authorities were persuaded of
the commercial significance of the new technologies.
Reduced regulation of the biotechnology industry began
to be perceived, and not just in the United States, as a means
through which a country could maintain or improve its
position in emerging bioindustries. Field reported that
'industrial competitiveness appears to represent the central
and overriding concern of national strategies'. From a different
perspective, the United Nations Centre on Transnational
Corporations opined that comparative advantage and the
international division of labour were ·increasingly being
shaped by technological prowess. Increasingly, regulation
shied away from determining which technologies should be
allowed for use, and the imperative of allowing new
technologies to develop began to shape which regulations were
considered acceptable.
The emergence of biotechniques for technology generation
makes it possible to circumvent the constraints imposed upon
genetic recombination by species incompatability. I argue
below that formal agricultural research is undergoing a
120 The Alternative Agriculture

transition from the BCM mode to a biotechniques-

mechanisation-legislative (BML) mode. This is not to imply
that traditional plant breeding and chemical inputs are about
to disappear from view, either now or in the near future.
The role of breeders, where they do not disappear
altogether, is likely to undergo a change such that their work
complements that of the biotechnologists, whilst the fact that
to date, herbicide tolerance in crops is the most widely tested
trait to date testifies to the likelihood of continued use of
chemicals into the future. Nevertheless, the genetic
determinants of interactions between the plant and various
chemical and biological inputs are likely to become the focus
of innovation in crop (and livestock) agriculture. The pivotal
institutional innovation in enabling such a strategy to become
privately profitable is IPR legislation.
Patenting Genetic Materials
In 1976, the first of the new biotechnology companies,
Genentech, was formed by Herbert Boyer and venture
capitalist Robert Swanson. In 1980, Genentech placed a share
offering on the New York Stock Exchange, the prices of which
shot up from $35 to $89 per share in twenty minutes, a record
rate of increase. This was due to the fact that three months
earlier, General Electric had successfully challenged an earlier
decision by the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTa) which
had ruled that an oil-degrading micro-organism developed by
their scientist, Ananda Chakrabarty, was not patentable subject
matter. The new ruling held that whether or not an invention
was alive or dead was irrelevant to patent law.
In the PTa's ruling on Chakrabarty, the legal principle of
'pre-emption' disqualified materials protectable under the PPA
or the PVPA from patent protection. But this ruling was also
overturned in the 1985 Ex parte Hibberd case, in which Hibberd
was granted patents on the tissue culture, seed, and whole
plant of a com line selected from tissue culture. Breeders could
now choose the form of protection most suitable to them,
including utility patents. The gene was being commodified.
The Alternative Agriculture 121

. Anxious to preserve its lead in the biotechnological race,

the United States has moved fastest in bringing institutions
into line with industry's desires. Employing both bilateral and
multilateral channels, it has sought to harmonise standards
across nations in line with its own structures, thus opening
the way for global marketing of proprietary products of
biotechniques. In November of 1982, at a ministerial level
meeting held at the GAIT at US insistence, the US proposed
that the new round debate issues never before considered in
earlier GAIT rounds.
One such issue was trade in counterfeit goods, such as
'fake' Rolex watches, but the scope of this particular area was
widened at the behest of the US and others to include the issue
of IPR. Raghavan notes that this was 'thanks mainly to the
negligence of the disorganised Third World countries, most
of whom thought that it did not affect them'. This would not
have been so critical had it not been for the fact that what many
countries saw as a preparatory discussion was subsequently
proposed by the US and others as the agenda for a new round.
The inclusion of many new issues was given justification
through addition of the prefix 'trade-related'.
Many countries hoped that by stifling their objections to
the inclusion of new issues such as 'services' and IPR, they
would be rewarded with concessions on 'old' issues, such as
tariffs on tropical products (and escalating tariffs on processed
products thereof), textiles, and a continuation of benefits under
the Generalised System of Prefences (GSP). A compromise text
was agreed at Punta del Este in Uruguay at the end of 1986
which included IPR. Even then, developing countries refused
to negotiate on the subject before the mid-term review in
Montreal in December 1988, where agreement was reached
concerning the negotiating agenda.
The GAIT agreement was finally signed at Marrakesh in
April 1994 despite the fact that market access negotiations had
not been verified, and with many developing country
negotiators complaining that they had seen the texts only
weeks before. Ratification in many countries was rushed
122 The Alternative Agriculture

through with little debate, and on 1 January 1995, the new

World Trade Organisation (WTO) came into existence. This
would co-exist with the GATT until the end of 1995. The final
text of the TRIPs (Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights)
agreement establishes new mu!tilateral rules on IPR based on
uniform minimum standards for their protection and
enforcement, i.ncluding their availability, use and scope.
As regards plant materials, the treaty does allow for
exemptions on grounds of perceived environmental or public
order impacts, yet at the same time, the treaty states that plant
varieties shall be protected by patents 'or by an effective sui
generis system or by any combination thereof'. Although
developing countries and least developed countries are
allowed, respectively, five and ten years to implement the
agreement, the' sui generis' clause is to be reviewed four years
after the date of entry into force of the WTO agreement.
The TRIPs agreement offers little encouragement to
communities that might seek to protect innovations which are
the property of, as it were, the collective. The agreement
recognises IPR as private rights, and also requires products to
be 'capable of industrial application'. There is no mention of
communities and their rights.
Before the GATT negotiations even began, the US had
made its intentions in respect of IPR abundantly clear through
applying pressure bilaterally. Mexico was targeted as early as
the 1970s, but little progress was made until, in the mid-1980s,
the US began to link the issue of IPR reform to expansion of
GSP concessions. By the end of 1986, Mexico had adopted a
revised Patent and Trademark Law, though as a result of the
efforts of domestic lobbying, this was deemed inadequate by
the US administration.
In 1984, the US Trade and Tariff Act had been revised,
5.301 of Title III of which invested the prevailing
Administration with coercive powers aimed at righting 'unfair'
trading practices. In 1985, cases against Brazil and South Korea
were initiated, the former concerning, inter alia, copyright
Issues regarding software, the latter concerning failure to
The Alternative Agriculture 123

protect intellectual property. The same issue led to talks with

China, whilst India has also come under pressure to reform
its IPR legislation in the past.
In January 1987, Mexico was informed of President
Reagan's intention to withdraw $200 million of GSP benefits
unless the perceived inadequacies of its new legislation were
corrected. In 1988, the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness
Act was passed in the US. This included sections which came
to be known as Super 301 and Special 301 respectively,
retrospe~tively strengthening the coercive powers vested in
the administration by the Trade and Tariff A:ct's 1974 revision.
Under Special 301, a procedure was set up whereby the US
Trade Representative could identify and initiate proceedings
against countries considered to be offering inadequate IPR
protection.
Within this list of countries, a Priority Watch List of
countries was to be specified annually, and Mexico was on that
first list in May 1989. When President Salinas de Gortari began
his programme of liberalisation, and plans for a North
American Free Trade Agreement were materialising, Mexico's
stance on the IPR issue altered quite radically, and in 1990,
when Mexico introduced aproposal for a TRIPs agreement at
the GATT, it slipped off the 301 lists. Mexico's patent law was
revised in June E'91 to explicitly allow for the patenting of
plant varieties. It specifically addresses innovations likely to
arise from the deployment of biotechnology.
As Fowler has made clear, GATT and the growing
concerns of the US over intellectual property issues generally,
enabled transnational corporations involved in agricultural
biotechnology to have their concerns vis-a-vis the patenting of
life addressed in new fora. In the case of the GATT, it became
possible for the issue to be bundled up not only with concerns
over patents and trademarks as they related to mechanical
innovations, but also, since this was a take-all-of-it-or-leave-
all-of-it package, with fourteen other areas with which the
Uruguay Round was concerned.
124 The Altemative Agriculture

Significantly, Watkins notes, 'The major actors in [the

TRIPs] exercise have been the US-based Intellectual Property
Coalition - a grouping of 13 major companies, including IBM,
DuPont and General Motors - and European agro-chemical giants
such as Unilever, Hoechst and Ciba Geigy.' Thus, IPR was being
simultaneously harmonised and extended across the globe.
Upov
Paralleling the moves to enhance intellectual property
protection under the auspices of the GATT were moves on the
part of UPQV to bring the Convention into line with
developments elsewhere, and particularly with respect to
biotechnology. PBRs' research exemption made them
inadequate for protecting. biotechnically engineered plants
since they offered protection at the level of the whole plant
when what was required was protection at the level of the
gene. But by 1987, it was clear that UPOV would be
strengthened. According to Fowler et al., UPOV's members had
been divided between small seed houses and the integrated
genetics supply industry, the former fearing gene patenting,
the latter favouring new initiatives in this respect. UPOV was
revised in March 1991.
Note that the right of farmers to save seed from one
harvest for planting in the next, what the American Seed Trade
Association had referred to as the' farmers' right' in hearings
on the PVPA, had become known as the 'farmers' privilege'
and was no longer secure. Section 15.2 of the new Convention
allows, as an optional exception, seed saving' subject to the
safeguarding of the legitimate interests of the breeder',
implying that royalties should be paid to breeders where seed
is saved.
On the other hand, there is a compulsory exemption for
breeding other varieties. However, the interests of the breeder
are, in general, strengthened since protection applies to
'Essentially derived and certain other varieties' as defined
under Article 14 (5) (b) and (c). Lesser expresses concern that,
since the definition is unclear, this will lead to quasi-IPR being
granted to a breeder over thousands of attributes of a variety
The Alternative Agriculture 125
which he/she did nothing to create. The 'essentially derived'
clause would appear to apply to genetic insertion, giving the
owner of PBR the right to demand royalties from innovations
based on insertion of one or two genes into a plant over which
the right is held.
Increasingly, developed countries are bringing their PBR
legislation into line with the 1991 upav Convention.
Furthermore, although the TRIPs 'sui generis' clause appears
to offer room for manoeuvre in designing IPR for plant
varieties, most believe that this translates into upav type
standards and nothing less. Increasingly today, companies can
choose which combination of protection they prefer, although
European patent law currently forbids patenting of plant
varieties.
LOCKING IN TO UNIFORMITY
Reflecting the above-mentioned events, the Crucible
Group reported: 'Those who reviewed patent law a few
decades ago may not recognize it today'. Probably no formal
agricultural research organisation in the world has not at least
cogitated upon the changes considered above, not all of whose
are implications are, as yet, clear. It is important to understand
at least some of these, and to contemplate the relevance of the
changes to the existing BCM mode of agriculture.
Biotechniques and environmental critiques of agriculture
are reported to be bringing about a reshaping of the
technological development of agriculture. This is jumping the
gun slightly. There are still unresolved questions concerning,
in particular, consumer acceptance of genetically engineered
products, which are already having an impact on the industry's
development.
However, Sharp may be right to talk of the laying of a
new set of 'ground rules', making it 'inconceivable that those
developing new drugs, new herbicides or pesticides, or.new
plant species, should not, wmewhf're en route, make use of
gene cloning and sequencing techniques.' The implications
126 The Alternative Agriculture

would be that research which did not require such techniques

might fall by the wayside.
A number of authors have commented on the paradigm-
like shift that biotechnologies could achieve. Much of this
discussion considers the issue at the macroeconomic level, and
takes the view that it will not be biotechnology alone that leads
to a new Hlode of accumulation, but biotechnology, the
development of new materials, and information technologies
working synergistically to form a new techno-economic
paradigm.
There is no doubting that there could well be some
revolutionary changes about to occur in the way in which the
agro-food system functions. Most interesting of all are potential
developments in the food processing industry, where some
authors have speculated as to the possible emergence of a
Igeneric biomass inputs sector' as a result of technologies
which allow biological materials to be fractionated into
component parts for the final manufacture of food products.
The implications for commodity markets as they are
currently understood could be far-reaching. Other potentially
revolutionary techniques relate to so-called novel products,
which will :lffect the ways in which agriculture interacts with
other sec~ors of the economy.
Yet, whilst certain techniques used to create new products
are certainly emerging, there appears to be substantial
continuity with the past with respect to:
• Increasing horizontal integration across agricultural
inputs - breeding for responsiveness to inputs and to
facilitate harvesting will give way to herbicide tolerant
varieties.
• Deepening of vertical integration - breeding has
facilitated mechanised harvesting and handling of the
final product. Biotechniques are increasingly geared
towards downstream aspects of food production,
representing higher value-added, and greater
opportunities for profit, in upstream sectors of the
The Alternative Agriculture 127

chain of value in food. Lamola speaks of end-use

tailored, or identity-preserved varieties.
• The actors involved are, in many cases, one and the
same as those who prospered through the BCM
paradigm (erstwhile agrochemical and seed
companies).
• Emerging products take their cue from their supposed
ability either to replace, or alter the functioning of,
elements of the BCM paradigm which have been
heavily criticised in the past.
• A continuing lack of emphasis, in private sector
breeding, on pest resistance - although biotechniques
provide tools for reducing pesticide use, current trends
seem likely to increase, rather than reduce their use.
Where resistance breeding is undertaken, it is of the
gene-for-gene, vertical resistance type.
In many respects, therefore, the goals remain rather
similar to those in the BCM paradigm. In particular, the
attractions of the new techniques are seen principally in terms
of the increased control that can be exerted over the
transformation of organisms through recombinant DNA
techniques. Indeed, Richards speC' ks of biotechniques as
heralding a 'second designer phase' for agriculture.
Whereas the Green Revolution focused on ideotypes for
monocropping in controlled physical environments, the second
phase seeks to shape 'econotypes' to meet the need of future
economic environments. As with the BCM mode, an emphasis
on control within the labouratory has tended to obscure and
marginalise the significance ecological issues concerning the
functioning of biotechnically engineered products in the field.
The most obvious break with the past is the ability of
biotechniques to extend the genepool available to breec!.ers and
biotechnicians beyond the primary and secondary genepoools
into the hitherto unexplored (because of species
incompatibility) tertiary genepool. Less immediately obvious,
are the changes which have already been wrought by
biotechniques on our perception of the nature of life itself, and
 128 The Alternative Agriculture

the significance of these for our perception of the nature of

food and agriculture in the longer-term.
Paradoxically, therefore, we are witnessing changes which
are simultaneously profound, and incremental. The mode of
agricultural research is changing through use of powerful new
techniques, but its roots remain in the BCM mode. This is to
be expected if one accepts that agriculture had become locked
in to the BCM way of doing things. As Teece points out, one
aspect of the locking in process is that firms tend to do best
what they have done in the past.
If the emergence of biotechnology constituted a radically
new paradigm, learning advantages accumulated over time
by established FAROs would have lost much of their
significance. However, the fact that biotechnology is very
much a process technology has meant that much of the
significance of learning, particularly in the downstream
operations of private multinational corporations, has been
retained. Furthermore, as I have suggested above, the
techniques are deployed in pursuit of a familiar goal, that of
the genetically uniform ideal plant.

Changing Modes
The transition that is occurring can be understood through
appealing to the framework developed by Freeman and Perez.
As noted above, the BCM mode has corne under fire for a
variety of reasons, principally those associated with food
quality and the environment. If the limits to the expansion of
this mode had not yet been reached, such expansion was
clearly under threat. The world market for agrochemicals saw
three years of decline in the years 1991-93 before recovering
somewhat in 1994 and 1995.
Farm support schemes, in the European Union and
elsewhere, have begun to shift away from price support, which
led to elevated levels of use (relative to that which would
.'prevail with prices at world market levels) of agrochemical
inputs, and towards conservation, often rewarding farmers for
using fewer inputs.
The Alternative Agriculture 129
For Freeman and Perez, the transition from one techno-
economic paradigm to another, brought on by the onset of
recessionary trends, is characterised by:
The increasing degree of mismatch between the techno-
economic sub-system and the old socio-institutional
framework. It shows the need for a full-scale re-
accommodation of social behaviour and institutions to suit the
requirements and the potential of a shift which has already
taken place to a considerable extent in some areas of the
techno-economic sphere. This re-accommodation occurs as a
result of a process of political search, experimentation and
adaptation.
Once the socio-institutional framework matches the
techno-economic sub-system, investment moves forward and
growth is restored. For the BML mode to flourish, its techno-
economic sub-system requires an appropriately matching
institutional framework, including:
• a sympathetic regulatory framework for undertaking
relevant research, including risk assessment
methodologies as applied to the release of the products
of gene technologies, and food safety legislation
regarding genetically engineered food;
• political, social and environmental acceptance of the
technologies and their end-products, reflecting
confidence in the regulatory framework; and
• appropriate IPR protection, the importance of which
is confirmed by, amongst others, Thelwall and Clucas,
Caulder, Lamola, and Duffey.
A lack of institutional change will delay any upswing, and
indeed, resistance from consumers concerning issues of health
and environmental risk has been strong. Consequently,
products have been slow to reach the market. Yet, for reasons
elabourated below, it is the issue of IPR legislation which has
greatest bearing on the issue of biological diversity in use in
agriculture, and thus, the environmental risks posed by new
130 The Alternative Agriculture

biotechnologies in terms of vulnerabilio/ and the continued

use of pesticides.
Those in the vanguard of the BML mode have sought to
project it as environmentally friendly. In doing this, they have
stressed the biological, ergo natural, characteristics of the work
they are undertaking. The semantics involved have been
illuminating, at one and the same time suggesting radical new
possibilities (the economic and environmental attractions) and
on the other, in an attempt to downplay the risks associated
with the products of biotechniques (and the need for
regulation), suggesting continuity with the past. Critics of
biotechniques tum the matter around completely.
Whilst not disputing the fact that there is money to be
made, they argue that the new possibilities should be reflected
in the need for new forms of regulation, whilst continuity is
likely to be reflected in the continuation of environmental
problems. Their criticisms relate mainly to:
• The uncertainties in ex ante risk assessment associated
with release of genetically engineered organisms into
the environment, not least the difficulties in
extrapolating from small-scale trials to large-scale field
use, and problems associated with trade in the
products concerned.
• The nature of individual produds and their possible
environmental and health consequences
• The environmental consequences of possibly increased
uniformity.,
• The political economy of the research being
undertaken (who is it done by, and for?).
• The impact in terms of research not undertaken (a
point well made by Rachel Carson in 'Silent Spring'.
These issues are not unrelated. The nature of the
organisation funding research will determine the degree to
which a notional social welfare function is reflected in their
activities. Private organisations need not be concerned with
social welfare, or only insofar as it affects profits.
The Alternative Agriculture 131

The key to deepening private sector involvement in agro-

food biotechnical research has been the extension of IPRs to
living organisms. Governments have welcomed private sector
participation in research, and have tended either to move the
focus of their research away from near-market, and towards
more basic, research, and/or to seek to take advantage of the
patent system themselves to make financial gains from
ongoing research.
Fut1lre for Diversity
As mentioned above, one of the criticisms levelled at those
who believe that biotechniques herald a new 'sustainable
agriculture' is that existing problems of uniformity will be
exacerbated. Can-the transition from BCM to BML mode re-
introduce diversity into a system based on uniformity? From'
a purely technica~·view, biotechniques' capacity to draw upoI)'
genetic material from the tertiary gene pool would suggest that
additional genetic variation might be introduced. Thus, Bassett
argues that new varieties 'will simply coexist with the old
varieties: diversity will- have been increased, not decreased'.
But this approach has two major shortcomings. Firstly,
the basic research and the application are inextricably linked,
so much so that possible applications are driving the direction
of basic research. Thus, a growing proportion of public sector
research is supporting commercially oriented research.
Secondly, what actually happens is a subset of what could
happen, as the earlier case-studies have argued. Kloppenburg
bluntly states: 'the baby of biotechnology is not so easily
separated from the corporate bath water,' which is exactly
why, as Lesser points out, trends towards uniformity predate
the existence of PBR and patents.
Strengthening IPR as applied to living material has
encouraged private industry to engage in biotechnical research
at levels above those that would have existed in their absence.
Furthermore, because Governments now see biotechnical
prowess as important for maintaining competitiveness, public
research is beginning to resemble privately sponsored
research, either through its increasingly subservient position
132 TIle Alternative Agriculture

to private industry, or through more overt aims to generate

revenue from patentable research outputs. Erstwhile President
of Harvard University, Derek Bok, has expressed concern that
Universities will increasingly' differ from corporations only
because there are no shareholders and no dividends'.
An element of historical contingency is at work here, since
many governments are cutting state spending on education
and research where it is perceived to be of low market value.
To the extent that environmental issues are intimately related
to issues of social welfare, and because many environmental
costs are not captured in market transactions, one assumes that
private organisations are, notwithstanding their own public
relations, less likely to integrate environmental issues into their
research programmes.
Indeed, one survey, aimed at eliciting the ranking of
breeding companies' priorities, placed the environment at the
bottom of seven criteria. However, the same is increasingly
true of publicly funded research. Instituticnal changes are
making the public / private distinction irrelevant in predicting
the social welfare goals which will be pursued by one or other
form.
This is one reason why, notwithstanding some of the
claims made for the efficacy of biotechnologies (most of which,
incidentally, are made with the BCM technologies as the
implied baseline), IPR will if not increase, then maintain, the
vulnerability of agriculture in the field. Other reasons include
the following:
Distinctness of Varieties
Already, anecdotal evidence suggests that seed companies
rely on a few elite cultivars in their research programmes and
new varieties are developed through minor modifications to
these. Very little hard evidence is available, but it is clear that
the number of varieties available (i) does not reflect genetic
diversity, and (ii) masks the concentration in varietal use out
in the field.
The future strategy for breeders will be structured by the
IPR legislation in place. The combination of UPOV 1991 and
The Alternative Agriculture 133

patents ensures that the work of the breeder, and the value of
an identified gene, is both recognised. The 'essentially derived'
clause was introduced to deal with the problem of genetic
distancing. Biotechniques make it possible to reduce the
genetic distancing required to discriminate between varieties,
in which case, the genetic variation existing in the field would
become even further divorced from consideration of the
number of varieties grown.
For example, since distinctness could now be measured
at the level of the gene, a superfluous (in agronomic terms)
gene could be spliced into a variety thus making it, potentially,
distinct. As Smith points out, the practice of reverse
engineering of varieties is increasingly common and would
make the aforementioned practice more likely, rendering the
granting of PBR meaningless. The essentially derived' clause,
I

though of theoretical value, raises important questions of

definition. For both Espenhain and Smith, who, in his excellent
account, notes that numerous controversies in this regard are
in no one's interest, case law will provide the answers.
Because upav 1991 extends the breeder's right to the
commercialisation of essentially derived varieties (the
principle of dependence), companies using genetic
transformation techniques will either work with their own
PBR-protected varieties, or license genes of interest to other
companies for incorporation into their varieties. Strategic
alliances between those specialising in biotechniques and those
with greater specialism in traditional breeding seem likely.
Hence, Pioneer markets both soyabeans containing
Monsanto's Roundup Ready gene (tolerant of Monsanto's
glyphosate herbicide) and soyabeans containing the DuPont-
owned sulfonylurea tolerant gene. DEKALB also has cross-
licensing agreements with both Monsanto and DuPont. Those
licensing technologies will seek to gain from the technology
premium which biotechnically developed products aim to
attract.
To a significant degree, varietal make-up will remain as
before, but with genes spliced into a particular variety's
134 The Alternative Agriculture

background, and with plants themselves being made more

uniform. However, since industrial structure will be affected
by the evolving IPR framework, as well as the techniques
themselves, and developments in individual sectors, there may
be implications for the diversity of what is offered to farmers.
This is considered in what follows.
Research Concentration
Patent enforcement prevents companies from carrying out
research on a patented genetic sequence or process without
paying royalties to the patent holder, whilst essentially derived
varieties are subject to PBR under UPOV 1991. The strategic
importance of patents for ahy company depends to a
considerable degree on the extent of exclusion implied by the
text of the patent. In this context, the current trend towards
granting broad patents to companies is worrying indeed.
For example, Agracetus, a subsidiary of W. R. Grace (and
recently taken over by Monsanto), was granted patent rights
in the US over any genetically manipulated variety of cotton,
and by the European Patent Office over all genetically
transformed soybeans (with those for rice, groundnut and
maize pending). Agrigenetics' patent on high oleic acid
sunflowers effectively stopped all such work in this area
outside the company. The prevalence of' driftnet patenting' is
at odds with the view held by many that patents encourage
innovation. It raises the possibility that the seed industry for
anyone crop may ultimately become dominated, or at least
hostage to, one commercial enterprise. .
Patent enforcement is an important tool in building
corporate empires and eliminating competition. Monsanto,
which has staked much on its quest to become the 'Microsoft
of engineered foods', has acquired companies, and stakes in
others, reflecting its belief that patents will be a key source of
competitive advantage in coming years. Pioneer's moves to
patent its in-bred lines on grounds that this would prevent
other companies carrying out research on them illustrates that
even the 'biological patent' which hybrid corn varieties are
The Alternative Agriculture 135

endowed with is being superseded by strengthened IPR

legislation.
As patents proliferate, it will become increasingly difficult
for any enterprise to conduct research in the full knowledge
that it is legitimate, especially since burden-of-proof legislation
makes it incumbent upon those accused of patent violation to
prove that they are innocent. The possibility arises in which a
company carrying out research happens, by accident, to be
working with a variety in which a patented gene sequence
exists. Such a company would be unwittingly breaking the law,
and would be expected to provide proof of its innocence.
There is a suggestion that IPR-related concerns are driving
strategic alliances in the industry. Since, increasingly, more
than one form of IPR will be involved in developing a given
variety, such alliances reduce the likelihood of anyone IPR-
holder blocking development of the product concerned. IPR-
based restructuring can be expected to produce 'many·
casualties, some survivors, and a few successes'. The growing
significance of IPR, appears to be leading to greater
concentration in breeding effort, which is unlikely to promote
diversity in agriculture.
Loss of Farmers' Privilege
UPOV 1991 appears to deny that farmers might also be
breeders. Industry estimates suggest farmer-saved seed
accounts for between one and two thirds of all seed planted
in the world, though the proportion for developing countries
is believed to be of the order 85 per cent. Indeed, in developing
countries, the exchange of seed from farmer to farmer is
probably the main avenue for diffusion of new seed varieties.
Erstwhile Director General of GAIT, Peter Sutherland, has
suggested that such informal practices are 'generally not of
interest to the owners of protected varieties', yet already in
the US, court actions have been taken against farmers involved
in such activity, and it will not have been lost on IPR owners
that interfarm sales constitute 62 per cent of all seed purchases
in India where Sutherland made his speech.
136 The Alternative Agriculture

In the US, companies such as Monsanto require growers

of their Roundup Ready Soybeans to be licensed to grow the
material, though other companies, including AgrEvo and
DuPont, do not require licensing since, in the words of one
commentator, 'they seem to feel that the additional chemical
usage that's tied in with [DuPont's] STS beans is enough'.
Monsanto states that 'if necessary, the terms of the [Roundup
Ready] contract will be enforced under the P.V.P.A., US Patent
Law and general contract law'. One study estimates that within
a few years, 40 per cent of all US farmers will be contract
growers, or renters of germplasm from the same companies
to whom they sell their product.
Farmers will also need to be alive to the possibility,
especially when growing out breeding crops (those which
cross-pollinate) of falling foul of patent legislation. It is not
clear, given reverse burden of proof, how the law would
interpret a situation where a farmer grew a variety which
through cross-pollination contained a patented sequence.
Potentially, the onus will be placed upon farmers to ensure
no such cross-pollination takes place. Furthermore, the
possibilities for farmers to experiment with varieties covered
by upav 1991 seem limited.
As with the case of 'essentially derived' varieties, it seems
likely that case law will determine what is and is not allowed,
but in the meantime, farmer experimentation with new
varieties, which can create new races of out-breeding crops,
may be a risky enterprise. This may have implications for
diversity. More recently, the patent awarded to Delta and Pine
Land Company on so-called 'terminator technology' (which
prevents seeds from germinating in the next generation)
provides a technological means through which to prevent
farmer seed-saving.
Wide Use of Agronomic Genes
It has been stated that the introduction of novel genes will
increase genetic diversity in agriculture. However, if the same
gene is licensed to several companies for use in a large
The Alternative Agriculture 137

proportion of varieties in use, and in different crops, the gene

becomes a component of uniformity. The possibility arises of
the occurrence of a southern com leaf blight on a more global
scale. In China, 15 million hectares are planted to hybrid rice,
each plant possessing, as with US com varieties in 1970, a
common gene for cytoplasmic male sterility.
Genes from the bacterium,
Bacillus thuringiensis, which produce
a protein that is lethal to some insects
upon ingestion, are of great interest
to corporations involved in
biopesticides. Yet there are already
concerns for insects' resistance to a
number of strains of the bacterium. Fig. Bacillus thuringiensis
Herbicide tolerant genes could quite conceivably be
transferred into vast areas of crop land, potentially increasing
the vulnerability of crops globally, and leading to heightened
problems with herbicide resistant weeds. Indeed, the relay race
mentality of the BCM mode is accepted as a matter of course:
'in 50 years, biotechnologists will almost certainly still be
developing new batteries of pest- and disease-resistant genes'.
The aim to engineer plants with tolerance to herbicides is
a goal of companies that have integrated crop protection and
seed production. In this way, purchasers of seed would be
locked-in to the purchase of proprietary chemicals.
This strategy reflects the fact that the costs of developing
new agrochemicals are increasing owing to costly approvals
processes. The costs of engineering the seed to lengthen the
effective life of a given chemical compound are less, whilst it
is also possible to extend the patent life of chemicals coming
'off patent' by specifying use of the proprietary form of a
generic compound. The industry claims to have shifted
emphasis to compounds of lower toxicity, although much
attention has focused on glyphosate, which was listed by the
US National Academy of Sciences as a potential carcinogen in
1987.
138 the Alternative Agriculture

Ecological Interactions
One of the major fears of environmentalists is that a gene
which has been transferred to a variety to enhance its
competitive performance may be transferred sexually into wild
relatives, especially where maize, potatoes, rice, chickpeas and
common beans are concerned.
In these crops a wild-weed-crop complex is observed in
which there is continual gene flow between wild and cultivated
forms. More speculatively (the processes are poorly
understood), horizontal gene flow mediated by micro-
organisms may occur. In either case, the transfer of one gene
may be sufficient for a plant to become invasive.
Lack of Research on Diversity
Quite apart from the tendencies remarked upon above
which might exacerbate trends towards unif()~ity, the ~imple
'fact remains that little if any research associated with the use
of biotechniques is being undertaken to encourage the use of
diversity in the, field. Indeed, biotechniques make it possible
to clone plants and seeds so eliminating what residual
variability there may have been in a crop bred using traditional
methods.
Existing Seed Marketing Legislation
Perhaps most importantly, and what may in time become
the most concrete expression of the way in which
biotechniques affect the offerings of the seed industry to
fa:rmers in the fact that over time, varieties which are not the
product of genetic manipulation will slip off existing National
Lists of seed varieties. Since those on the list are the only ones
which can enter into commerce, slowly it will become
impossible to purchase seeds which are not genetically
engineered.
This will force farmers and consumers alike, irrespective
of concerns regarding genetic engineering, to purchase
genetically engineered seeds. To the extent that genetic
engineering concentrates on the integration of specific
The Alternative Agriculture 139

sequences within existing elite cultivars, irrespective of the

number of cultivars made available to farmers, the genetic
diversity within farming may decline, and certainly seems
unlikely to increase.
Possibly, IPR will not increase uniformity. One scenario
would see patented genes integrated into the background of
existing varieties, and no change other than those created by
the introduced genes. But this scenario assumes an unlikely
scenario in which changes wrought by IPR and biotechniques
will leave the seed industry unchanged in other respects, a
scenario which current trends suggest is unlikely.
Our inability to measure diversity, and the fact that we
do not know where we stand today, makes it impossible to
assess change on the basis of any reliable baseline. However,
it seems reasonable to suggest that biotechniques are taking
-agriculture in different directions to those which would be
implied by the alternative approaches.
If the BCM mode was environmentally damaging, and if
there remain unanswered questions regarding the impact of
the BML mode, why does this new mode appear to be gaining
the support of most FAROs, public and private, especially
when alternative paths exist?
ALTERNATIVE AGRICULTURE
In Mellon's words 'the hype surrounding biotechnology
diverts our attention from those [pesticide free] solutions by
focusing attention on technologically dazzling new products.
By setting the proper goal, we will avoid the danger of
spending millions trying to genetically engineer ten "better"
pesticides, when for far less we could have taken our
agriculture systems off the pesticide treadmill forever.'
In particular, the alternatives (re-)emerged with some
force in the 1980s on the back of environmental concern seem
likely to remain alternatives in terms of the resources devoted
to them. The transition from ECM to BML mode must. be
understood in this context. This was not a transition that was
inevitable. The BCM was under fire, and alternative
approaches beyond biotechniques were available.
140 The Alternative Axriculture

If rPR was essential to the BML mode, they may be

decidedly unhelpful for those seeking to do research out!)ide
that mode. Sederoff and Meagher opine that IPR 'are having
a dramatic negative effect on the progress of non-profit
research'. The following sections consider debates concerning
genetic resources which have taken place outside GATT and
UPOV.
Recognition for farmers' rights
The aim to resist IPR strengthening has been closely
related to attempts to encourage the use of diversity in
agriculture. Whilst the agricultural biotechnology companies
had their sights on institutional changes allowing for the
granting of IPR over life through the GATT, the FAO was
debating the issue of the rights of farmers over germplasm,
especially from 1987 onward.
Farmers' Rights would be the counterbalance to the
spread of PBR. In 1987, an International Fund for Plant Genetic
Resources was set up, and was legally established in 1989. The
Fund was designed for genetic conservation and utilisation
work, and administered by the ICPGR. Mexico argued that
donations to such a Fund should be mandatory in the same
way as are royalties to a patent holder, but no agreement was
forthcoming.
By 1989, developing country governments had let it be
known through negotiations at the FAO that failure on the part
of developed country governments to acknowledge the
concept of Farmers' Rights would result in those countries
being denied access to developing country genetic resources.
Similarly, developed country patents would not be honoured.
In what was effectively an exercise in horse-trading, at the
1989 meeting, developed countries insisted on an additional
Resolution modifying the International Undertaking such that
it recognised PBR. 'Free accesses to germplasm explicitly
would not mean 'free of charge'. In return, a Resolution on
Farmers' Rights was passed recognising the rights of farmers
in respect of their work conserving, improving, and making
available genetic resources.
The Alternative Agriculture 141

In the midst of an increasingly polarised debate, a notable

event was the Keystone Dialogue held at the Keystone Centre
in Colorado in 1988, at Madras in 1990, and Oslo in 1991. Major
transnational corporations, NGOs, IBPGR, national genetic
resource programmes, the academic community, and the
Rockefeller Foundation reached the following consensus
conclusions after the second meeting:
• IPR were credited with encouraging development of
new varieties, but also with encouraging genetic
uniformity and erosion;
• Attempts to include IPR for plants under the auspices
of the GAIT negotiations were criticised; and
• Recognition of Farmers' Rights, and commendation of
the idea of a Fund such as that extant at the FAO as a
means of providing a form of concrete recognition
thereof.
Corporate delegates refused to sanction a .::ompensation
mechanism, merely a fund recognising Farmers' Rights, a
position which some participants would have found
unacceptable were it not for the fact that it was agreed the fund
should be mandatory. Furthermore, rather than the figure of
$150 million proposed by NGOs at the FAO, the consensus
figure arrived at was $500 million.
In November 1991, another Resolution concerning genetic
resources was pas8~d at the FAO. This amendment to the
Undertaking upheld 'that nations have sovereign rights over
their plant genetic resources and that breeders' lines and
farmers' breeding material should only be available at the
discretion of their developers during the period of
development'. Although Farmers' Rights were recognised,
they were given no substance. The International Fund, legally
established in 1989, failed to materialise. Only in India have
attempts been made to give substance to the concept through
taxation of seed industry income.
Farmers' Rights still amount to little more than a polite
thank you to farmers who have conserved genetic diversity in
142 The Alternative Agriculture
situ. This was most clearly illustrated in discussions at the June
1996 Leipzig Conference where the issue of Farmers' Rights
showed that developed country donors were reluctant to
support in situ conservation, partly, one suspects, because of
issues related to sovereignty in respect of genetic resources
(see next section).
The Convention on Biological Diversity
National sovereignty over genetic resources was a feature
of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which
entered into force as a legally binding international treaty at
the end of 1993. The CBD is a framework convention whose
objectives, stated in Article I, are:
the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable
use of its components and the fair and equitable sharing of the
benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources, including
by appropriate access to genetic resources and by appropriate transfer
of relevant technologies, taking into account all rights over those
resources and to technologies, and by appropriate funding.
Article 3 of the CBD lays down the principle that:
States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United
Nations and the principle of international law, the sovereign
right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own
environmental policies, and the responsibility to ensure that
activities within their own jurisdiction or control do not cause
damage to the environment of other states or of areas beyond
the limits of national jurisdiction.
This effectively confirms that the free exchange principle
is something of the past.
For corporations, sovereignty appeared to cede too much
control to governments over genetic resources which were of
increasing value to biotechnology companies. For non-
government organisations, this debate seemed to miss the
point that it was not states who were really responsible for
maintaining biological diversity within their borders, but local
communities. The CBD offers little for local communities, and
does not explicitly recognise Farmers' Rights, though the role
The Alternative Agriculture 143

of indigenous communities in conserving biodiversity is

recognised in the preamble.
Articles 12, 17, 18 and 19 each refer to aspects of the
biotechnology debate, but Article 16 of the CBD, dealing with
transfer of technology, was the most heavily negotiated.
Essentially, the debate centred around the fact that developing
countries would most likely be providing raw materials for a
biotechnology industry seeking to patent innovations. Article
16.2, suggests that:
In the case of technology subject to patents and other
intellectual property rights, such access and transfer shall be
provided on terms which recognise and are consistent with
the adequate and effective protection of intellectual property
rights. The application of this paragraph shall be consistent
with paragraphs.3, 4 and 5 below.
This Article was essentially a compromise meant to defuse
the situation as regards the way in which technology transfer
should account for IPR. These latter paragraphs make
provision for the transfer of technology to developing countries
on 'mutually agreed terms'. Article 16.5 suggests that the
Contracting parties:
recognizing that patents and other intellectual property
rights may have an influence on then implementation of this
Convention, shall cooperate in this regard subject to national
legislation and intemationallaw in order to ensure that such
rights are supportive of and do not run counter to its objectives.
The CBD's equivocation on IPR issues was perhaps the
main reason why George Bush's US delegation felt unable to
support the CBD in Rio. Ever since the late 1980s, when
methods of screening increased in sophistication and fell in
cost, plant research has acquired new significance for
pharmaceutical companies. Thus, head of the US delegation,
William Reilly, stated: 'We have negotiated in the Uruguay
Round of GA IT to try to protect intellectual property rights
We're not about to trade away here in an environmental treaty
what we worked so hard to protect there'.
144 The Alternative Agriculture

'111e CBD does not apply retrospectively. Thus, the legal

status of ex-situ collections of resources donated by developing
countries but housed in the developed world was left unclear.
In 1994, the World Bank appears to have sought to prevent
the CGIAR's ex situ collections from falling under
intergovernmental control by taking control of these itself in
exchange for new funds for the CGIAR.
However, 112 governments unanimously, and ultimately
successfully, called for establishment of intergovernmental
control over the CGIAR ex situ collections. The status of other
collections held in developed country genebanks was
discussed at the FAO's Leipzig Conference, but the outcome
gave little encouragement to those countries which donated
germplasm in the first place, as exemplified by the attempts
of the company PHYTERA to gain access to genetic resources
collected in developed country botanical gardens.
Indigenous Peoples
As so often in the past, indigenous peoples have been
forgotten in the bulk of negotiations which affect a resource
maintained largely by them. Their concerns span both the
prime focus of the CBD and the issue of Farmers' Rights, as
well as the TRIPs negotiations. Increasingly, the contributions
made by indigenous peoples in terms not just of germplasm,
but also knowledge regarding its use, are recognised.
Yet this recognition has led to little concrete action to
protect their interests. In response principally to the heated
debate generated by issues related to the patenting of
indigenous people's cell lines, the Indigenous Peoples
Biodiversity Network was formed with the objective of
safeguarding their interests with respect to biodiversity and
their knowledge thereof. Out of the debate concerning
Farmers' Rights and IPR as they affect indigenous peoples has
corne awareness that current formal systems do not adequately
recognise indigenous knowledge systems, in which knowledge
is often held at the level of the community.
More and more companies are screening plant materials
for useful products, yet it is estimated that the chances of
The Alternative Agriculture 145
finding useful products are at least doubled if indigenous, or
folk knowledge is utilised. An authority on the issue of IPR
and indigenous peoples, Darrell Posey, notes that IPR pose
seven problems for indigenous peoples:
• They do not grant rights to collective entities;
• They protect unique acts of discovery rather than
transgenerational ~nowledge (from, for example,
spirits, vision quests, or oral transmission) which tends
to be public;
• They do not recognise non-western systems of
ownership, access and tenure;
• They aim to promote commercialisation whereas the
aims of indigenous peoples may be to prevent such
activity;
• They recognise market values only and not spiritual,
aesthetic, or cultural value;
• They are, as is clear from the above, intimately bound
up with power relations;
• They are expensive to obtain and difficult to defend.
Posey goes on to cite a number of examples where
indigenous peoples have displayed almost uniform hostility
to what they perceive as an insidious trend in IPR legislation
which seeks to deepen the exploitation of their resources and
their knowledge. They perceive simple recognition of their
contributions, as exemplified by the Farmers' Rights issue, as
typically patroniSing in the face of a continued absence of legal
mechanisms adapted to meet their needs and concerns.
RAFI explores a number of ways in which indigenous
communities could find space within existing legislation to
protect their innovations. They argue that:
There is a strong case to be made that the uncompensated
appropriation of farmers' varieties and medicinal plants
constitutes real theft and that the parties responsible should
be pursued under criminal law at the expense of national law
enforcement agencies in the country where the theft occurs (the
patenting country).
146 The Alternative Agriculture

In the face of the forces mentioned above, it seems unlikely

that much room for manoeuvre exists for those who would
seek to place Farmers' Rights on the same level as IPR. Some
countries have, however, been exploring the potential for
exploiting the' sui generis' clause mentioned above in designing
alternative IPR regimes which allow, for example, for
communities, and not just individuals, to make IPR claims.
As pointed out by Allen, much innovation is the product of
collective rather than individual efforts. In India, the concept
of Collective Intellectual Property Rights is gaining credibility,
whilst the Andean Pact is committed to developing a regime
on collective rights of indigenous peoples.
This chapter has sought to show, through examining
evolving IPR regimes, that a new mode of development of
agricultural technologies is emerging. Some, indeed most of
its most vocal and powerful supporters are drawn from the
leaders of the BCM mode. The commercial possibilities
presented by biotechniques saw pressure to extend IPR
schemes. Following the 1980s, a decade which saw recognition
gained in an international forum for the concept of Farmers'
Rights, the rights of farmers to save seed first underwent
conversion to a 'privilege', and were then consigned to history.
The old BCM mode still prevails despite the attacks of
environmentalists and the growing awareness of available
alternatives. If the possibilities for alternatives to thrive
alongSide the BCM mode seem limited, they are likely to be
more so as the BCM mode is superseded by BML techniques.
Although the BML mode's supporters have often appeared as
keen as environmentalists to see the back of the old BCM mode,
their agenda is not an alternative based on bringing diversity
back into the picture, but the ushering in of new techniques
aimed at increasing the potential for achieving a genetically
uniform ideal plant.
Major suppliers of agrochemiCals condemn the
technologies for which they themselves have been responsible
as manifestly unsustainable. In answer to his own question
whether sud). companies are 'Planetary patriots or
The Alternative Agriculture 147
sophisticated scoundrels?' Kloppenburg writes: 'Having been
recognised as wolves, the industrial semioticians (and you
thought they were only manipulating genesl) are now
redefining themselves as sheep, and green sheep at that.'
 Modern Science of Agriculture

THE ENVIRONMENTAL CRITICS

Although environmental philosophers have had little to
say about agriculture, environmental critics have not been so
reticent. Indeed, the volume of criticism has been so great that
it is impossible to even summarize it in less than encyclopedic
terms. Critics have found problems with virtually every
element of agricultural production and food processing, from
centre pivot irrigation to the use of antibiotics in animal feed.
Since a thorough review of these criticisms is out of place
in this context, it will be necessary to select a few examples
that illustrate how critics have interpreted the environmental
implications of agriculture. Criticisms of agricultural pesticides
and of emerging agricultural biotechnologies tend to cite a
laundry list of negative environmental impacts associated with
agriculture. To the extent that this pattern of criticism is typical,
it has three important implications.
First, the pattern of criticism makes no philosophical
distinction between risk to humans a:1d risk to non-human
animals and ecosystem integrity. It is, for this reason,
somewhat retrograde by the standards of environmental
ethics. Second, by stressing unwanted outcomes, the critics
unintentionally reinforce the dominant philosophical
orientation of modem industrial agriculture.
Finally, the pattern invites farmers and agribusiness to
respond by ameliorating practices, rather than by undertaking
Modern Scie1lce of Agriculture 149

fundamental reforms. The review of critical literature begins

by noting how environmental critics of agriculture are situated
within a four way network of critics who have besieged
agriculture since World War II. The interests represented by
the three other groups of critics overlap, but do not coincide
with those of environmentalists.
Environmental criticisms have been, therefore, diffused
by the complexity of messages registering in the min.ds of
agricultural leaders, and have never been interpreted as calling
for major changes in the value systems that undergird
agriculture in the United States, Canada, Western Europe,
Australia, Ir,dia and other centers of agribusiness and
industrialized production. The mixture of messages outlined
here pervades the discussion of alternative philosophical
strategies for addressing environmental problems in
agriculture, and complicates the task of formulating .an
environmental ethic for agricultural production.
Selective reviews of chemical insecticides and of new
technologies based on the transfer of genetic materials through
recombinant DNA follow the overview of agriculture'S critics.
The purpose is to provide paradigmatic examples of
environmental criticism. Briefly, the vast literature of criticism
provides surprisingly little that would lead to a philosophically
novel approach to the environmental significance of
agriculture. The final section briefly reviews the comments of
two well-known critics, Aldo Leopold and E.F. Schumacher,
who do provide preliminary sketches of what an
environmental ethic should achieve.
THE CRITICS OF AGRICULTURE
The recent history of agriculture in industrialized
countries is a history of technological change. Machines,
chemical inputs, and genetic improvements were developed
at an advancing pace throughout the twentieth century, and
many of these technologies were widely adopted by farmers
in industrial countries.
150 Modern Science of Agriculture
During the 1940s, a group of scientific, business and
political leaders conceptualized the Green Revolution, a
massive effort of technology development that was to.
reproduce what they took to be the success of industrialized
agriculture in developing countries.
Percentage of chronically Malnourished Population has Declined
in Most of the Developing world, Except sub-saharan Africa

w~------------------------~
.1970
01970
37
34

24 24
19

SOURCE; Gondon Conway, The Doubly Green Resolution Food

for All in the 21st Century, Ithaca University Press, 1998

The Green Revolution strategy of aggressive applied

scientific research, followed by equally aggressive efforts of
technology transfer, was intended to improve agriculture by
improving the tools and materials of farming. It was a distilled
version of the philosophy behind the laws that established the
agricultural experiment stations in the United States in 1887,
and the state and national agricultural extension services in
1914.
The two laws placed land grant universities in ~a(h state
in harne$s with research and extension effort~ at the US
Department of Agriculture and created what has come to be
known as the USDA/land grant system. The rationale for these
laws was the general betterment of.rural communities, but they
have gradually been implemented in ways that focus ever
more narrowly on technology.
Whether one speaks of the USDA!land grant philosophy
that gave rise to agricultural technologies in the United States
or the Green Revolution philosophy that spread a somewhat
narrower view of technology transfer across the globe,
agricultural science is linked to technology adoption by
Modern Science of Agriculture 151
farmers. In many cases, the technology eventually adopted by
farmers must be supplied by firms that manufacture the
tractors, cultivators, chemicals, or seed varieties that may have
been originally researched in universities or public agencies
such as the Agricultural Research Service.
Therefore, the recent history of agriculture is also the
history of emerging agribusiness firms that supply farmers
with the technologies needed for food and fiber production.
The transformation that has taken place in agriculture is
dramatic. When industrialized production systems are
measured in terms of productivity, the success of this
philosophy is startling.
Farming technology has increased the productivity of
agriculture, and the result is that people in industrial countries
expend far less of their income on food and fiber than do those
in countries where farming continues to be the primary
occupation of most people. Most participants in the USDA/
land grant, Green Revolution complex (including scientists,
public officials, agribusiness firms, and adopting producers)
would regard these changes as a successful application of
technology, but a chorus of voices has arisen in criticism.
The primary purpose of this chapter is to examine the
environmental critics, but it is helpful to realise that
environmental criticisms of agricultu,re are but one voice in a
four part harmony of critique. Perhaps the first themes were
sounded by critics of the Green Revolution itself.
According to DeWalt, Carl Sauer wrote as early as 1941
that Mexican agriculture cannot be pointed toward
"standardization of a few commercial types without upsetting
native economy and culture hopelessly." Published critiques
of the Green Revolution began to appear in the late 1960s and
early 1970s, with Keith Griffin's book, The Political Economy of
Agrarian Change: An Essay on the Green Revolution, being the
first in a series of studies that documented the social turmoil
associated with agricultural technology transfer in developing
countries.
152 Modern Science of Agriculture
It distorts the criticism of the Green Revolution to
generalize, but it is fair to say that critics ha:ve consistently
applied two themes. First, critics reject the assumption that
changes in agricultural production technology can be
evaluated in terms of aggregated indicators such as increased
food production or t~tal rural income. They insist that
inequitable distribution of benefits and harms overturns the
judgment that agricultural technologies have produced success
in the developing world.
Second, the presumption that scientific research can
produce beneficial changes in any cultural and political
environment is replaced with the view that Western science is
deeply dependent on the social institutions of developed
economies. By altering these two presumptions of the Green
Revolution, critics conclude that the loss of local autonomy
and indigenous knowledge far outweighs any benefit from
increased agricultural production. Frequently, critics apply
revolutionary political rhetoric in placing the ultimate blame
for Green Revolution failures on capitalist or free market
ideology.
A second group of critics have noted the social
implications of agricultural technology within developed
economies. In short, critics think indu&trial technology is
inimical to small farms and rural quality of life. The origin of
this theme may be a study by anthropologist Walter
Goldschmidt. Originally published in 1947, Goldschmidt's As
You Sow prefigured many criticisms that were to mount in the
following four decades, as family farmers in rural communities
became increasingly aware of their plight.
The attack was leveled directly at USDA/land grant
organizations in an influential 1973 book, Hard Tomatoes, Hard
Times by Jim Hightower, who was later to become Texas
Commissioner of Agriculture. Hightower's book and a series
of papers on the development of the mechanical tomato
harvester in California laid the responsibility for the lost
employment and farms that ensued at the doorstep of the
University of California. The result was a lawsuit, filed on
Modern Science of Agriculture 153
behalf of displaced field workers, that was settled in favour
of the University in 1991.
The general theme of domestic critics is a populist one.
Government, including the USDA/land grant system, should
protect the "little guy" from the forces of impersonal
industrialization, in general, and from big business in
particular. The trend in agriculture has manifestly been toward
larger, more specialized farms and farm input businesses, and
this trend is antithetical to the populist ethic of family farming.
These critics often mix environmental critiques with their
populist themes, so Marty Strange's book, Family Farming: A
New Economic Vision incorporates the critique of centre pivot
irrigation alluded to earlier. The environmental dimension of
populist critique will surface in later, but one must assess these
critics as being primarily concerned about the loss of small
farms, and generally of the opinion that, if small farms were
preserved, the environmental problems of agriculture would
take care of themselves.
The final voice of criticism is the most obscure, and is,
like the lowest of bass notes, indiscernible to the casual listener.
It is, however, arguably the most effective in influencing the
direction of change within agricultural institutions. In 1972,
the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy
of Science issued what has come to be known as the "Pound
Report." The Pound Report took agricultural universities and
the USDA to task for not being scientific enough. The substance
of the report attacked needless replications and duplication
of studies from state to state, and noted that many agricultural
scientists appeared to be working on subjects of little scientific
merit or interest.
Other NRC reports have been critical of agricultural
universities, including the 1989 report, Alternative Agriculture,
which criticized USDA/land grant administrators for failing
to investigate alternatives to the mechanically and chemically
intensive technologies of conventional agriculture. While there
has been grousing about the accuracy of NRC studies, they
154 Modern Science of Agriculture

have arguably done more to promote change in agricultural

institutions than have all the other critics combined.
The philosophical importance of NRC criticisms is quite
different from those of the G:een Revolution, which stress
equity and autonomy, or of the populists, which stress family
farms. The NRC reports question the academic or scientific
integrity of the agricultural research system, arguing that the
methods for identifying research priorities and funding
agricultural science continue to be too much influenced by
parochial and non-scientific interests.
Primary among these interests are agribusiness firms.
Chemical companies, for example, fund many graduate
assistantships to perform blind tests on the efficacy of new
pesticides. Such tests are of no scientific interest. They may be
limited to blind data collection which renders them useless
even as learning experiences. However, the family farmers,
Green Revolution critics, and environmentalists who also seek
to influence agriculture and agricultural research are no less
parochial and non-scientific than agribusiness.
The National Research Council would no more like to see
the research agenda in agriculture controlled by the Sierra Club
than by the Monsanto Company. As such, though NRC
criticisms are effective in changing research directions, their
effectiveness is only accidentally related to environmental
issues.
The final point before considering some environmental
critics in more detail is to note that the choir of critics makes
the evaluation of agriculture and its impacts exceedingly
complex. Environmental criticisms can run badly afoul of
equity concerns in agriculture. Each of these themes is
sometimes reinforced, sometimes undercut by critics who want
agriculture to be more scientific. Agricultural ethics is always
an exercise in balancing these multiple themes against one
another, and there are seldom only two sides to an issue.
The Critics of Pesticide
The implicit ethical basis for agricultural research in the
USDA/land grant system is utilitarian in thaI it defines the
Modern Science of Agriculture 155
value of research in terms of its capacity to improve the balance
of costs and benefits associated with agricultural production.
It is also anthropocentric insofar as the balancing act is limited
to costs and benefits to human beings.
According to this implicit ethics, the most fully justified
research project is the one that promises to achieve the greatest
good for the greatest number of people. When distributional
issues as well as costs to non-human animals and the
environment are ignored, the utilitarian view of social ethics
makes it easy to think of ethical evaluation as a form of
calculation in which all the benefits and costs of various
options are weighed, because the ethically justified course of
action is that which best satisfies the rule of maximizing
aggregate good (or in situations where all options are
unattractive, of minimizing evil).
Even when distributional issues and costs to non-human
animals and the environment are bracketed, however, there
is one general problem with optimizing decision procedures
such as the utilitarian ethic described above: it is impossible
in practice to obtain complete and reliable information on all
the relevant consequences of a policy decision. Some factors
are inevitably left out, and when these factors affect humar.
health and safety, the economic well-being of minority groups,
or the quality of the human environment, the entire moral
calculation of relative benefits can be drastically skewed. Costs
or harms that are simply left out of a utilitarian calculation
can be called externalities.
Costs are sometimes left out because the decision maker
does not have a reliable way to measure or compare them, and
costs are also left out when persons or groups deciding on
behalf of their own interests do not have to bear them. From
the point of view of the self-interested decision maker, the costs
are truly external. Decision makers entrusted with the publiC
good must make stringent efforts to reflect all such costs in
any estimate of total social benefit or harm, or they cannot truly
be said to have optimized outcomes.
156 Modern Science of Agriculture
The majority of environmentally based criticisms of
agriculture and agricultural research clearly take the form of
noting the factors and impacts that have simply been left out
of the assessment of costs and benefits. The most celebrated
of all works in the critical literature, Rachel Carson's Silent
Spring, follows the pattern of citing externalities by providing
an extensive list of unintended consequences associated with
the use of insecticides.
Carson was a gifted writer with a flair for evoking the
beauty and dignity of wildlife and natural habitat and for
expressing outrage at practices that place nature at risk.
Nevertheless, her basic philosophical strategy in the book was
simply to identify unintended and negative consequences.
Silent Spring is a laundry list of unwanted consequences and
risks that had not been accounted for in making assessments
of pesticide use in agricultural production.
Silent Spring is just the first in a long line of critiques
identifying environmental impacts of chemicals used in
agricultural production. Carson's arguments were reiterated
and extended in Frank Graham's 1970 book Since Silent Spring
and in Robert van den Bosch's The Pesticide Conspiracy, to cite
two of the most prominent titles. While Carson noted toxic
effects upon non-target species, Van den Bosch identified
unintended consequences that typify the class of ecosystem
outcomes of intense interest to environmentalists.
According to Van den Bosch, chemical pest control ignores
ecological forces that control insects. The number of insect
species classified as pests doubled from 1962 to 1978, despite
increasingly efficient chemical control, skyrocketing insect
control costs, and worsening environmental impacts, a
phenomenon that Van den Bosch labels an "insecticide
treadmill." Insecticides or biocides kill natural enemies of
insect pests, and eradicate the natural predators and parasites.
A biotic vacuum is then created where the surviving pests
thrive without predators or parasites.
Continued spraying becomes a necessity. Van den Bosch
makes an explicit ethical argument in his book when he indicts
Modern ~cience of Agriculture 157
chemical company salespersons and advertisers for their effect
upon a farmer s decision to use more pesticides and contribute
to the treadmill. Scientific societies and administrators of land
grant universities, where the nations pest control research is
conducted, are also implicated when pressures and political
reprisals from chemical companies affect USDA/land grant
research programmes. Van den Bosch's condemnation of
public sector agricultural research is based upon a judgment
that administrators and scientists have been "captured" by the
commercial pesticide industry, and have thus failed in an
ethical obligation to conduct research in the public interest.
His criticism is still consistent with Carson's original way
of identifying uncounted costs, however, for Van den Bosch
clearly understands the public interest in terms of maximizing
benefits for human beings. The problem he has with chemical
insecticides is that their costs outweigh their benefits. It is
profitable for chemical companies to sell pesticides and for
farmers to use them only so long as important long-term costs
are not included in the overall assessment (or, to say the same
thin& so long as the costs are "externalized").
In this case costs are externalized either in the sense that
they are borne by individuals whose interests are not included
in the tabulation of consequences or in the sense that costs
occur beyond the time frame for which consequences have
been assessed.
Van den Bosch's criticism of insecticide carne forward
within a complicated political context. On the one hand,
concern about the human health effects of pesticide had
become commonplace among urban consumers. Publications
from the Rodale Press sounded the themes that pesticide-free
foods were better for consumers, and that organic prod uction
was a realistic possibility. Opposition to pesticide use modeled
on Silent Spring was expressed ~outinely in popular articleS
on environmental themes.
Pesticide had become emblematic of what was wrong with
the culture of consumption. Van den Bosch's criticisms, on the
other hand, spread a different anti-pesticide message that
158 Modern Science of Agriculture

began to be internalized by entomologists. Working with Texas

cotton producers, Perry Lee Adkisson and Ray Frisbee
documented the phenomenon of acquired pesticide resistance
in the field. Texas growers using heavy sprays to control the
boll weevil unintentionally created a new pest when the pink
boll worm, previously not a serious problem in Texas, became
resistant to the chemicals being used on cotton. They were
among a group of agricultural scientists who began to develop
a strategy called Integrated Pest Management (IPM).
Opposition to pesticides oscillates between the two poles of
critique represented by Carson and IPM.
Many recent critics of pesticide have further modified the
claims of Carson, Graham, and Van den Bosch, but they
continue to list a broad range of unwanted consequences from
chemical agriculture. David Pimentel has produced a series
of papers written with a variety of coauthors documenting
I

unwanted effects of pesticides. Pimentel s early work was

based on an energy audit of pesticide use, noting that the
energy used in the manufacture, transport, and application of
chemicals severely compromised the energy efficiency of
farming.
He has documented the growth in consumption of
pesticides, collected citations of scientific studies indicating the
risks to human health, and mounted an argument for drastic
reductions in pesticide use. Another stream of criticism notes
the use of pesticides in developing countries. Pesticides long
banned in the United States were used extensively in
developing countries for many years, and continue to be used
in some applications.
Critics have argued that the export of these banned
chemicals causes significant human health risk to agricultural
workers in other countries, and eventually to developed
country consumers, who consume fruits, coffee, and other
products that may contain residue of long banned chemicals.
When continued use of long banned chemicals is factored into
the argument, the list of unwanted impacts from pesticide use
Modern Science of Agriculture 159

cannot fail to impress one with the continuing seriousness of

pesticides' unintended consequences.
Advocates cf IPM stress a much ILarrower range of
unintended consequences, so much so that they represent an
alternative to the Carson-Pimentel line of argument. The IPM
story deserves attention from anyone contemplating an ethic
of the environment. Insect life in farm fields is a model in
miniature of wildlife ecology. Some insect~ feed on plant
matter; some are predators that feed on other insects. Insects
become agricultural pests only when they do economic
damage to crops, and this happens only when their numbers
are not sufficiently controlled by predation.
Insects that feed on pests are called beneficial insects, so
the farm field is an ecosystem where pest and beneficial insects
stand in some form of balance with respect to one another. As
pest populations grow, food for beneficial insects is easier to
find. Eventually, the population of beneficial insects will grow
in response to the easy pickings, and the number of pests will
decline.
The balance between pest and beneficial insects is far from
perfect from the farmer's perspective, but there are, in any
given field, likely to be a few species that feed on the crop,
but which do not become serious pests in virtue of the fact
that their populations are controlled effectively by beneficial
insects. Chemical pesticides are not selective; they kill pest and
beneficial insects. After a pesticide application has lost its
effectiveness (usually within a few days or weeks), insect
populations begin to rebound. For plant eaters, there is plenty
of food, so population builds quickly. Beneficial insects cannot
begin to rebound w1til there is an adequate amount of prey.
This creates a window of opportunity for insects normally
controlled by beneficials. With their natural enemies in
disarray, their populations can grow rapidly.
Although the balance between pests and beneficia Is will
eventually be restored, farmers can expect a surge of pest
insects that will take place before beneficial populations have
an opportunity to rebound. Given the pesticide practices in
160 Modern Science of Agriculture

use prior to 1980, farmers would notice the surge and make a
new application of pesticide. Beneficial insects never had an
opportunity to rebound.
Pesticides are costly to buy and to apply. Entomologists
began to discover that sometimes farmers could do better
financially by accepting crop damage from pests than by
getting on the pesticide treadmill. The treadmill phenomenon
becomes even more serious when an insect acquires resistance
to chemicals being applied. Pesticide resistance is a textbook
example of natural selection. When pesticides are applied, a
few insects in the population may be resistant to their toxic
effects. These insects will constitute a much higher percentage
of the total population after spraying than before. The reason
is obvious enough: most of the non-resistant insects are dead.
If the farmer sprays again, the percentage of resistant
insects will be greater still. As their percentage grows, these
insects begin to pass resistance on to subsequent generations.
Under the selection pressure of toxic chemical sprays, insect
populations can acquire widespread resistance to the toxic
effects with wrprising rapidity, rendering the pesticide useless.
Now, IPM entomologists do not reject the use of
pesticides. The IPM philosophy holds that on some occasions
chemical use is economically viable, and even necessary
Pesticides will only be effective at these needed times when
insect populations have not become resistant to them.
Minimizing pesticide use limits the number of resistant insects
in the population; and can significantly extend the amount of
time that it takes for a population to become resistant to a given
chemical compound.
This is an extremely significant fact for ethics, for it
converts IPM from being a simple norm of financial prudence
to being a general social norm for farmers of a given crop. The
reasoning for this conclusion deserves careful attention even
by those who reject the premise that pesticides will continue
to be useful and necessary. In the first exposition of the
pesticide treadmill, a farmer is wise to limit spraying when
the cost of chemicals exceeds the value of the crop protected,
Modern Science of Agriculture 161

particularly when successive sprays will be needed. On this

level, IPM is just good business sense. A farmer who wants to
waste money with multiple sprays is foolish, but there has
never been a moral injunction against foolishness, at least as
long as it is one s own money that is being wasted. The decision
to use IPM has social implications because even the farmer
who practices IPM will want the pesticide to remain effective
against pests so that it can be used when necessary.
If the IPM farmer has neighbors who spray wastefully,
the insect pests in the region are likely to develop resistance,
anyway. Insects that become resistant in the fields of the
wasteful will find their way to the practitioners of IPM.
Avoiding pesticide resistance requires participation in IPM by
all (or most) farmers. It therefore becomes plausible to say that
farmers should participate in IPM out of a moral duty that
they have to their neighbors.
While it has become difficult to find an entomologist who
will not privately confide that farmers collectively use too
many pesticides, many continue to reject the stronger claims
of Rachel Carson and her heirs. It is the IPM view that
dominates among agricultural scientists. Supported by a series
of scientific studies, agricultural scientists generally question
the seriousness of human and environmental health risks
associated with chemical pesticides.
The recent work of Bruce Ames is frequently noted. Ames
has discovered that food crops naturally contain a complex
mixture of mutagens as part of their natural defence
mechanism. He has argued that any cancer risk associated with
pesticide residues is overshadowed by risks from these
naturally occurring substances. This is not the place to
undertake a discussion of whether pesticides do or do not
cause harm to humans, wildlife, or other ecosystem impacts.
Whether they do or don't is an empirical question, not a
philosophical one. However, the pesticide controversy does
have philosophical implications.
In framing the pesticide issue as they have, Rachel
Carson's heirs make an argument that depends entirely on the
162 Modem Science of Agriculture

factual accuracy of the allegation that pesticide does or may

cause harm. This claim admits of three possible responses. One
is to deny the accuracy of the claim. A second is to accept the
accuracy of the claim, and to look for new technology that
mitigates the risk. The third is to accept the accuracy of the
allegation, but to argue that both risks and actual harms are
outweighed by the benefits of pesticide use.
The first two responses are scientific and technological;
they do not raise any ethical issues at all. The third response
points toward difficult questions of acceptable risk, but even
these questions are entirely consistent with the utilitarian
framework discussed above. Risk issues, furthermore, are often
dominated by empirical efforts to ascertain accurate
measurements of the probability of harm.
None of the responses to critics involve the defenders of
pesticide in serious reflection on the values and goals
appropriate to agriculture. The pesticide controversy is
preoccupied with empirical questions, and has failed to
generate much discussion that is fruitful for environmental
ethics. If critics of pesticide have hoped to draw upon farmers'
sense of moral responsibility for the environmental
implications of agriculture, they have failed spectacularly.
CRITICS OF AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY
Chemical pesticides represent an ideal case study for
environmental criticisms of agriculture. The case against
pesticide is largely an environmental one. Pesticides have not
been prominently implicated as technologies that contribute
to social dislocation, so populists have given pesticide only
incidental attention. Although entomologists doing pesticide
work are vulnerable to some of the NRC criticisms, it is also
true that several entomologists, including Perry Adkisson,
have attained a high level of recognition among scientists for
their work on acquired resistance and IPM. Critics of the Green
Revolution philosophy certainly object to the use of pesticide
in settings formerly committed to peasant subsistence farming,
but irrigation, fertilizer, new seeds, and mechanization have
been more prominent than pesticide in technology transfer.
Modern Science of Agricul ture 163

The case against pesticides has been made largely by

environmental critics, and one would expect that it should
provide the clearest signal for identifying environmental
criticisms of agriculture.
Biotechnology, by contrast, presents a tangled jumble of
criticisms. For one thing, although recombinant techniques for
moving genetic material are becoming commonplace in
agricultural research settings, few technologies developed
through the use of recombinant DNA are currently used in
farming or the food industry. One success has been the
commercial use of a genetically modified organism (GMO) that
produces a very pure form of rennet, a substance used in
cheese making. Since rennet has historically been harvested
from the entrails of slaughtered calves, the modified bacterium
that produces pure chymosin, the active enzyme in rennet, has
produced few opponents.
Other agricultural biotechnologies have produced a
firestorm of criticism, however. Jack Doyle produced an
extended environmentalist critique of biotechnology in his
1985 book, Altered Harvest. Doyle Jescribed how plant breeders
had produced varieties of maize that shared a genetic trait
called Texas T cytoplasm. The varieties were planted
extensively across the United States,. and in 1972 a virus
emerged that attacked plants sharing this trait. The result was
a disaster for the US com crop. Doyle used the case to illustrate
why it is important that agricultural crops maintain a diversity
of genetic traits, and suggested that one risk of agricultural
biotechnology would be to increase the chance of a repeat
performance.
Defenders of crop biotechnology take the thrust of the
criticism seriously, but argue that recombinant techniques give
them greater ability to minimize the probability that an entire
crop would be susceptible to a given disease. Texas T
cytoplasm was produced through conventional crosses that
transferred a package of traits, some beneficial, some not, into
many varieties of maize. Plant scientists argue that
recombinant techniques would have allowed them to home
164 Modern Science of Agriculture

in on beneficial traits with more precision, thus producing

more genetic diversity rather than less.
This pattern of claim and counter claim, already evident
in the debate over pesticides, also characterizes debates over
GMOs. By far the most debate over biotechnology has revolved
around recombinant bovine somatotropin (BST), a growth
hormone used to increase dairy production. The debate over
BST is complex, and serious students of agricultural
biotechnology will want to examine it in some detail. BST,
however, has not aroused the ire of environmental critics. The
main point of contention has been the effects of the new
technology on small dairy farms, a theme associated with
populist, rather than environmental critique.
Environmental themes have figured in discussion of two
technologies, ice-nucleating bacteria and herbicide tolerance,
however, and it is worth reviewing each in more detail. By
1981 the commercial potential of gene transfer for agriculture
had begun to be recognized. By 1983, one of the first products
of these new techniques, the "ice minus" bacteria, was ready
for field testing. Intended to inhibit the growth of ice-
nucleating bacteria by crowding their ecological niche with
genetically altered competitors, the "ice minus" bacteria were
expected to extend the growing season for a variety of crops,
including potatoes and strawberries, by reducing the
likelihood of a crop loss due to freezing temperatures.
At the time that field tests for "ice minus" were proposed,
regulatory authority for release of genetically engilleered
organisms was thought to reside in the National Institutes of
Health's Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee (RAC).
The RAC was the outgrowth of a decade of concern over
potential health effects of genetically engineered organisms,
but the "ice minus" case was novel in important respects. NIH
involvement in regulation of recombinant DNA experiments
was a legacy of the moratorium on gene tr;msfer of the early
1970s, the Asilomar conference of 1974, and the stringent
guidelines for labouratory research that had been established
in its wake. By 1983 experience with recombinant DNA had
Modern Science of Agriculture 165

allayed many fears, and NIH guidelines had been successively

weakened. NIH had become comfortable with the vast
majority of ongoing basic and biomedical research.
Indeed, many of the RAC s most difficult cases dealt not
with safety of gene transfer but with ethical questions such as
the permissibility of altering the human genome. The "ice
minus" experiment, however, deviated from the basic and
biomedical types of research over which the RAC was
understood to have clear regulatory authority. It was also,
rightly or wrongly, among the first recombinant DNA
experiments thought to have potential for unwanted
environmental consequences. By late 1983, then, the regulatory
authority of NIH had been questioned, both in the courtroom
and by the Environmental Protection Agency.
The saga of "ice minus" grew increasingly complex. The
original experiment, proposed under the auspices of the
University of California, was blocked by Judge John Sirica on
May 16 1984, who in the same ruling held that a private
company proposing the same experiment would not be bound
by laws requiring environmental impact analysis. Within two
weeks of Sirica's ruling, the RAC recommended approval for
UC scientist David Lindow's experiment, this time submitted
under the auspices of Advanced Genetic Resources, escaping
the force of Sirka's ruling. This action merely precipitated a
lawsuit, delaying the experiment again.
Both suits were eventually resolved in a manner that
permitted the "ice minus" experiment, but NIH also came
under sharp criticism in one decision for failing to "sufficiently
analyze the potential for the bacteria to be used in the
California experiment to disperse or survive in the
environment". The "ice minus" experiment had by now
received enough publicity to generate public opposition at the
strawberry test site near Tulelake, California. County boards
in both communities voted to prohibit the experiment, and the
California Superior Court issued a restraining order on August
61986, delaying the experiment until spring 1987. Delayed by
four years, the "ice minus" field test commenced on April 23
1987 at a third site near Brentwood in Contra Costa County.
166 Modern Science of Agriculture

Regulatory policy for agricultural biotechnology made

little progress in the meantime. The overlap betyveen NIH and
EPA continued throughout 1984, as environmental scientists
stressed the need to assess ecological risks before permitting
release of engineered organisms. By 1985, EPA had conducted
its own favourable review of the "ice minus" experiment, but
regulatory confusion had only deepened as the US Department
of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration were
proposed as addition-al partners with NIH and EPA in a
"Biotechnology Science Coordinating Committee."
By 1986, the biotechnology industry itself had begun to
call for government involvement in the regulatory process,
partially as a way to stifle opposition arising from unwarranted
fears and speculations, and the Reagan White House
announced a plan that supported NIH guidelines but
transferred regulatory authority to EPA and USDA. The new
guidelines established the principle that risks of genetically
manipulated products should be evaluated on the basis of
product characteristics, not manufacturing processes. No
sooner had these guidelines been proposed than they were the
target of yet another lawsuit.
In October 1986, Science reported significant
inconsistencies between EPA and USDA, with ecologists
expressing concern about the government s intention
categorically to exempt certain types of genetically created
organisms from environmental impact assessment. In the
following month there were similar conflicts between USDA
and NIH. Since the furor over "ice minus," government
oversight of agricultural biotechnology has increased, but
confusion over requirements and regulatory authority still
occurs.
At present, EPA and USDA continue to claim authority
to regulate recombinant organisms that may affect the
environment. Working relationships among agencies have
been facilitated through an Agricultural Biotechnology
Regulatory Advisory Committee (ABRAC). The ABRAC itself
makes no regulatory decisions, but advises several agencies
Modem Science of Agriculture 167
on policy, and by doing so functions as a focal point for
coordination. Even within USDA, however, regulatory
authority is not always clear.
USDA has an Office of Biotechnology, whose primary
purpose has been to foster development of recombinant
techniques for agriculture, and a National Biotechnology
Impact Assessment Programme, designed to develop
procedures for risk analysis. Neither has regulatory authority,
however. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the
Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), and the Food
Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) all have authority, but would
not normally be concerned with research, such as was involved
in the "ice minus" case.
Research sponsored by USDA through the Cooperative
State Research Service (CSRS) is regulated as part of the
proposal review process, and universities that conduct publicly
funded research are required to have an Institutional Biosafety
Committee (mq. The mc will normally review all research
involving recombinant DNA, yet it remains the case that
privately conducted research is not subject to regulatory
review. To sum up, regulatory policy for agricultural
biotechnology lies buried deep in the forest of government
acronyms.
A venture into the woods mayor may not tum up a clear
answer as to what is permitted, or when risks are too great.
When regulatory authority is unclear, cases ultimately wind
up in the courts. For activists such as Jeremy Rifkin, the goal
of a lawsuit may be simply to slow down experiments so that
affected parties have adequate opportunity to ensure that their
interests are adequately protected. The success of litigation
initiated by Rifkin's Foundation on Economic Trends (FET) in
opposing the "ice minus" experiment complicated that case
with jurisdictional issues, but the underlying ethical issue was
acceptable risk.
With respect to "ice minus" bacteria, the question had little
to do with whether the experiment poses a serious hazard;
every review of the proposed research had concluded that it
168 Modern Science of Agriculture
did not. The FET lawsuits, however, exposed a general
confusion over what, in fact, is meant by "acceptable risk" and
whether one agency's judgment of acceptability is binding on
another. The series of lawsuits represents a classic use of
uncertainty arguments to raise a succession of doubts, first
about the safety of a practice itself, then about the reliability
of methods for assessing risk, and finally about the integrity
and reliability of experts conducting the analysis.
At the time of the "ice minus" case, regulation of
agricultural biotechnology had not found a way to manage
uncertainty arguments. In the minds of citizens and affected
parties, uncertainty escalates the risk of new products and
procedures. The problem is typically described as one of
managing public perception of risk, but this is misleading. It
is the public perception of the scientific community (and of
their methods for analyzing technology's unwanted
consequences) that was the basis for the judgment that risks
were unacceptable in the "ice minus" experiment.
While the scientific community focuses intently on the
characteristics of the organism itself, the public, with little basis
for making a judgment on the probable consequences of
deliberate release, focuses instead on the characteristics of the
scientists. The potential for unwanted impact due to field
testing and commercial use of modified plants has been taken
relatively seriously by agricultural scientists, though not
seriously enough in the eyes of critics.
As the debate has moved on to the technical provisions
of regulations and protocols for field testing, and commercial
release, the issues have become too arcane for general public
consumption. Like pesticide questions, these issues depend
heavily on the measurement and weighing of risks, and in
balancing risks against expected benefits. The difference of
opinion between advocates of biotechnology and opponents
boils down to differing estimates of the probability and degree
of harm, and value of compensating benefits. This difference
of opinion depends largely on issues that can only be settled
Modern Science of Agriculture 1.69

by empirical inquiry. It is the expense and difficulty of

gathering the data to settle the issues that keeps them alive.
The case of herbicide tolerance is quite different. Like
insecticides, :lerbicides typically kill both beneficial plants (e.g.
crops) and pests (e.g. weeds). Obviously, this limits the
applicability of herbicides rather dramatically, generally to
early season use, before crops come up, or to highly targeted
use, away from crop roots and foliage. The idea behind genetic
engineering of herbicide resistance is that if crops acquire
resistance, one can use herbicides with impunity.
Plant scientists have had some success in identifying the
genes that code for herbicide tolerance, so recombinant
techniques can be used to move these genes to the beneficial
crop plants. This is anathema to environmental critics of
agriculture, for it seems that biotechnology is being used in a
way that will exacerbate the problems of chemical agriculture.
Defenders of herbicide tolerant crops argue that they will
allow farmers to apply principles of IPM to weeds: as well to
as insect pests. Now, they note, farmers must use herbicides
early, before they know whether they even have a weed
problem. With herbicide tolerant crops, they could wait until
weed infestation threatens to cause economic damage
exceeding the cost of spraying before using herbicides at all.
Farmers could quit using the wide variety of herbicides
now used that target specific weeds but avoid damage to crops,
and could switch to a broad spectrum herbicide that kills all
the weeds, but not a genetically modified resistant crop. In
addition, of course, they argue that farmers will get better
weed control and increase yields. The argument, then, is that
contrary to the claims of environmentalists, herbicide tolerant
crops may reduce the amount of herbicide used, and will, in
any case, produce benefits that more than compensate for
chemical risks.
Philosophical dimensions of the case fur and against
genetically engineered herbicide tolerance have been reviewed
thoughtfully by Gary Comstock and a paper by Comstock and
molecular biologist Jack Dekker presents the reasoning that
,
170 Modern Science of Agriculture
led Dekker to discontinue his research in the area. In the
present context, a 1990 document, Biotechnology's Bitter Harvest,
prepared for the Biotechnology Working Group by Rebecca
Goldberg, Jane Rissler, Hope Shand, and Chuck Hassebrook
is particularly instructive for the way it combines all four
voices of criticism noted above.
The report echoes Green Revolution critics by noting
Third World impacts of agricultural biotechnology, and cites
the NRC report Alternative Agriculture in support of its
conclusions. The specific complaints against herbicide tolerant
crops are noted in a chapter entitled, "The Human Health,
Environmental, Social, and Economic Impacts of Herbicides
and Herbicide-Tolerant Crops." The chapter text follows the
laundry list model implied in its title by listing and
documenting a series of unwanted consequences that could
follow the introduction of herbicide tolerance into crops and
trees.
Among outcomes noted are the suspected carcinogenic
properties of specific herbicides, food safety concerns
associated with herbicide residues and with the consumption
of the modified crops, contaminated drinking water, and
interbreeding with other weeds. The emphasis in this list is
clearly on health and environmental impact, though questions
about a farmer's increasing dependence on private sector
technology link herbicide tolerant crops to family farm issues.
The report provides equally extensive listing and
documentation of how herbicide tolerance research is
organized and funded. Research is underway both within the
private sector and at agricultural universities and the USDA.
University and government research is funded by a mixture
of public and private funding. Funding receives extensive
discussion in the report because it is crucial to three central
points of criticism. First, the amount of money spent on
genetically engineered herbicide tolerance vastly exceeds the
amounts spent on sustainable alternatives that would be
preferred by the reports authors. The report states, "Perhaps
the greatest problem with herbicide tolerance, however, is that
Modern Science of Agriculture 171

it diverts us from paths that really could lead to reduced

chemical dependency in agriculture".
Second, public funds are being spent in a manner that
effectively subsidizes rese2rch costs for chemical companies,
or that benefits directly corporations by increasing the market
for their herbicides. The implicit premise is that money spent
to benefit small farmers would be in the public interest, while
money that benefits the inp:.lt industry does not. Third, the
authors argue that chemical corporations are supporting
research on herbicide tolerance (both directly and by lobbying
public officials) because it helps them gain control of the
research agenda in agricultural biotechnology.
While these are all important and interesting arguments
in their own right, in this context they are remarkClble for the
way in which they integrate specific health and environmental
criticisms with other forms of concern. Populist themes, in
particular, emerge in the implied criticism of links between
government and big business. None of the three objections
notes environmental impacts. They disparage herbicide
tolerance research, but not in virtue of unintended
consequences.
Yet, the arguments would have little force without the
environmental consequences noted above. The authors' review
of funding priorities leaves readers with the impression that
there is something fundamentally skewed about agriculture
and agricultural research. The report is explicit in noting that
a turn toward sustainable agriculture would help put things
right, and hints that the difference between industrial and
sustainable agriculture has something to do with a persons
"mindset" .
However, there is little more than the list of unwanted
outcomes to differentiate sustainabl.! from non-sustainable
agriculture. As such, it is far from clear that a truly
philosophical shift is what the authors mean by "mindset."
The debate between critics and defenders of herbicide
tolerance reprises the debate over pesticides. Despite attempts
172 Modern Science of Agriculture

to bring in "mindset," the facts are what is at issue, and there

is little of ethical significance to debate. Again, the form of the
criticisms invites defenders to reply in ways that fail to
generate philosophical reflection or thought. Furthermore,
although the controversy is nominally about agricultural
biotet:hnology, it is really a debate about chemicals.
Agricultural biotechnology is being criticized for failing to
move agriculture away from dependence on chemical inputs,
and for, in fact, offering nothing more than symptomatic relief
'of the problems engendered by industrial agriculture.
However, if critics express their dissatisfaction in terms
of risk to human health, and wild plant or animal species, they
should expect a response that focuses on minimizing these
risks, or that compensates for harm done. If the problem with
chemically intensive agriculture is something other than the
risks associated with chemical use, critics should not expend
so much effort predicting harmful consequences from chemical
use. If the problem is that modern industrial agriculture is
founded on philosophical premises that are fundamentally
flawed, it is those premises that should be exposed and
criticized. In short, one should not grumble about responses
that address only symptoms when one s original complaint
has itself remained at the level of symptoms.
Both Altered Harvest and Biotechnology'S Bitter Harvest
merge environmental criticism with some of the populist
themes that have been prominent in the attack on BST. Critics
create the distinct impression that something is fundamentally
amiss in industrial agriculture, and blame the unwanted
impacts they cite upon agriculture's dominance by commercial
interests, seeking profit from the sale of commodities and from
input technologies. Agriculture, however, has been controlled
by commercial interests at least since the decline of the feudal
system in Europe.
The critics want a return to a more humane agriculture,
such as what may have existed in the late nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries, but that agriculture was thoroughly
commercial. Furthermore, collectivization experiments in the
Modern Science of Agriculture 173

Soviet Union and other socialist countries have produced both

human and environmental problems. As such, the commercial
orientation of industrialized agriculture cannot be either a
necessary nor sufficient condition for the unwanted impacts
of modern agricultural technology, including biotechnology.
Environmental Ethics
The environmental critics of insecticides and agricultural
biotechnology provide ample documentation of agriculture's
importance for environmental policy. The criticisms they
mount, however, do not constitute philosophical problems for
agriculture, nor do they represent points of philosophical
interest for those constructing an environmental ethic. This is
not to say that the environmental criticisms of agriculture have
no philosophical implications at all. Indeed, three points of
significance illustrate why agricultures environmental impact
has been of little interest to environmental philosophers. These
points also indicate a line of inquiry for a more philosophical
review of agriculture.
First, the critics of pesticide and of agricultural
biotechnology recite laundry lists of unwanted impacts, but
provide little insight into how or why impacts on nature differ
from harm and risk to human beings. The food safety risks
associated with chemical residue are as prominent in the
environmental critique of pesticides as the impact on wildlife
or biological diversir;. Setting empirical questions aside, this
pattern of criticism neglects a distinction of keen interest to
environmental ethicists. One does not need an environmental
ethic to explain why harming people are wrong.
An ethic of minimizing suffering or respecting human
rights is perfectly capable of accounting for the wrongness of
human health risks. It is not clear, however, that traditional
ethical theories explain why we should be concerned about
impact upon wildlife or biological diversity. Environmental
ethicists have dedicated themselves to the task in a manner
that is reviewed at several junctures elsewhere in this volume.
Far from providing any unique or unifying environmental
theme for philosophers to consider, the laundry list style of
174 Modem Science of Agriculture

criticism appears to lack sophistication in themes that have

already been well covered by philosophers.
Second, by stressing unwanted outcomes, the critics are
working within, rather than against, the existing utilitarian
philosophical framework of industrial agriculture. Industrial
agriculture is committed to an ethic of optimizing the trade-
off between costs and benefits. It has no intrinsic commitment
to chemicals or to molecular technology. Business and scientific
practices made it easy to overlook some of the costs of pesticide
technology, but if they are true to their utilitarian principles,
researchers and planners must be cognizant of all
consequences.
To the extent that the critics help decision makers attain
cognizance, they assist utilitarian evaluation of agricultural
practices. They make no philosophical objections to the
optimization philosophy of utilitarian agriculture, in any case.
Third, the critics implicitly invite farmers, businesses, and
researchers to solve environmental problems by developing
alternatives that avoid or compensate for unwanted impacts.
If the problem with pesticide or agricultural biotechnology
consists in unintended consequences, why not keep doing
what we're doing, but get rid of the consequences no one
intends?
As already noted, the criticism provokes a technical
response rather than philosophical reflection on the part of
producefs or scientists. If environmental critics truly want
agriculture to rethink its philosophical bent toward
production, as they seem to, they will have to mount an attack
that goes beyond a list of unwanted outcomes. Such lists not
only serve the existing ethic of industrial agriculture by
requesting that producers correct their cost accounting, but
they present little of interest to environmental philosophers,
who might help envision an alternative agriculture.
Leopold and Schumacher
Two of the formative intellectual figures in the
environmental movement, Aldo Leopold and E.F.
Modern Science of Agriculture 175
Schumacher, did include some discussion of agricultural
philosophy in their writings. Leopold is best known among
philosophers for his essay "The Land Ethic" from A Sand
County Almanac. The essay begins with a passage in which
Leopold describes the rejection of human slavery as one of the
key instances of moral progress in history. The key to this
event, he thinks, was in ceasing to understand human beings
as property, in extending the scope of the moral community
to include all human beings.
Leopold's message is that we must now find a way to
think of our relation to land, understood again to mean the
general biosphere, as something other than mere property.
Leopold finds any attempt to reflect conservationist concerns
within the kind of optimizing calculations that underlie a
traditional approach to agricultural decision making
hopelessly lacking. In Leopold's view there is ample basis for
care and concern about ecological values, but the problem is
that the importance people place upon nature cannot be
reflected in monetary terms. He writes:
When one of these non-economic categories is threatened,
and if we happen to love it, we invent subterfuges to give it
economic importance. At the beginnings of the century song-
birds were supposed to be disappearing. Ornithologists
jumped to the 'rescue with some shaky evidence to the effect
that insects would eat us up if birds failed to control them.
The evidence had to be economic in order to be valid.
Here Leopold would also seem to be rejecting the notion
that unwanted outcomes of agricultural production decisions
can be accommodated by a broader framework of benefits and
costs, and including some constraints. Indeed, it is property
rights, Leopold's target, that serve as the model for constraints.
Instead, we must rethink our lives and our values so as to
attain a fuller appreciation of the interdependence between
human and natural communities.
One of the chief sources for understanding these links is
agriculture. Early on in his book Leopold writes, "There are
two spiritual dangers in not owning a farm. One is the danger
176 Modern Science of Agriculture
of supposing that breakfast comes from the grocery, and the
other that heat comes from a furnace". One who lives on a
farm cannot, in Leopold's view, long forget the dependence
of human action upon the underlying natural ecology. Written
in the 1940s, A Sand County Almanac does not reflect more
recent critics' concern that agriculture is on the verge of
destroying its ecological base, but Leopold does express
cynicism about the optimizing strategies of experiment station
research:
The State College tells farmers that Chinese elms do not
clog screens, and are hence preferable to cottonwoods. It also
pontificates on cherry preserves, Bang's disease, hybrid corn,
and beautifying the farm home. The only thing it does not
know about farms is where they came from. Its job is to make
Illinois safe for soybeans.
Leopold's land ethic, thus, rejects the optimizing strategy
that takes increasing income, increasing production, and
increasing benefits to consumers as its core. Instead, Leopold
urges us to:
Examine each question in terms of what is ethically and
aesthetically right, as well as what is economically expedient.
A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability,
and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends
otherwise.
E.F. Schumacher's 1972 book Small is Beautiful followed
Silent Spring by a decade, and combined Carson's concern for
agricultural technology with Leopold's s distaste for making
moral evaluations by calculating costs and benefits. The central
theme of the book was widely taken to be an attack upon
technologies that consumed relatively large quantities of fossil
fuels and required large investments of fixed capital. However,
in the chapter entitled "The Proper Use of Land," Schumacher
takes up a central question in agricultural ethics. The argument
of the chapter is first a criticism of what Schumacher calls "the
philosophy of the townsman" and, second, a description of
an alternative programme.
Modern Science of Agriculture 177
The "townsmen" see agricultures economic woes as
evidence that farming or ranching is a declining enterprise,
and see the central problem of agriculture as one of improving
farm income. Schumacher finds this view deficient. He writes:
We know too much about ecology today to have any·
excuse for the many abuses that are currently going on in the
management of the land, in the management of animals, in
food storage, food processing, and in heedless urbanization.
If we permit them, this is not due to poverty, as if we could
not afford to stop them; it is due to the fact that, as a society,
we have no firm basis of belief in any meta-economic values,
and when there is no such belief the economic calculus takes
over.
In Schumacher's view, the problem arises when
agriculture is understood as essentially defined by its capacity
to produce and market saleable commodities. In making a
statement of the wider goals of agriculture he writes:
A wider view sees agriculture as having to fulfill at least
three tasks:
• To keep man in touch with living nature, of which he
is and remains a highly vulnerable part;
• To humanize and ennoble man's wider habitat; and
• To bring forth the foodstuffs and other materials
which are needed for a becoming life.
I do not believe that a civilization which recognizes only
the third of these tasks, and which pursues it with such
ruthlessness and violence that the other two tasks are not
merely neglected but systematically counteracted, has any
chance of long-term survival.
These remarks on agriculture must be understood in the
light of Schumacher's overall attack upon "economic values"
and his campaign to substitute a norm of "Buddhist
economics" in its place. In criticizing economic values
Schumacher means to attack the utilitarian emphasis upon
increasing incomes; by interposing "Buddhist economics" in
place of this emphasis, he means to suggest that there is an
178 Modern Science of Agriculture

alternative way of conceptualizing economic activity, one that

would trace production, distribution, and exchange according
to the long-term impact of these activities upon the natural
systems needed to support all.
Economic policies that encourage consumption in order
to promote economic growth are, on the view of Buddhist
economics, incompatible with the goal of a permanent and
stable society. Although Schumacher's choice of words has the
ring of late sixties hippie jargon, his point should be
understood as a shift in philosophical perspective. Political
theorist Paul Diesing has argued that Schumacher's critique ,
is a complete rejection of the traditional utilitarian perspective
on agricultural production. On this traditional view, Diesing
writes:
Nature appears in three forms: natural resources,
cultivated land ..., and externalities of production. Natural
resources are free goods, res nullius, nothings, having no value
until they are "produced" and made available for exchange.
When the central goal of agriculture is understood in
terms of production, agricultural land is a form of fixed capital,
and this, in tum, suggests that this land should be devoted to -
its most productive use. Although unwanted outcomes can be
factored into the optimizing equation either as costs or as
constraints, the result looks a bit like pre-Copernican models
of the solar system, where epicycles and reversing rotations
were added on to the charts for planetary motion in order to
preserve a theory that falsely placed the earth at the centre of
the universe.
In Diesing's view, Schumacher rejects this strategy when
he insists that agriculture is not a form of industry and should
not be viewed as fixed capital or even as a factor of production
at all. Instead, land is the basis for life itself, a precondition
for productive economic life, and not merely one among many
factors available for productive appropriation. In Diesing's
view, the agrarian component of Schumacher's thought is its
essential philosophical theme. The more celebrated work on
Modern Science of Agriculture 179

appropriate technology flows from Schumacher's view of

agriculture, rather than the reverse.
The citations from Leopold and Schumacher indicate how
each had a view of agriculture that was inconsistent both with
the utilitarian orientation typical of producers or agricultural
researchers, and with the presumptions -of academic
environmental ethicists. They make comments hinting at a
philosophy of agriculture that includes an environmental ethic
drawn from the very practices of farming itself. The
development of such an ethic, and an evaluation of its
significance to broader questions in agriculture, environmental
policy, and environmental philosophy is the task that now
awaits.
 Green Revolution

CROP TECHNOLOGY
Genetically modified crop technology has revolutionized
agriculture in the United States, Canada, China, and Argentina.
It exhibits the potential to have much wider impact, solving
many of the current problems in agriculture worldwide. The
types of GM crops that may become available in the future
could boost crop yields while enhancing the nutritional value
of staple foods and eliminating the need for inputs that could
be harmful to the environment. While the environmental,
health, and economic risks of GM crops should be carefully
studied before full-scale adoption, the types of GM crops that
are already available have thus far largely proven to be
beneficial to agriculture and even to the environment, without
evidence of ad verse health or environmental impacts.
Yet, in other than the four countries mentioned above, the
GM crop movement has had little or no impact. In those parts
of the developing world where an agricultural revolution
might be most welcome, the Gene Revolution has yet to be
embraced. Why is this so?
For one thing, the Gene Revolution began in a different
way than the Green Revolution. GM crops were first created
within the context of the biotechnology industry to provide
enhanced agricultural technologies to the industry's primary
customers-farmers in the industrial world. These crops were
not meant at the outset to be a life-saving technology for the
. .
Green Revolution 181

developing world. Although it is almost certainly possible

from a scientific and technological standpoint to create GM
crops that would be beneficial to developing-world farmers,
neither producers (the biotech industry) nor consumers
(developing-world farmers) have sufficient economic
incentives for this to happen. In fact, the enormous costs of
producing each GM crop variety could prove to be a
disincentive for the industry to develop "orphan GM crops"
that would benefit developing-world farmers.
Additionally, even if the biotech industry were to develop
GM crops that are beneficial to farmers in the developing
world, the poorest of those farmers would not be able to afford
GM crop seed instead of conventional varieties, much less
purchase new GM crop seed for every planting season, as
biotech patents would require them to do.
Finally, the current political situation is not ~s conducive
to promoting this new agricultural movement as it was for the
Green Revolution. For all the potential that GM technology
holds, there are many challenges to be overcome if GM crops
are to truly introduce a "Gene Revolution" worldwide.
AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY
FOR THE FUTURE
Given the challenges stated above, it is important to keep
in mind that agricultural biotechnology may not be the best
solution, or even a one-shot solution, for all parts of the
developing world, for three reasons.
First, as of yet, there are few if any sustainable
technological solutions for controlling pests and pathogens in
subtropical subsistence agriculture. Currently, in the poorest
agricultural areas, food production is feasible only with very
low inputs of semi-land race material of many different
genotypes planted together to be broadly adapted to local
environments. If one genotype fails, then the others may still
succeed on a year-to-year basis, thereby achieving some level
of security in the food supply. GM crops, unless they are
created from many different hybrids and are modified -to
182 Green Revolution

withstand a broad range of environmental fluctuations, could

not be expected to consistently improve yield if planted alone
in subtropical areas.
Second, there are usually alternative ways to conduct
public health or agricultural interventions, and all
interventions have attendant costs. GM crops may be among
the more costly interventions given their current R&D costs
as well as the costs to growers. Malnourished people may not
need GM golden rice to prevent blindness, for example, and
policy makers should first take a step back to see which choices
make the most sense in terms of both long-term sustainability
and cost considerations. One possible intervention is enhanced
conventional breeding. The newest conventionally bred crops
have some immunity to common plant diseases and resistance
to pests while retaining high yields.
Conventional breeding, while theoretically having far
greater limitations than agricultural biotechnology, is less
controversial from a global viewpoint and may be less
expensive. Hence, in the short term, enhanced conventional
breeding may be crucial to improving agricultural yields in
areas that do not want to risk losing their food export markets
due to current political tensions or government regulations,
and it may be important to farmers with li~ited monetary
resources.
Other methods of promoting sustainable agriculture may
also prove to be useful-for example, the adoption of farming
techniques for greater economic return, such as agroforestry
(to increase income), reclamation of degraded land, and,
irrigation scheduling. As an alternative to introducing GM
seeds now, a possible intervention that could be helpful in the
poorest natipns is the empowerment of women, who are
currently the crop harvesters.
For example, they could be educated to become agricultural
scientists, learning to select seeds for desirable qualities, such
as improved yield and improved quality. This could be a first
step toward agricultural independence, which could then make
for a smoother transition to agricultural commercialization.
Green Revolution 183
Third, it would be overly simplistic to imagine that
improved crop varieties, whether GM or enhanced
conventional crops, are all that are needed to ensure food
security. It is important to remember that the root cause of
hunger is poverty-the inability to access food or the lack of a
means to produce it.
Many factors contribute to poverty, not just poor food
production. Farmers in the developing world also need
support from certain political.and social infrastructures that
can safeguard incentives to use the GM crop technology
appropriately. If the Gene Revolution is to succeed in the
developing world, many of those infrastructures must be in
place to ensure the long-term benefits from GM crop planting.
Lessons from the Green Revolution
Notwithstanding its attendant challenges and alternatives,
the GM crop movement shows great promise. Like the Green
Revolution before it, the GM crop movement has the potential
to achieve substantial production increases in regions of need
and (unlike the Green Revolution) to reduce the need for
agricultural chemicals and scarce resources, such as water.
Both the successes and failures of the Green Revolution
provide useful lessons for how to make GM crop technology
a desirable and sustainable agricultural movement in the
developing world.
The Green Revolution demonstrates that to create GM
crops that are truly beneficial to the developing world, plant
breeders and other scientists must be familiar with the local
environment and the planting methods of the region for which
they are developing crops. Often times, agricultural conditions
in developing regions are so different from those in the
industrial world that it is difficult for industrial world scientists
to know how to devise appropriate technologies for those
regions. During the Green Revolution, plant scientists traveled
abroad extensively, developing crop seeds that were best
suited to particular regions given their particular weather
conditions, plant pests, water availability, and planting
seasons.
184 Green Revolution

Importantly, these plant scientists trained others in each

region to be able to carry out the Green Revolution practices
independently. The same sort of global effort is needed for the
Gene Revolution to take hold in the developing world. For this
global effort to take place, however, there must be a vested
interest on the part of those entities that control the Gene
Revolution technologies-those that create the technologies,
namely those in the biotech industry and those that regulate
the technologies nationally and internationally.
The Green Revolution owed much of its success to public-
sector institutions that poured resources into the effort, as well
as to regulatory regimes in both the donor and recipient
nations that were permisSive and even encouraged adoption
of the new agricultural technologies. Times have changed,
though. R&D for GM crops is supported by the public sector
only in unusual circumstances, with the biotechnology
industry mostly creating GM crops that are beneficial to
industrial-world farmers, its primary customers (and those
who can afford to pay for the technology).
To complicate matters, current intellectual property
regulations that protect the biotech industry's creations limit
the flow of information on how to create GM seeds to the
public sector, making it difficult to garner the public support
needed to develop crops for the poorest farmers in the world.
IP rights also lead indirectly to increased GM seed costs that
make GM seeds unaffordable to most developing world
farmers without significant subsidization. Collaborations
between the public and the private sectors to promote the Gene
Revolution in the developing world do exist, but thus far only
in isolated instances on a small scale.
Further hindering GM crop adoption worldwide is the
lack of uniform regulation of foods derived from modern
biotechnology. Unlike the permissive regulatory environment
of the Green Revolution, in which agricultural advances were
encouraged for both philanthropic and political reasons,
decision makers today are largely divided into two camps on ,
whether GM crops should flow freely through the food system.
Green Revolution 185

The European Union's new regulations on traceability and

labeling of GM foods would require a crop-segregation system
that is almost impossible to achieve in a nation without a
highly developed commercial agricultural sector.
Thus, developing nations may find it in their best interest
to avoid planting GM crops altogether, despite the agricultural
and nutritional benefits that GM crops might provide. In
addition, many NGOs and other organizations have expressed
concerns about the risks surrounding GM crops, and their
opinions are becoming increasingly important to the public
debate and decision making process. These groups and the
average citizen have seen little public benefit from the types
of GM crops produced today, except for perhaps slightly
cheaper food.
What can we determine about the prospects for the Gene
Revolution by studying the Green Revolution's successes and
failures? The Gene Revolution thus far resembles the Green
Revolution in the following ways:
1. It employs new science and technology to create crop
seeds that can significantly outperform the types of
seeds that preceded it;
2. The impact of the new seed technologies can be
critically important to developing-world agriculture;
and
3. For a variety of reasons, these technologies have not
yet reached parts of the world where they could be
most beneficial.
On the other hand, the Gene Revolution is unlike the
Green Revolution in the following ways:
1. The science and technology required to create GM crop
seeds are far more complicated than the science and
technology used to create Green Revolution
agricultural advancements;
2. GM seeds are created largely through private
enterprise rather than through public sector efforts;
and
186 Green Revolution

3. The political climate in which agricultural science can

introduce new technologies has changed dramatically.
The similarities and differences between the Green and
Gene Revolutions lead us to speculate that for the GM crop
movement to have the sort of impact that would constitute an
agricultural revolution, the following goals still need to be met
and their related challenges overcome:
Agricultural Biotechnology must be made Affordable to
Developing World Farmers
Unless this condition is met, farmers may not see that it
is in their best interest to use GM crops, despite the significant
benefits those crops could provide.
During the Green Revolution, the new HYV seeds and
accompanying chemicals were more expensive than the
land race seeds that developing-world farmers typically had
used. Therefore, loan systems and cost-reduction programmes
were established regionally in which farmers' eventual profits
from increased production could be used to reimburse lenders.
In many settings, these programmes proved to be no longer
necessary several years after their successful adoption. Current
R&D costs for genetically modified seeds are even higher than
the R&D costs for the Green Revolution's HYV seeds.
At the price that U.S. farmers currently pay, GM seeds
would be unaffordable to most developing-world farmers.
Cost-reduction programmes and loan systems similar to those
that were established during the Green Revolution must also
be established for the Gene Revolution; however, establishing
such systems is more difficult now because of higher costs and
because the seeds are produced by the biotech industry rather
than by agricultural scientists in the public sector.
There is a Need/or Larger Investments in Research
in the Public Sector
Numerous studies have shown the importance of public
sector R&D to agricultural advancements, including the
advancements of the Green Revolution. During the Green
Green Revolution 187 i

Revolution, partly because the R&D and its products were

almost entirely in the public domain, intellectual property
issues were not a barrier to scientists, for example, taking seeds
from one region of the world, hybridizing them with seeds
from another region, and producing new seeds to benefit yet
another region. Today, however, the production and
distribution of GM crops are largely within the domain of the
biotech industry, and IP issues are central to the development
of GM seed.
While IP laws protect the rights of GM seed creators in
industry, those laws are currently an impediment to
disseminating the necessary knowledge and technology to
those parts of the world that need them. Therefore, public-
sector research is essential if the GM movement is to assume
revolutionary proportions. Partnerships between the public
and private sectors can result in the more efficient production
of GM crops that are useful to the developing world and
expand the accessibility of those crops and their associated
technologies to developing-world farmers.
To Garner tire Level of Public Interest and Support tlrat can
Sustain an Agricultural Revolution, Agricultural Development
must be Regarded as being Critically Important from a Policy
Perspective, in botlr Donor and Recipient Nations.
Without public policy support, cooperation among the
many stakeholderf in the Gene Revolution will be stymied.
For 30 years after World War II, policymakers viewed
agricultural development as being essential to world peace.
For that reason, policymakers in both the United States and in
Asia and Latin America supported the Green Revolution from
the start. The end of the Cold War, however, has not brought
about an increase in global stability. Whereas the conflict
between-East and West has declined, there is a growing divide
between rich and poor nations.
Unfortunately, with the end of the Cold War, developed
nations are concentrating more closely on their domestic
political agendas and less on global concerns, and as such have
decreased their funding to poorer nations. However, these
188 Green Revolution

reductions in aid are not in the best long term interests of even
industrialized nations. An increasingly polarized world of the
rich versus the poor will result in growing political unrest.
Unless developing nations are helped to provide sufficient
food, employment, and shelter for their growing populations,
the political stability of the world will be further undermined.
As population numbers continue to increase, agricultural
development is more necessary than ever to eliminate
malnUtrition and prevent famine, particularly in sub-Saharan
Africa. GM crops are seen as a means for addressing those
problems. However, policymakers worldwide are far from
being a combined force on this issue; the driving force behind
improved agriculture is less unified than it was during the
Green Revolution. The question of who should assume the task
of re-establishing the importance of agricultural development
among policymakers is an issue for further inquiry.
Policy makers in the Developing world must set Regulatory
Standards that take into Consideration the Risks as well as the
Benefits 0/ Foods Derived/rom GM Crops.
This goal is crucial to the cooperation of the many
stakeholders that are affected by GM crops and also for the
sustainability of the GM crop movement in the foreseeable
future. A generation ago, the regulatory environment
surrounding the Green Revolution was extremely permissive.
ScienVsts could move freely among nations to help breed and
plant HYV crops, and there was no stigma attached to eating
foods developed from these crops.
Today, however, the regulatory world is divided between
those nations that permit GM crops to move freely through
their food system (e.g., the United States, Canada, China, and
Argentina) and those (primarily the EU) that have strict
regulations regarding GM crops in their food systems. There
are many possible reasons for the disparity in regulations-
differing consumer attitudes, trade issues, and differences in
regulatory philosophy among them.
The discord regarding GM crop regulations is currently
playing itself out (as of this writing) in a case before the WTO
Green Revolution 189
to determine whether the EU's rules on GM foods constitute
an illegal trade barrier. In the meantime, policymakers in
certain African nations have decided that they cannot afford
to permit GM crop planting, even if it is beneficial to their
growers and consumers, because they are wary of losing
financial aid from the EU if they are seen as taking a proGM
crop stance. Without regulations that explicitly take into
account potential benefits to both farmers and consumers,
those nations that might stand to benefit most from GM crops
may be discouraged from allowing them to be planted.

Seiektion
C
~Wach.tur0
) ,---------,
I
, I
,..----_
Abtotung:'
\
,
,--::::.::- .... "
Fig. Transgene outflow
At the same time, policymakers worldwide must ensure
that risk assessments of GM crops are conducted to address
the specific concerns of their regions. A risk assessment of
transgene outflow in the India, for example, is unlikely to be
relevant to ecological concerns in Mexico or Africa. In assessing
risks, policymakers in developing nations must consider,
among other factors, the types of native and agricultural plants
that may be affected by the presence of GM crops, traditional
farming practices, and the desired traits of GM crops that may
be planted in their regions in the near term and long terra.
Implications for Relevant Stakeholders
What do these challenges mean for the various
stakeholders that are or should be involved in solving the
problems surrounding current and future agricultural needs
190 Green Revolution

worldwide? First, national governments worldwide should

realise that so long as there is any threat of widespread hunger
or malnutrition, the threat of political instability and insecurity
(partly caused by lack of food security) is larger.
Indeed, problems of hunger and malnutrition still exist,
most esp~cially in sub-Saharan Africa, and the benefits of the
Green Revolution in other parts of the developing world are
slowing. Thus, governments should pay closer attention and
lend greater support to agriculture and food policies regarding
developing nations in need.
Public institutions - foundations, agricultural
departments in universities, and other national and
international agricultural research organizations-should have
this same sort of realization when planning their agendas and
areas of focus. In addition to the national security issues, they
must recognize the problem of continuing hunger and
malnutrition as an important public welfare problem.
From a technological standpoint, private companies are
in a .position of power because they possess the scientific
knowledge and capabilities to pro~uce GM crop seeds that
could have significant benefit worldwide. However, unless
companies use that power for global good, their products (i.e.,
GM crop seeds) may continue to be stigmatized in many parts
of the world, with serious market implications. Therefore,
private companies should use their technological know how
to focus on the needs of developing-world farmers and should
partner with public institutions to benefit from a mutu'a l
sharing of resources.
Nongovernmental organizations should strive to present
more balanced persp~ctives on the GM crop issue, keeping in
mind their increased level of influence (and corresponding .
responsibility) in re cent years regarding policy-decisions on
adoption of new technologies. NGOs that support the GM crop
movement should make it clear that not all the potential risks
of agricultural biotechnology have been researched.
NGOs that are against GM crops should not mislead the
public about any risks that have already been proven to be
 Green Revolution 19t

insignificant, nor decline to spread the message about potential

benefits from GM crops. All NGOs should help to
communicate t'.1e message that the ri3ks associated with
planting certain types of GM crops in specific locales
worldwide should be carefully considered.
The challenges discussed in this chapter are interrelated.
Revised regulations on genetically modified crops must
accompany widespread collective policy efforts to revitalize
agricultural development. And before developing-world
farmers and consumers can benefit from GM crops or any other
: type of enhanced crop breeding, the technologies must be
affordable and farrrters must understand how to use them.
The GM crop movement must overcome an intertwined
collection of challenges before· it can have an impact beyond
those regions of the world that already produce excesses of
food. If the GM crop movement can overcome these challenges,
while proving itself to be acceptably free of adverse health and
environmental impacts, it has the potential to provide benefits
to farmers and consumers animnd the globe in previously
inconceivable ways, while imitigating the need to use
potentially harmful chemical~ 9r scarce water supplies for
agriculture. It can-thefl,-inaef'd, become a true "Gene
Revolution."
 Agriculture Biotechnology in
21st Century

FOOD SECURITY
In a world where population growth is outstripping food
supply agricultural- and especially plant-biotechnology, needs
to be swiftly implemented in all walks of life. The world
population is expected to reach 7 billion within 25 years, over
10 billion in the year 2050, while agricultural production is
growing at the slower rate of about 1.8 percentage annually.
All human beings depend on agriculture that produces food
of the appropriate quality at the required quantities.
Since this can no longer be achieved by traditional
methods alone, breeding through plant biotechnology is a necessity.
In the long run the massive and immediate implementation
of plant and agricultural biotechnology is more highly crucial
than that of medical biotechnology, since more people
worldwide die from famine and diseases related to
malnutrition than from "modern", western diseases.
With "Disaster Management" becoming a central issue in
modern SOciology research and curricula, food and food product
shortages are the ultimate disaster. However, unlike most natural
disasters, this is one that we can prepare for and even prevent.
Domestication of plants and animals found in the wild,
combined with gradual long-term changes in their qualitative
and quantitative traits, were the first attributes of agriculture.
Agriculture Biotechnology in 21st Century 193

Domestication, followed by food storage, coincided with the

growth of microorganisms. Thus was born classical food
fermentation, the earliest known application of biotechnology
for the generation of food products. This traditional agriculture
now faces several serious limitations:
1. Market limitations: The world is becoming a global
village whose free-market rules negate the
effectiveness of local pricing policies, and where a
dictate of international trade and policies exists. This
has greatly affected future developments in
agriculture, still the world's largest business.
2. Limitations of natural resources: Global climatic
changes (resulting mainly in desertification and
salinization), industrialisation and urbanisation, have
reduced land and water availability and caused
alarming deterioration of soil, water and air quality.
3. Inherent biological genetic limitations: Although
previously highly efficient, the release of new
improved genotypes by classical breeding is now too
slow to cope with the demands, and is considerably
limited by the lack of appropriate "natural" genes that
can be introgressed by traditional genetic crosses.
Only two major potential solutions seems to exist for
increasing food supply and agricultural commodities, in
addition to continuously improving agricultural practices,
despite the aforementioned limitations:
1. A search for alternative food sources (e.g., marine or
extraterrestrial products),
2. Enhanced efficient plant breeding.
COMBINING BIOTECHNOLOGY WITH
CLASSICAL PHYSIOLOGY AND BREEDING
Food production, for both quantity and quality, as well
as for new plant commodities and products, in developed and
developing countries around the globe, cannot rely solely on
classical agriculture. Human survival, vis-a.-vis a continuous
increase in agricultural productivity, depends on the effective
194 Agriculture Biotechnology in 21st Century
merging of classical breeding with modern plant biotechnology and
the novel tools it provides.
The "green revolution", for example, increased wheat
production IO-fold in India and several other countries in
South East Asia, thereby feeding three times as many people.
However, this revolution has already been exploited to its
limits, and alternative solutions are required to breed
improved crops.
Now biotechnology, integrated with classical breeding, is
on the verge of creating the "evergreen revolution". The
potential to improve plant and animal productivity and their
proper use in agriculture relies largely on newly developed
DNA biotechnology and molecular markers.
These techniques enable the selection of successful
genotypes, better isolation and clolling of favourable traits, and
the creation Of transgenic organisms of importance to
agriculture. Together, these generic techniques are both an
extension and an integral part of classical breeding,
contributing successfully to shortening breeding and selection
cycles. .
The new plant biotechnology implies the use of
recombinant DNA techniques and in vitro cell biology in three
major areas:
1. As an aid to classical breeding: This includes the
ongoing genome mapping projects, e.g., in
Arabidopsis, rice, maize and tomato, combined with
the recent activities in functional genomics, proteomics
and bioinformatics, and DNA marker-assisted
selection. The combined use of these techniques will
soon shorten the time required for" classical" breeding
and selection cycles.
2. Generation of engineered (transgenic) organisms: In
view of the inherent limitations of introgressing new
genes by traditional genetic crosses (i.e., lack of
appropriate desired genes and crossing barriers), the
efficient engineering of plants has already resulted in
Agriculture Biotechnology in 21st Century 195
improved field-grown transgenic plants in several
important crops. The result of this impressive
development, which began only 18 years ago, have
made possible the direct insertion and integration of
genes isolated from several organisms, and the creation
of novel, and otherwise impossible genetic
recombination.
3. Integration of microorganisms into plant production
systems: The biotechnological development of new
symbiotic, antibiotic, and antagonistic relationships
between plants and microorganisms (fungi, bacteria
and insects) using, among other techniques, engineered.
plants a,ld microorganisms, creates new possibilities.
Some of these include biological control of pests,
biofertilization and plant growth stimulation, and bio-
and phytoremediation.
During the last two decades, these new biotechnologies
have been adapted to agricultural practices and have opened
new vistas for plant utilisation. This will continue and intensify
in the next decade. Plant biotechnology - especially in vitro
regeneration and cell biology, DNA manipulation and genetic
modification of biochemical pathways - is changing the plant
scene in three major areas:
1. Gro\\!,th and development control ~vegetative,
generative and propagation),
2. Protecting plants against the ever-increasing threats of
abiotic and biotic stress,
3. Expanding the horizons by producing specialty foods,
biochemicals and pharmaceuticals. These areas were
extensively discussed at the 9th international congress
of the IAPTC and B "Plant Biotechnology and In Vitro
Biology in the 21st Century", held in Jerusalem in June
1998.
Vegetative, Generative and Propagation
The better insight into the control of plant regeneration,
morphogenesis and patterns of cell division achieved during
the last two decade, is due to three major discoveries:
196 Agriculture Biotechnology in 21st Century

1. The totipotency and regeneration ability of plant cells and

tissues, as revealed by cell culture and
micropropagation,
2. The elucidation of genes responsible for hormone
production and activation in plants,
3. Active research into the mechanisms and molecular
control of the cell cycle and signal transduction pathways,
in part adopted from previous studies with animal
cells, in part unique for plants. These.have enabled
both the control and biotechnological manipulation of
vegetative growth, generative patterns (e.g., of flowers
and seeds) and of micropropagation.
Vegetative Growt"
Morphogenetic control mechanisms are still extremely
obscure, but the advent of molecular hormone and cell-cycle
research is sure to lead to a better understanding of vegetative
growth patterns.
Thus, the possibility of biotechnologically manipulating
plant growth rate and architecture can become a reality. For
example, potential consequences of controlled auxin
overproduction/availability include: adventitious root
formation of importance to propagation, cell and organ
elongation for biomass production, increased apical
dominance of importance to timber production, etc.
Controlled cytokinin overproduction/availability can
result, among other things, in enhanced bud break - which
is of great importance to plant architecture, branching and
compactness - a desired characteristic for some ornamentals,
and delayed leaf and plant senescence.
No less important, in this respect, is the potential - as yet
not practical - of affecting the orientation and rate of cell
division, cell elongation and tissue longevity, by interfering
with the cytoskeleton and cell cycle, the synthesis of cellulose
and other cell components, and programmed cell death,
respectively. A few of these possibilities have already been
realised.
Agriculture Biotechnology in 21st Century 197

Generative Development
Flowers, fruits and seeds are extremely important for
agriculture. Hence, biotechnological research and
development aims to interfere with and control their
development and characteristics, and some of the many related
studies have already produced practical applications. The
major targets in flower development are colour, scent and
senescence.
Strategies for the molecular breeding of flower colour and
scent include over- and underexpression of colour
(anthocyanins and carotenoids) and scent (volatiles)
compounds, with respect to their biosynthesis, cellular
transport and targeting. Important targets for controlling fruit
development include growth, ripening and senescence (as for
vegetative growth), colour and scent (similar to flowers) and,
in addition, flavour - particularly metabolic control of sugar,
acid and other flavour components.
Of great importance to fruits are biotechnological
strategies for the production of seedles~ fruits via
parthenocarpy (overproduction of auxin), pollen destruction
(no fertilisation), or arrest of embryo development. The
manipulation of seed development using biotechnological
strategies is especially critical, since the seed industry (together
with vegetative propagation material) constitutes the
germ plasm of the future for any type of plant production
system.
Seeds and vegetative propagules are, practically speaking,
packages of genes that form the basis of all advanced and
economically viable agricultural industries, both national and
private. Biotechniques and molecular strategies are now
available for the major seed-based operations: hybrid seed
production, generation of artificial seeds (coated somatic
embryos), and for the establishment of germ plasm banks that
may solve some of the biodiversity issues.
Micropropagation
Micropropagation is used routinely to generate a large
number of high-quality clonal agricultural plants, including
198 Agriculture Biotechnology in 21st Century
ornamental and vegetable species, and in some cases also
plantation crops, fruits and vegetable species.
Micropropagation has significant advantages over traditional
clonal propagation techniques.
These include the p9tential of combining rapid large-scale
propagation of new genotypes, the use of small amounts of
original germplasm (particularly at the early breeding and/or
transformation stage, when only a few plants are available),
and the generation of pathogen-free propagules.
This impressive application of the principles of plant cell
division and regeneration to practical plant propagation is the result
of continuous tedious studies in hundreds of labouratories
worldwide, many of them in developing countries, on the
standardisation of explant sources, media composition and
physical state, environmental conditions and acclimatisation
of in vitro plants. Particularly noteworthy are the many recent
studies on the molecular of organogenesis and somatic
embryogenesis.
However, further practical applications of
micropropagation, which is also commercially viable, depends
on reducing the production costs such that it can compete with
seed production or traditional vegetative propagation methods
(e.g., cuttings, tubers and bulbs, grafting).
Techniques that have the potential to further increase the
efficiency of micropropagation, but still await further
improvements, include: simplified large-scale bioreactors,
cheaper automatization facilities, efficient somatic
embryogenesis and synthetic seed production, greater
utilisation of the autotrophic growth potential of cultures, and
good repeatability and quality assurance of the
micropropagated plants.
Abiotic and Biotic Stress Tolerance
The application of molecular genetics and plant
transformation to the diagnosis and control of plant pests has
become one of the major practical success stories of plant
biotechnology in the past decade. The availability of dozens
Agriculture Biotechnology in 21st Century 199
of transgenic crop plants which are resistant to a range of
insects, viruses and herbicides, as well as to several
phytopathogenic fungi and nematodes has been validated
under both field and laboratory conditions, and is of great
economic importance.
Moreover, applying the principles of engineering plants
for resistance to these pests to other plants of agricultural
importance is now considered routine, although in practice still
labourious, especially for new genotypes. Apart from a wider
application to additional plants, the real challenges lying ahead
include:
1. Improved expression of the target genes in the plants,
especially their spatial and temporal control,
2. The use of wide-spectrum and alternative target genes
to circumvent the problem of pest resistance,
3. Intensified integration of biological control via the use
of selected and engineered microorganisms with a
biocontrol potential.
While plant biotechnology has been applied successfully
to fighting a large number of pests, this is not yet the case for
abiotic stress conditions such as drought, salinity, extreme
temperatures, chemical toxicity and oxidative stress. Drought
and salinization are the most common natural causes of lack offood
and famine in arid and semiarid regions, and the most serious
environmental threats to agriculture in many parts of the
world.
Desertification, resulting from overexploitation by the
local inhabitants, is often aggravated by regional climatic
changes, and results in increased soil erosion and a decrease
in land and agricultural productivity. It is estimated that
increased salinization of arable land will have devastating
global effects, resulting in 30 percentage land loss within the
next 25 years, and up to 50 percentage in the year 2050.
Although more difficult to control and engineer than the
usually monogenic traits of resistance to biotic pests and
herbicides, the genetically complex response to abiotic stress
200 Agriculture Biotechnology in 21st Century
is globally and regionally far more important. Therefore,
breeding for plant tolerance to drought and salinity stress should
be given a high research priority in all future agbiotech
programmes.
Strategies for the manipulation of osmotic stress tolerance
in plants might include: expression of osmoprotectants and
compatible solutes, ion and water transport and channels,
expression of water-binding and membrane-associated
dehydrins and other proteins, transcription factors and DNA-
binding proteins, etc.
Also of specific interest are the intervening stages of stress
perception, signal transduction (ABA and others), and protein
modification. The discovery of new stress-related genes and
the design of stress-specific promoters are equally important.
Food, Biochemicals and Pharmaceuticals
Traditionally, agriculture was targeted to improving the
production of plant-derived food, in terms of both quantity
and quality. This was also the initial primary target of plant
biotechnology. The second phase of plant biotechnology is now
gradually being implemented: a shift from the production of
low-priced food and bulk commodities to high-priced,
specialised plant-derived products.
This includes two major categories of biomaterials:
1. Direct improvement and modification of specialised
constituents of plant origin,
2. The manufacture in plants of non-plant compounds.
Biotechniques, mostly based on the engineering of
metabolic pathways, are now available for modifying
many plant constituents that are used in the food,
chemical and energy industries. This includes many
"primary" metabolites: carbohydrates (starch
synthesis, yield and allocation, production of high-
amylose or high-amylopectin starch, increased sucrose
synthesis for the sugar industry, fructan production,
etc.), proteins (improvement of amino acid
composition and protein content), oils and fats (ratio
Agriculture Biotechnology in 21st Century 201

of saturated to nonsaturated fatty acids, increased

content of specific valuable fatty acids like erucic acid,
ricinoleic acid and others).
Many other plant constituents are either minor or non-
food components, but have specific high- value applications,
such as specific fatty acids as an alternative energy source,
polysaccharides with heat hysteresis properties and for
bioaffinity purification, temperature and salt-resistant
enzymes for the food industry, etc.
Moreover, the use of plants as "bioreactors" for the
production of "foreign", non-plant compounds is gaining
momentum and may eventually lead to alternative types of
agriculture.
This includes, for example, production of bioactive
peptides, vaccines, antibodies and a range of enzymes -
mostly for the pharmaceutical industry. For the chemical
industry, plants can be used to produce, e.g.,
polyhydroxybutyrate for the production of biodegradable
thermoplastics, and cyclodextrins, which form inclusion
complexes with hydrophobic substances.
Achievements today in plant biotechnology have already
surpassed all previous expeclations, and the future is even
more promising. The full realisation and impact of the
aforementioned developments depend, however, not only on
continued successful and innovative research and
development activities, but also on a favourable regulatory
climate and public acceptance.
About 12 percentage of the world's land surface is used
to grow crops, and the agricultural area required to support
food production - 0.44 ha / capita in 1961 - will probably
have been reduced to 0.15 ha / capita in 2050.
The intensification of agriculture with its c.forementioned
limitations thus requires enhanced and more efficient plant
breeding and the release of economical, high-return and
patentable plant-derived products. This cannot be achieved
without supporting advanced research and development in
202 Agriculture Biotechnology in 21st Century

biochemistry, physiology, genomics and biotechnology of

agricultural plants.
Plant scientIsts now have a central role in society, not
unlike their plac~ 300 years ago when Jonathan Swift stated:
"Whoever could make two ears of com or two blades of grass
to grow upon a spot of ground where only one grew before,
would deserve better of mankind, and do more essential
service to his country, than the whole race of politicians put
together. "
 Importance of Agriculture
Biotechnology

GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS

It is our quest as technology education teachers to prepare
our students to become technologically literate and productive
members of our society-a daunting task in a society growing
ever dependent on our technological development. The
challenge becomes formidable in our attempt to not only
understand the complexities and impacts these technologies
might have on our society, and indeed on the whole human
race, but at the same time impart an understanding to our
students so that they have the opportunity to become
technologically literate with the capability to make sound
rational decisions in the use and deployment of these
technologies for the betterment of our planet and all its
inhabitants.
One area of technological development that cannot be
ignored in our classrooms is that of genetically modified foods.
The question is not whether we should modify the genE'tics of
our crop plants, which has been going on since plants were
first domesticated-the real questions should focus on how
new genetically engineered modifkations will affect our
society and how genetically modified crops and plants will
alter our environment. The term GM food is used in reference
to crop plants modified for human and animal consumption
using the latest molecular biological techniques. It is the
204 Importance of Agriculture Biotechnology

purposeful addition of a foreign gene or genes to the genome

of an organism.
A gene holds the information that will give the organism
trait. Genetic engineering physically removes the DNA from
one organism and transfers the gene(s) for one or a few traits
to another. Since cross breeding between two sexually
compatible plants is not necessary, the sexual barrier between
species is overcome. These modem techniques now enable
scientists to enhance desired traits such as increased resistance
to herbicides or improved nutritional content, in ways they
could not before, and with greater ease and precision.
Genetic engineering is not bound by the limitations of
traditional plant breeding-not only can genes be transferred
from one plant to another, but genes from non-plant organisms
can also be used. The best-known example of this is the use of
Bt genes in com and other crops. Bacillus thuringiensis is a
naturally occurring bacterium that produces crystal proteins
that are lethal to insect larvae. These proteins have been
transferred into com and cotton so that these plants can create
their own pesticides.
Through genetic manipulation, crop plants are being
modified for pest resistance, herbicide tolerance, disease
resistance, cold tolerance, drought tolerance, salinity tolerance,
and increased nutrition. Researchers are also working to
develop edible vaccines in tomatoes and potatoes. Plants such
as poplar trees have been genetically engineered to clean up
heavy metal pollution from contaminated soil.
Genetically Modified (GM) foods are produced from
genetically modified organisms (GMO) which have had their
genome altered through genetic engineering techniques. The
general principle of producing a GMO is to insert DNA that
has been taken from another organism and modified in the
laboratory into an organism's genome to produce both new
and useful traits and phenotypes. Typically this is done using
DNA from certain types of bacteria.
GM Foods have been available since the 1990s, with the
principal ones being derived from plants; soybean, maize,
Importance of Agriculture Biotechnology 205

canola and cotton seed oil. The first commercially grown

genetically modified food crop was the Flavr Savr tomato
which was made more resistant to rotting by Californian
company Calgene. Calgene was allowed to release it into the
market in 1994 without any special labeling, where it was
welcomed by consumers who purchased the fruit at two to
five times the price of standard tomatoes.
However, production problems and competition from a
conventionally bred, longer shelf-life variety prevented the
product from becoming profitable. A variant of the Flavr Savr
was used by Zeneca to produce tomato paste which was sold
in Europe during the summer of 1996. It's labeling and pricing
were designed as a marketing experiment which proved that,
at the time, European consumers would accept genetically
engineered foods. This attitude would be drastically changed
after outbreaks of Mad Cow Disease weakened consumer trust
in government regulators, and protesters rallied against the
introduction of Monsanto's "Roundup-Ready" soybeans.
The next GM crops included insect-protected cotton and
herbicide-tolerant soybeans both·of which were commercially
released in 1996. These crops have been widely adopted in the
United States. They have also been extensively planted in
several other countries (Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, India,
and China) where agriculture is a major part of the total
economy. Other GM crops include insect-protected maize and
herbicide-tolerant mai:...e, cotton, and rapeseed varieties.
CROPS UNDER DEVELOPMENT
The following GM crops are in development.
• Sweet potato resistant to the feathery mottle virus
• Further development of golden rice to increase levels
or bioavailability of iron, zinc, vitamin A, vitamin E
and improve the quality of proteins
• Maize with increased levels of the amino acid lysine
and protein for animal feeds
• A variety of plants able to better tolerate non-biological
stresses which are commonly encountered in a normal
206 Importance of Agriculture Biotechnology

growing season, such as water and nitrogen limitation,

or survive extreme growing conditions, such as high-
salinity, drought, acidic soils, or hot weather. Such
traits can provide more reliable crop performance over
an extended period of cultivation.
• Transgenic rice has been developed by a Californian
company to improve oral rehydration therapy for
diarrhea. In sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Latin
America and Asia, diarrhea is the second highest
infectious killer of children under the age of five,
accounting for some two million deaths a year. Recent
2005-6 trials in a Peruvian Hospital have demonstrated
that specialized milk proteins lactoferrin and lysozyme
made in transgenic rice plants improve the
effectiveness of oral rehydration solution used to treat
diarrhea.
Abundance of GM Crops
Between 1996 and 2005, the total surface area of land
cultivated with GMOs had increased by a factor of 50, from
17,000 km2 (4.2 million acres) to 900,000 km2 (222 million acres),
of which 55% were in the United States.
Although most GM crops are grown in North America,
in recent years there has been rapid growth in the area sown
in developing countries. For instance in 2005 the largest
increase in crop area planted to GM crops (soybeans) was in
Brazil (94,000 km2 in 2005 versus 50,000 km2 in 2004.) There
has also been rapid and continuing expansion of GM cotton
varieties in India since 2002. (Cotton is a major source of
vegetable cooking oil and animal feed.) It is predicted that in
2006/732,000 km 2 of GM cotton will be harvested in India (up
more than 100% from the previous season).
Indian national average cotton yields have been boosted
to close 50% above the long term average yield during this
period. The publicity given to transgenic trait Bt insect
resistance has encouraged the adoption of better performing
hybrid cotton varieties, and the Bt trait has substantially
Importance of Agriculture Biotechnology 207

reduced losses to insect predation. Economic and

environmental benefits of GM cotton in India to the individual
farmer have been documented.
In 2003, countries that grew 99% of the global transgenic
crops were the United States (63%), Argentina (21%), Canada
(6%), Brazil (4%), China (4%), and South Africa (1 %). The
Grocery Manufacturers of America estimate that 75% of all
processed foods in the U.s. contain a GM ingredient. In
particular, Bt com, which produces the pesticide within the
plant itself is widely grown, as are soybeans genetically
designed to tolerate glyphosate herbicides. These constitute
"input-traits" that financially benefit the producers, have
indirect environmental benefits and marginal cost benefits to
consumers.
In the US, by 2006 89% of the planted area of soybeans,
83% of cotton, and 61 % maize was genetically modified
varieties. Genetically modified soybeans carried herbicide
tolerant traits only, but maize and cotton carried both herbicide
tolerance and insect protection traits (the latter largely the
Bacillus thuringiensus Bt insecticidal protein). In the period 2002
to 2006, there were significant increases in the area planted to
Bt protected cotton and maize, and herbicide tolerant maize
also increased in sown area.
Future Deveiopmet:lts
Future envisaged applications of GMOs are diverse and
include drugs in food, bananas that produce human vaccines
against infectious diseases such as Hepatitis B, metabolically
engineered fish that mature more quickly, fruit and nut trees
that yield years earlier, and plants that produce new plastics
with unique properties. While their practicality or efficacy in
commercial production has yet to be fully tested, the next
decade may see exponential increases in GM product
development as researchers gain increasing access to genomic
resources that are applicable to organisms beyond the scope
of individual projects.
Safety testing of these products will also at the same time
be necessary to ensure that the perceived benefits will indeed
208 Importance of Agriculture Biotechnology
outweigh the perceived and hidden costs of development.
Controversies surrounding GM foods and crops commonly
focus on human and environmental safety, labeling and
consumer choice, intellectual property rights, ethics, food
security, poverty reduction, and environmental conservation.
See also: GM food controversy
Safety Testing
In the USA regulation of a genetically modified food is
determined by the objective characteristics of the food and the
intended use of the food, irrespective of the way it was
developed. FDA policy states that a formal pre-market review
by the FDA is to be taken when the objective characteristics of
any substance added· tc the food raises safety issues.
Prior to marketing a 'new GM food
product, manufacturers are required to
. submit documentation to the FDA to
demonstrate its safety and then await
approval before selling it to consumers .
. The context for assessing safety of
novel foods is the fact that existing foods
often contain toxic components but are
still able to be consumed safely. For
instance, potatoes and tomatoes can L..-_ _ _ _ _ _----'
contain toxic levels of solanine and Fig. Solanine
alpha-tomatine alkaloids respectively, and this situation is
recognised in the concept of "Substantial Equivalence" that
was developed by the OECD in 1993 as a criterion for
identifying whether a novel food is at least as safe as the
equivalent existing food. The US FDA takes a safety assessment
approach that is consistent with this OECD concept in their
regulation of novel foods (including those made by
recqmbinantDNA methods). This policy is outlined in an FDA
.statement.
. Critics of GM food believe this regulatory model fails to
sufficiently protect consumers and claim that the FDA is
subject to pressure and influence by industry. One concern
voiced is that a novel crop may have unintended changes
importance of Agriculture Biotechnology 209
created during the insertion of new genetic material. On the
other hand, plant scientists, backed by results of modern
comprehensive profiling of crop composition, point out that
crops modified using GM techniques are less likely to have
unintended changes than are conventionally bred crops.
Intellectual Property
Enforcement of Patents on genetically modified plants is
often contentious, especially because of the occurrence of Gene
flow. In 1998, 95-98% of about 10 km2 planted with canola by
Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser were found to contain
Monsanto's patented Roundup Ready gene although
Schmeiser had never purchased seed from Monsanto. The
initial source of the plants was undetermined, and could have
been through either gene flow or intentional theft. However,
the overwhelming predominance of the trait implied that
Schmeiser must have intentionally selected for it.
The court determined that Schmeiser had saved seed from
areas on and adjacent to his property where Roundup had been
sprayed, such as ditches and near power poles. Although
unable to prove direct theft, Monsanto sued Schmeiser for
piracy since he knowingly grew Roundup Ready plants
without paying royalties.
The case made it to the Canadian Supreme Court, which
in 2004 ruled 5 to 4 in Monsanto's favour. The dissenting
judges focused primarily on the fact that Monsanto's patents
covered only the gene itself and glyphosate resistant cells, and
failed to cover transgenic plants in their entirety.
In response to criticism, Monsanto Canada's director of
public affairs stated that "It is not, nor has it ever been
Monsanto Canada's policy to enforce its patent on Roundup
Ready crops when they are present on a farmer's field by
accident...Only when there has been a knowing and deliberate
violation of its patent rights will Monsanto act." Currently
Percy Schmeiser spends a large amount of his time traveling
and speaking about how Monsanto ruined his career as a
farmer. He also talks about the possible harms of genetically
210 Importance of Agriculture Biotechnology
modified and why others in addition to himself should be
protesting it.
Benefits and Controversies
Some argue that there is more than enough food in the
world and that the hunger crisis is caused by problems in food
distribution and politics, not production, so people should not
be'offered food that may carry some degree of risk.
Others oppose genetic engineering on the grounds that
genetic modifications might have unforeseen consequences,
both in the initially modified organisms and their
environments. For example, certain strains of maize have been
developed that are toxic to plant eating insects. It has been
alleged those strains cross-pollinated with other varieties of
wild and domestic maize and passed on these genes with a
putative impact on Maize biodiversity.
Subsequent to the publication of these results, several
scientists pointed out that the conclusions were based on
experiments with desi~ flaws .. It is well known that the results
from the Polymerase Chain Reaction method of analysing
DNA can often be confounded by sample contamination and
experimental artifacts. Appropriate controls can be included
in experiments to eliminate these as a possible explanation of
the results - however these controls were not included in the
methods used by Quist and Chapela.
After this criticism Nature, the scientific journal where this
data was originally published concluded that "the evidence
available is not sufficient to justify the publication of the
original paper". More recent attempts to replicate the original
studies have concluded that genetically modified com is absent
from southern Mexico in 2003 and 2004. Also in dispute is the
impact on biodiversity of the introgression of transgenes into
wild populations. Unless a trans gene offers a massive selective
advantage in a wild population, a transgene that enters such
a population will be maintained at a low gene frequency. In
such situations it can be argued that such an introgression
actually increases biodiversity rather than lowers it.
Importance of Agriculture Biotechnology 211

Activists opposed to genetic engineering say that with

current recombinant technology there is no way to ensure that
genetically modified organisms will remain under control, and
the use of this technology outside 3eL.J.re laboratory
environments carries potentially unacceptable risks to both
farmed and 'Riki ecosystems.
Potential impact on biodiversity may occur if herbicide-
tolerant crops are sprayed with herbicide to the extent that no
wild plants ('weeds') are able to survive. Plants toxic to insects
may mean insect-free crops. This could result in declines in
other wildlife (e.g. birds) which feed on weed seeds and/or
insects for food resources. The recent (2003) fa!m scale studies
in the UK found this to be the "ease with GM sugar beet and
GM rapeseed, but not with GM maize (though in the last
instance, the non-GM comparison maize crop had also been
treated with environmentally-da,maging pesticides
subsequently (2004) withdrawn from use in the EU).
Although some scientists have claimed that selective
breeding is a form of genetic engineering, (e.g., maize was
modified from teosinte, dogs have evolved with human
intervention over the course of tens of thousands of years from
wolves), others assert that modern transgenesis-based genetic
engineering is capable of delivering changes faster than, and
sometimes of different types from, traditional breeding
methods.
Proponents of current genetic techniques as applied to
food plants cite the benefits that the technology can have, for
example, in the harsh agricultural conditions of Africa. They
say that with modifications, existing crops would be able to
thrive under the relatively hostile conditions providing much
needed food to their people. Proponents also cite golden rice
and golden rice 2, genetically engineered rice varieties (still
under development) that contain elevated vitamin A levels.
There is hope that this rice may alleviate vitamin A deficiency
that contributes to the death of millions and permanent
blindness of 500,000 annually.
212 Importance of :tgriculture Biotechnology

Proponen~ssay that genetically-engineered crops are not

significantly different from those modified by nature or
humans in the past, and are as safe or even safer than such
methods. There is gene transfer between unicellular eukaryotes
and prokaryotes. There have been no known genetic
catastrophes as a result of this. They argue that animal
husbandry and crop breeding are also forms of genetic
engineering that use artificial selection instead of modern
genetic modification techniques. It is politics, they argue, not
economics or science, that causes their work to be closely
investigated, and for different standards to apply to it than
those applied to other forms of agricultural technology.
Proponents also note that species or genera barriers have
been crossed in nature in the past. An oft-cited example is
today's modern red wheat variety, which is the result of two
natural crossings made long ago. It is made up of three groups
of seven chromosomes. Each of those three groups came from
a different wild wheat grass. First, a cross between two of the
grasses occurred, creating the durum wheats, which were the
commercial grains of the first civilizations up through the
Roman Republic. Then a cross occurred between that 14-
chromosome durum wheat and another wild grass to create
what became modern red wheat at the time of the Roman
Empire.
Economic and Political Effects
• Many opponents of current genetic engineering believe
the increasing use of GM in major crops has caused a
power shift in agriculture towards Biotechnology
companies, which are gaining excessive control over
the production chain of crops and food, and over the
farmers that use their products, as well.
• Many proponents of some current genetic engineering
techniques believe it will lower pesticide usage and
has brought higher yields and profitability to many
farmers, including those in developing nations. A few
genetic engineering licenses allow farmers in less
Importance of Agriculture Biotechnology 213
economically developed countries to save seeds for
next year's planting.
• In August 2002, Zambia cut off the flow of Genetically
Modified Food (mostly maize) from UN's World Food
Programme. Although there were claims that this left
a famine-stricken population without food aid, the
U.N. programme succeeded in replacing the rejected
grain with other sources, including some foods
purchased locally with European cash donations. In
rejecting the maize, Zambians cited the "Precautionary
Principle" and also the desire to protect future
possibilities of grain exports to Europe.
• In December 2005 the Zambian government changed
its mind in the face of further famine and allowed the
importation of GM maize. However, the Zambian
Minister for Agriculture Mundia Sikatana has insisted
that the ban on genetically modified maize remains,
saying "We do not want GM (genetically modified)
foods and our hope is that all of us can continue to
produce non-GM foods."
• In April 2004 Hugo Chavez announced a total ban on
genetically modified seeds in Venezuela.
• In January 2005, 'the Hungarian government
announced a ban on importing and planting of genetic
modified maize seeds, although these were agreed
authorized by the EU.
• On August 18, 2006, American exports of rice to
Europe were interrupted when much of the U.S. crop
was confirmed to be contaminated with unapproved
engineered genes, possibly due to accidental cross-
pollination with conventional crops. The U.S.
government has since declared the rice safe for human
consumption, and exports to some countries have since
resumed.
Compared with traditional cross breeding techniques
where hundreds and thousands of genes are transferred
indiscriminat~ly, using genetic engineering techniques to
214 Importance of Agriculture Biotechnology
develop GM crops with the introduction of one or a few genes
results in subtle and less disruptive changes that are relatively
specific and predictable.
Direct gene transfer is still a relatively new procedure and
can be viewed as a logical extension to the methods that have
been used for thousands of years to modify our crop plants.
Even so, many questions have arisen concerning the safety of
these foods and their potential impact on the environment.
SAFETY OF BIOTECH FOODS
The first genetically engineered whole product available
to the marketplace was the Flavr Savr. tomato, introduced to
the public in May 1994 without much fanfare. The Flavr Savr.
tomato was genetically engineered by Calgene, Inc., to stay
ripe without rotting for up to ten days, allowing plenty of time
for the vine-ripened tomato to be picked ripe, shipped, and
sold. Calgene, although not required to, sought approval by
the FDA to assure consumers that their product was safe for
consumption.
Since the approval of the Flavr Savr. tomato, every
developer of biotech foods has, without exception, consulted
with the FDA on a voluntary basis to preemptively address
any safety or nutrition related concerns before the product
reaches the marketplace. In the eight years since the
introduction of the Flavr Savr. tomato, there hasn't been a
single documented case of an illness caused by biotech foods.
In the U.S., the safety of biotech foods is overseen by three
separate agencies:
• The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) assesses the
safety of all foods and animal feeds, including those
produced through plant biotechnology.
• The Department of Agriculture (USDA), through" its
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, oversees
field-testing of biotech seeds and plants to make sure
their release causes no harm to the environment,
especially native plants.
Importance of Agriculture Biotechnology 215
• The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) evaluates
biotech plants' environmental safety such as their
pesticide properties, possible effect on" wildlife, and
how these plants break down in the environment. "
Issues of concern have also been raised with regard to
biotech foods and the environment. Cornell University
researchers found, while conducting laboratory studies, that
monarch larvae could be harmed or killed if they ate large
amounts of Bt corn pollen. When Cornell University
researchers conducted their 1999 study they did not attempt
to duplicate real-world environmental conditions.
They used only a small number of caterpillars and gav~
them no choice but to eat leaves coated with a thick layer of
Bt corn pollen. Subsequent field studies conducted by the
USDA's Agriculture Research Service (ARS) demonstrated that
Bt corn does not harm the monarch butterfly. Extensive studies
from around the world show that biotech crops are" helping to
preserve and protect the environment.
Researchers from Washington State University, the
University of Illinois, Clemson University, and the National
Centre for Food and Agricultural Policy (NCFAP) found that
through the use of biotech crops, the following is possible:
• Valuable soil erosion can be prevented using
environmentally friendly no-till farming practices
when planting biotech soybeans and cotton.
• The ability to use more benign herbicides that rapidly
dissipate in soil and water improves water quality.
• Air quality is improved when no-till farming practices
are used, significantly reducing the release of
greenhouse gasses.
There are also concerns that eating GM foods could lead
to an increase of unintentional allergic reactions. Extensive
testing is part of the approval process to make sure that
proteins introduced to crops to improve their characteristics
do not cause new allergies. Scientists believe that
biotechnology is a promising tool for removing allergens from
216 Importance of Agriculture Biotechnology

foods, giving many allergy-prone people a wider choice of safe

foods to eat.
Even before they reach a farmer's field, biotech corn,
soybeans, and other genetically enhanced foods undergo years
of review by researchers, university scientists, farmers, and
other government agencies in addition to the FDA. The results
of these tests have all produced the same conclusions. Biotech
crops are safe to eat. A report issued by the National Academy
of Sciences, an independent group of scientists and scholars,
confirmed that all approved biotech products are as safe as
their conventional counterparts for human and animal
consumption.
Benefits of GM Foods
With a continuously expanding world population that
already exceeds six billion people, ensuring an adequate food
supply is going to become a major challenge. GM foods can
potentially help to meet this challenge in a number of ways:
• Pest resistant crops-world crop productivity could
increase by as much as 25 percent through the use of
biotechnology to grow plants that resist pests and
diseases. Growing GM foods such as Bt corn can help
eliminate the application of chemical pesticides,
reducing the run-off of agriculture wastes that can
poison valuable water sources and cause harm to the
environment.
• Disease resistant crops-scientists are creating plants
that have the ability to fight against many viruses,
fungi, and bacteria that are harmful to them.
• Cold tolerance-by introducing an antifreeze gene
from cold water fish, plants are being developed that
are able to withstand cold temperatures that would
normally kill them.
• 'Drought tolerance/salinity tolerance-plants created to
withstand periods of drought or high salt content in
their soil and groundwater will help to grow crops in
land formerly unsuitable ,for growing.
Importance of Agriculture Biotechnology 217
• Pharmaceuticals-vaccines introduced into tomatoes
and potatoes are much easier to ship, store, and
administer than traditional vaccines that have to be
injected, a major benefit for developing third-world
countries.
International food and agricultural experts and policy
makers-including the U.N. Food and Agricultural
Organization and the World Health Organization-call plant
biotechnology a critical tool to help feed a growing population
in the twenty-first century. Using existing farmland, world
crop productivity could increase by as much as 25 percent
through the use of GM crops engineered to resist pests and
diseases, tolerate harsh growing conditions, and delay ripening
to reduce spoilage.
A study conducted by the National Centre for Food and
Agricultural Policy (NCFAP), released in June 2002, found that
six biotech crops planted in the U.S.-soybeans, corn, cotton,
papaya, squash, and canola-produced an additional four
billion pounds of food and fiber on the same acreage, improved
farm income by $1.5 billion, and reduced pesticide use by 46
million pounds.
While some nations vacillate about the merits of
genetically modified crops, other nations such as China, Africa,
India, and Pacific Island nations embrace GM crops as a means
to expand production of food crops in order to feed the world's
fastest-growing populations. Rice is a staple crop for nearly a
billion people in Asian countries where 50 percent or more of
calories are from rice. Aside from providing more calories from
higher yields; genetically modified rice can provide increased
nutrients such as vitamin A, lysine, iron, and zinc, thus
reducing illnesses and malnutrition associated with
deficiencies of these nutrients.
Labeling Concerns
The labeling of GM foods and food products is a
controversial issue. Food industries support the belief that
labeling should be voluntary and influenced by consumer
218 Importance of Agriculture Biotechnology

demands and say that requiring a label for biotech ingredients

would confuse consumers more than it would inform them.
Consumer interest groups are demanding mandatory labeling,
contending that people have the right to know what they are
eating.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which
oversees food safety issues, performs exhaustive safety tests
on every biotech food product entering the marketplace and
has concluded that special labeling is required only when the
new food product is significantly different from its
conventional counterpart. The American Medical Association
(AMA) has also stated that, "there is no scientific justification
for special labeling of genetically modified foods, as a class".
Special labeling requirements for GM foods would
dramatically increase the costs of all foods-costs that would
be passed on to the consumer. The FDA is currently developing
voluntary labeling guidelines, which would enable
manufacturers to let consumers know if a food was developed
using biotechnology to have a beneficial trait, or if biotech
ingredients were used in making a product. Any type of food
labeling should be designed to clearly convey accurate
information about the product in language that everyone can
understand. The biggest challenge in any GM food labeling
policy would be how to educate and inform the public without
causing undue alarm or fear of GM foods.
Each year the world's popUlation increases by
approximately 73 million people and is projected to reach
approximately eight billion by the year 2030-with most of
the increase expected to occur in developing countries. Despite
efforts worldwide to combat hunger and malnutrition, there
are over 800 million people worldwide who do not receive
adequate food and nutrition. In order for the world to address
this critical situation, the world will have to double its food
production and distribution over the next 25 years.
Plant biotechnology can help to overcome the world's
concern for feeding its ever-growing population safely and
effectively by continuing to develop a food supply that is more
Importance of Agriculture Biotechnology 219
abundant on less acreage, has more nutritional value, and is
more environmentally conservative.
Governments around the world need to develop policies
to ensure greater investment in research and at the same time
develop necessary regulations and guidelines that will enable
continued advances in plant biotechnology while maintaining
confidence and trust that our food supply is safe for
consumption and the ecosystem of our world.
Standards for Technological Literacy
Introducing students to plant biotechnology will expose
students to the relatively new science of genetically engineered
foods and help them to understand the concerns, controversy,
and potential that this technology espouses. As more and more
foods are introduced to our daily diet, it is important that
students understand the methods used to develop these foods,
regulations, and guidelines used to determine their safety for
human consumption, and tests that are performed to ensure
that our environment is not harmed.
Standards for Technological Literacy offers benchmark
guides and suggestions that will help technology education
teachers in their preparation to expose their students to the
wonders and potential of plant biotechnology.
Genetic Engineering Activity: Regulation and Policies for
Genetically Modified Crops
Objectives:
• Students will become informed about the processes
used to genetically modify crops.
• Students will assess the impact of genetically modified
crops on society and the environment and make
intelligent decisions about their value and how they
should be regulated.
As we have seen, genetic engineering has the potential to
alter plant and animal life forms in ways not found in nature.
For centuries, farmers have used selective breeding to improve
both crops and animals that had the characteristics they
220 Importance of Agriculture Biotechnology

wanted to bring out and strengthen. This was the only way
that farmers had to develop plants and animals that were
resistant to disease and tolerant of climate extremes.
Today, scientists can find individual genes that control
particular characteristics, separate them out, change them. and
transfer them directly into the cells of an animal, plant,
bacterium, or virus. Because the DNA code is known and is
common to all life, it is also possible to produce synthetic
genes. This technology is called genetic modification or genetic
engineering.
Genetic modification means that, for the first time,
humans can make living things to our own design, without
relying on nature. The implications for this new technology
are vast. Although any new technology may have its risks and
benefits, genetic engineering has special features that need to
be addressed with wisdom and insight.
There is much controversy about genetically engineered
or modified plants such as Bt corn (bacillus thuringiensis), Bt
cotton, and soybeans. One side is that genetically modified
crops provide benefits such as increased crop yields, reduced
pesticide use, and consistent quality under varying growing
conditions, and improved economic returns. Additionally, GM
crops could help meet the nutritional needs of millions of
people around the globe who are literally starving.
Conversely, there are risks in developing and releasing
GM crops for food consumption before they are thoroughly
tested. The media recently reported that a public interest group
found StarLink's genetically modified protein in taco shells,
sparking contentious international debate over crop
biotechnology. The claim was made that the Starlink[R]
contained an allergen that may affect some people.
Subsequently, Starlink[R] has been banned for human
consumption. Could a GM plant cross-pollinate with another
plant to produce a high-risk offspring? These issues and others
present real challenges to companies developing GM plants
as well as to governmental and regulatory agencies and
consumers here and abroad.
Importance of Agriculture Biotechnology 221

As a student of technology, you are aware of the

assessment process used to evaluate existing and emerging
technologies. Given: the fact that GM crops are an invention
rather than a product of nature and natural selection, it would
be appropriate to assess the benefits of GM crops and propose
a set of policies that could be used to regulate them. It is
important to note that care must be used in establishing
policies that will encourage the development of new GM crops,
yet protect the public and environment. Policies that are too
restrictive will inhibit innovation and development and
become a barrier to the introduction of GM crops. Policies that
are ineffective may result in GM crops that could create
irreversible impacts on the ecological environment.
The following are issues that can provide a starting point
for developing a set of policies regarding genetically
engineered crops.
• Benefit to humans-nutritional and economic
• Human consumption risks-allergic and intestinal
reactions
• Intellectual property-patents, ownership, licensing, and
royalties
• Environmental risks-effects on other plants and
insects
• Ecological risks
• . Economic impacts
• Safety and testing
• Control and monitoring the distribution of GM seed
and produce
• Liability, compensation, and risk management
• Should genetically modified foods be labeled?
Plant Breeding
Plant breeding is the purposeful manipulation of plant
species in order to create desired genotypes and phenotypes
for specific purposes. This manipulation involves either
222 Importance of Agriculture Biotechnology
controlled pollination, genetic engineering, or both, followed
by artificial selection of progeny. Plant breeding often, but not
always, leads to plant domestication.
Plant breeding has been practiced for thousands of years,
since near the beginning of human civilization. It is now
practiced worldwide by government institutions and
commercial enterprises. International development agencies
believe that breeding new crops is important for ensuring food
security and developing practices of sustainable agriculture
through the development of crops suitable for their
environment.
Domestication
Domestication of plants is an artificial
selection process conducted by humans to
produce plants that have fewer
undesirable traits of wild plants, and
which renders them dependent on
artificial (usually enhanced)
environments · for their continued
existence. The practice is estimated to date
back 9,000-11,000 years. Many crops in
present day cultivation are the result of Fig. Rice
(Oryza sativa)
domestication in ancient times, about
5,000 years ago in the Old World and 3,000 years ago in the
New World. In the Neolithic period, domestication took a
minimum of 1,000 years and a maximum of 7,000 years. Today,
all of our principal food crops come from domesticated
varieti~s.

A cultivated crop species that has evolved from wild

populations due to selective pressures from traditional farmers
is called a landrace. Landraces, which can be the result of
natural forces or domestication, are plants (or animals) that
are ideally suited to a particular region or environment.
Examples are the land races of rice, Oryza sativa subspecies
indica, which was developed in South Asia, and Oryza sativa
. subspecies japonica, which was developed in China.
Importance of Agriculture Biotechnology 223

Classical Plant Breeding

Classical plant breeding uses deliberate interbreeding
(crossing) of closely or distantly related individuals to produce
new crop varieties or lines with desirable properties. Plants
are crossbred to introduce traits/genes from one variety or line
into a new genetic background. For example, a mildew-
resistant pea may be crossed with a high-yielding but
susceptible pea, the goal of the cross being to introduce mildew
resistance without losing the high-yield characteristics.
Progeny from the cross
would then be crossed with the
hig!'l-yielding parent to ensure
that the progeny were most like
the high-yielding parent,
(backcrossing). The progeny
from that cross would then be
tested for yield and mildew Fig. Cisgenic plants
resistance and high-yielding
resistant plants would be further developed. Plants may also
be crossed with themselves to produce inbred varieties for
breeding.
Classical breeding relies largely on homologous
recombination of two genom.:..s to generate genetic diversity.
The classical plant breeder may also makes use of a number
of in vitro techniques such as protoplast fusion, embryo rescue
or mutagenesis (see below) to generate diversity and produce
Transgenic plants that would not exist in nature.
The Yecoro wheat (right) cultivar is sensitive to salinity,
plants resulting from a hybrid cross with cultivar W4910 (left)
show greater tolerance to high salinity
Traits that breeders have tried to incorporate into crop
plants in the last 100 years include:
1. Increased quality and yield of the crop
2. Increased tolerance of environmental pressures
(salinity, extreme temperature, drought)
3. Resistance to viruses, fungi and bacteria
224 Importance of Agriculture Biotechnology

4. Increased tolerance to insect pests

5. Increased tolerance of herbicides
Intraspecific hybridization within a plant species was
demonstrated by Charles Darwin and Gregor Mendel, and was
further developed by geneticists and plant breeders. In the
early 20th century, plant breeders realized that Mendel's
findings on the non-random nature of inheritance could be
applied to seedling populations produced through deliberate
pollinations to predict the frequencies of different types.
In 1908, George Harrison Shull described heterosis, also
known as hybrid vigour. Heterosis describes the tendency of
the progeny of a specific cross to outperform both parents. The
detection of the usefulness of heterosis for plant breeding has
lead to the development of inbred lines that reveal a heterotic
yield advcmtage when they are crossed. Maize was the first
species where heterosis was widely used to produce hybrids.
By the 1920s, statistical methods were developed to
analyze gene action and distinguish heritable variation from
variation caused by environment. In 1933, another important
breeding technique, cytoplasmic male sterility (CMS),
developed in maize, was described by Marcus Morton
Rhoades. CMS is a maternally inherited trait that makes the
plant produce sterile pollen, enabling the production of
hybrids and removing the need for detasseling maize plants.
These early. breeding techniques resulted in large yield
increase in the United States in the early 20th century. Similar
yield increases were not produced elsewhere until after World
War II, the Green Revolution increased crop production in the
developing world in the 196bs.
Following World War II a number of techniques were
developed that allowed plant breeders to hybridize distantly
related species, and artificially induce genetic diversity.
When distantly related species are crossed, plant breeders
make use of a number of plant tissue culture techniques to
produce progeny from otherwise fruitless mating. Interspecific
and intergeneric hybrids are produced from a cross of related
Importance of Agriculture Biotechnology 225
species or genera that do not normally sexually reproduce with
each other. These crosses are referred to as Wide crosses. For
example, the cereal triticale is a wheat and rye hybrid.
The cells in the plants derived from the first generation
created from the cross contained an uneven number of
chromosomes and as result was sterile. The cell division
inhibitor colchicine was used to double the number of
chromosomes in the cell and thus allow the production of a
fertile line.
Failure to produce a hybrid may be due to pre-or post-
fertilization incompatibility. If fertilization is possible between
two species or genera, the hybrid embryo may abort before
maturation. If this does occur the embryo resulting from an
interspecific or intergeneric cross can sometimes be rescued
and cultured to produce a whole plant. Such a method is
referred to as Embryo Rescue. This technique has been used to
produce new rice for Africa, an interspecific cross of Asian rice
(Oryza sativa) and African rice (Oryza glaberrima).
Hybrids may also be produced by a technique c.lled
protoplast fusion. In this case protoplasts are fused, usually
in an electric field. Viable recombinants can be regenerated in
culture.
Chemical mutagens like EMS and DMSO, radiation and
transposons are used to generate mutants with desirable traits
to be bred with other cultivars. Classical plant breeders also
generate genetic diversity within a species by exploiting a
process called soma clonal variation, which occurs in plants
produced from tissue culture, particularly plants derived from
callus. Induced polyploidy, and the addition or removal of
chromosomes using a technique called chromosome
engineering may also be used.
When a desirable trait has been bred into a species, a
number of crosses to the favoured parent are made to make
the new plant as similar as the parent as possible. Returning
to the example of the mildew resistant pea being crossed with
a high-yielding but susceptible pea, to make the mildew
resistant progeny of the cross most like the high-yielding
 226 Importal1ce of Agriculture Biotechnology

parent, the progeny will be crossed back to that parent for

several generations. This process removes most of the genetic
contribution of the 'm ildew resistant parent. Classical breeding
is therefore a cyclical process.
It should be noted that with classical breeding techniques,
the breeder does not know exactly what genes have been
introduced to the new cultivars. Some scientists therefore
argue that plants produced by classical breeding 'methods
should undergo the same safety testing regime as genetically
modified plants. There have been instances where plants bred
using classical techniques have been unsuitable for human
consumption, for example the poison solanine was
unintentionally increased to unacceptable levels in certain
varieties of potato though plant breeding. New potato varieties
are often screened for solanine levels before reaching the
marketplace.
MODERN PLANT BREEDING
Modern plant breeding uses techniques of molecular
biology to select, or in the case of genetic modification, to insert,
, desirable traits into plants.
Marker-Assisted Selection
Sometimes many different genes can influence a desirable
trait in plant breeding. The use of tools such as molecular
markers or DNA fingerprinting can map thousands of genes.
This allows plant breeders to screen large populations of plants
for those that possess the trait of interest. The screening is
based on the presence or absence of a certain gene as
determined by laboratory procedures, rather than on the visual
identification of the expressed trait in the plant.
Genetic Modification
Genetic modification of plants is achieved by adding a
specific gehe or genes to a plant, or by knocking out a gene
with RNAi, to produce a desirable phenotype. The plants
resulting from adding a gene are often referred 'to as transgenic
plants. If for genetic modification genes of the species or of a
Importance of Agriculture BiotechrlOlogy 227

crossable plant are used under control of their native promoter,

then they are called Cisgenic plants. Genetic modification can
produce a plant with the desired trait or traits faster than
classical breeding because the majority of the plant's genome
is not altered. .
To genetically modify a plant, a genetic construct must
be designed so that the gene to be added or knocked-out will
be expressed by the plant. To do this, a promoter to drive
transcription and a termination sequence to stop transcription
of the new gene, and the gene of genes of interest must be
introduced to the plant. A marker for the selection of
transformed plants is also included. In the labouratory,
antibiotic resistance is a commonly used marker: plants that
have been successfully transformed will grow on media
containing antibiotics; plants that have not been transformed
will die. In some instances markers for selection are removed
by backcrossing with the parent plant prior to commercial
release.
The construct can be inserted in
the plant genome by genetic
recombination using the bacteria
Agrobacterium tumefaciens or A.
rhizogmes, or by direct methods like
the gene gun or microinjection.
Using plant viruses to insert genetic
constructs into plants is also a Fig. Agrobacterium
possibility, but the technique is tumefaciens
limited by the host range of the virus. For example, Cauliflower
mosaic virus (CaMV) only infects cauliflower and related
species. Another limitation of viral vectors is that the virus is
not usually passed on the progeny, so every plant has to be
inoculated.
The majority of commercially released transgenic plants,
are currently limited to plants that have introduced resistance
to insect pests and herbicides. Insect resistance is achieved
through incorporation of a gene from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt)
that encodes a protein that is toxic to some insects. For
 228 Importance of Agriculture Biotechnology
example, the cotton bollworm, 'a common cotton pest, feeds
on Bt cotton it will ingestthe toxin and die. Herbicides usually
work by binding to certain plant enzymes and inhibiting their
action.
The enzymes that the herbicide inhibits are known as the
herbicides target site. Herbicide resistance can be engineered
into crops by expressing a version of target site protein that is
not inhibited by the herbicide. This is the method used to
produce glyphosate resistant crop plants. Genetic modification
of plants that can produce pharmaceuticals (and industrial
chemicals), sometimes called pharmacrops, is a rather radical
new ,a rea of plant breeding.
, Issues and Concerns
Modern plant breeding, whether classical or thruugh
genetic engineering, comes with issues of conce~, particularly
with regard to food crops. The question of whether breeding
can have a negative effect on nutritional value is central in this
respect. Although relatively little direct research in this area
has been done, there are scientific indications that, by
favouring certain aspects of a plant's development, other
aspects may be retarded.
A study published in the Journal of the American College
of Nutrition in 2004, entitled Changes in USDA Food
Composition Data for 43 Garden Crops, 1950 to 1999,
compared nutritional analysis of vegetables done in 1950 and
in 1999, and found substantial decreases in six of 13 nutrients
measured, including 6% of protein and 38% of riboflavin.
Reductions in calcium, phosphorus, iron and ascorbic acid
were also found. The study, conducted at the Biochemical
Institute, University of Texas at Austin, concluded in summary:
"We suggest that any real declines are generally most easily
explained by changes in cultivated varieties between 1950 and
, 1999, in which there may be trade-offs betv:een yield and
. nutrient content." ' '
The debate surrounding genetic modification of plants is
huge, encompassing the ecological impact of genetically
Importance of Agriculture Biotechllology. 229

modified plants, the safety of genetically modified food and

concepts used for safety evaluation like Substantial
equivalence.
Plant breeders' rights is also a major and controversial
issue. Today, production of new varieties is dominated by
commercial plant breeders, who seek to protect their work and
collect royalties through national and international agreements
based in intellectual property rights. The range of related issues
is complex. In the simplest terms, critics of the increasingly
restrictive regulations argue that, through a combination of
technical and economic pressures, commercial breeders are .
reducing biodiversity and significantly constraining
individuals (such as farmers) from developing and trading .
seed on a regional leveL Efforts to strengthen breeders' rights,
for example, by lengthening periods of variety protection, are
ongoing.
Transgenic Plant
Transgenic plants are plants that possess a gene or genes
that have been transferred from a different species. Such
modification may be performed through ordinary
hybridization through cross-pollination of plants, but the term
today refers to plants produced in a labouratory using
recombinant DNA technology in order to create plants with
specific characteristics by artificial insertion of genes from
other species, and sometimes entirely different kingdoms.
Prior to the current era of molecular genetics starting
around 1975, transgenic plants, including cereal crops, were
(since the mid 1930s) part of conventional plant breeding.
Transgenic varieties are frequently created by classical
breeders who deliberately force hybridization between distinct
plant species when carrying out interspecific or intergeneric
wide crosses with the intention of developing disease resistant
crop varieties. Classical plant breeder may use use of a number
of in vitro techniques such as protoplast fusion, embryo rescue
or mutagenisis to generate diversity and produce plants that
would not exist in nature.
230 Importance of Agriculture Biotechnology

Such traditional techniques (r.sed since about 1930 on)

have never been controversial, or been given wide publicity
except among professional biologists, and have allowed crop
breeders to develop varieties of basic food crop, wheat in
particular, which resist devastating plant diseases such as
rusts. Hope is one such transgenic wheat variety b~ed by E. S.
McFadden with a transgene from a wild grass. Hope saved
American wheat growers from devastating stem rust
outbreaks in the 1930s.
Methods used in traditional breeding that generate
transgenic plants by non-recombinant methods are widely
familiar to professional plant scientists, and serve important
roles in securing a sustainable future for agriculture by
protecting crops from pests and helping land and water to be
used more efficiently.
Natural Movements of Genes
Natural movement of genes between species, often called
horizontal gene transfer or lateral gene transfer, can occur
because of gene transfer mediated by natural agent
This natural gene movement between species has been
widely detected during genetic investigation of various natural
Mobile genetic elements, such as transposons, and
retrotransposons that naturally transfer to new locations in a
genome, and often move to new species host over an
evolutionary time scale. There are many types of natural
mobile DNAs, and they have been detected abundantly in food
crops such as rice.
These various mobile genes playa major role in dynamic
changes to chromosomes during evolution, and have often
been given whimsical names, such as Mariner, Hobo, Trans-
Siberian Express (Transib), Osmar, Helitron, Sleeping Princess,
MITE and MULE, to emphasize their mobile and transient
behaviour.
Such genetically mobile DNA contitutute a major fraction
of the DNA of many plants, and the natural dynamic changes
to crop plant chromosomes caused by this natural transgenic
Importance of Agriculture Biotechnology 231
DNA mimics many of the features of plant genetic engineering
currently pursued in the labour.atory, such as using
transposons as a genetic tool, and molecular cloning.
There is new scientific literature about natural transgenic
events in plants, through movement of natural mobile DNAs
called MULEs between rice and Setaria millet.
It is becoming clear that natural rearrangements of DNA
and generation of transgenes playa pervasive role in natural
evolution. Importantly many, if not most, flowering plants
evolved by transgenesis - that is, the creation of natural
interspecies hybrids in which chromosome sets from different
plant species were added together. There is also the long and
rich history of transgenic varieties in traditional breeding.
CREATION OF TRANSGENIC PLANTS
Production of transgenic plants in wide-crosses by plant
breeders has been a vital aspect of conventional plant breeding
for a century or so. Without it, security 6f our food supply
against losses caused by crop pests such as rusts and mildews
would be severely compromised. The first historically
recorded interpecies transgenic cereal hybrid was actually
between wheat and rye.
Last century, the introduction of alien germplasm into
common foods was repeatedly achieved by traditional crop
breeders by artificially overcoming fertility l?arriers. A novel
genetic rearrangement of plant chromosomes, such as insertion
of large blocks of rye (Secale) genes into wheat chromosomes
('translocations'), has also been exploited widely for many
decades.
By the late 1930s with the introduction of colchicine,
perennial grasses were being hybridized with wheat with the
aim of transferring disease resistance and perenniality into
annual crops, and large-scale practical use of hybrids was well
established, leading on to development of Triticosecale and
other new transgenic cereal crops . In 1985 Plant Genetic
Systems (Ghent, Belgium), founded by Marc Van Montagu and
Jeff Schell, was the first company to develop genetically
232 Importance of Agriculture Biotechnology
engineered (tobacco) plants with insect tolerance by expressing
genes encoding for insecticidal proteins from Bacillus
thuringiensis (Bt).
Important transgenic pathogen and parasite resistance
traits in current bread wheat varieties (gene, eg "Lr9" followed
by the source species) are:
Disease resistance
• Leaf rust
Lr9 (from Aegilops
umbellulata)
Lr18 Triticum timopheevi
Lr19 Thinopyrum
Lr23 T. turgidum
Lr24 Ag. elongatum Fig. Leaf rust
. Lr25 Secale cereale
Lr29 Ag. elongatum
Lr32 T. tau$chii
• Stem rust
Sr2 T. turgidum ("Hope") McFadden, E. 5., J. Am.
Soc. Agron. 22, 1020-103l.
Sr22 Triticum monococcum
Sr36 Triticum timopheevii
• Stripe rust
Yr15 Triticum dicoccoides
• Powdery mildew
Pm12 Aegilops speItoides
Pm21 Haynaldia villosa
Pm25 T. monococcum
• Wheat streak mosaic virus
Wsml Ag. elongatum
Pest resistance
• Hessian fly
H21 S. cereale H23,
Importance of Agriculture Biotechnology 233

H24 T. tauschii
H27 Aegilops ventricosa
• Cereal cyst nematode
Cre3 (Ccn.-D1) T. tauschii
• Lepidoptera
Bt Bacillus thuringiensis
The intentional creation of transgenic plants by laboratory
based recombinant DNA methods is more recent (from the
mid-80s on) and has been a controversial development
opposed vigorously by many NGOs, and several governments,
particularly within the European Community. These
transgenic recombinant plants (= biotech crops, modern
transgenics) are transforming agriculture in those regions that
have allowed farmers to adopt them, and the area sown to
these crops has continued to grow globally in each of the ten
years since their first introduction in 1996.
Transgenic recombinant plants are now generally
produced in a laboratory by adcling one or more genes to a
plant's genome, and the teclLniques frequently called
transformation. Transformation is usually achieved using gold
particle bombardment or a soil bacterium (Agrobacterium
tumefaciens) carrying an engineered plasmid vector, or carrier
of selected extra genes.
Transgenic recombinant plants are identified as a class of
genetically modified organism (GMO); usually only transgenic
plants created by direct DNA manipulation are given much
attention in public discussions.
Transgenic plants have been deliberately developed for a
variety of reasons: longer shelf life, disease resistance, herbicide
resistance, pest resistance, non-biological stress resistances,
such as to drought or nitrogen starvation, and nutritional
improvement. The first modem transgenic crop approved for
sale in the US, in 1994, was the FlavrSavr tomato, which was
intended to have a longer shelf life. The first conventional
transgenic cereal created by scientific breeders was actually a
hybrid between wheat and rye in 1876. The first transgenic
234 Importance of Agriculture Biotechnology

cereal may have been wheat, which itself is a natural transgenic

plant derived from at least three different parenteral species.
Commercial factors, especially high regulatory and
research costs, have so far restricted modem transgenic crop
varieties to major traded commodity crops, but recently R&D
projects to enhance crops that are locally important in
developing counties are being pursued, such as insect
protected cow-pea for Africa and insect protected Brinjal
eggplant for India.

Regulation of Transgenic Plants

In the United States the Coordinated Framework for
Regulation of Biotechnology governs the regulation of
transgenic organisms, including plants. The three agencies
involved are:
• USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
The Biotechnology Regulatory Services (BRS) programme
of the U.S. D'epartment of Agriculture's (USDA) Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is responsible for
regulating the introduction (importation, interstate movement,
and field release) of genetically engineered (GE) organisms that
may pose a plant pest risk.
BRS exercises this authority through APHIS regulations
in Title 7, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 340 under the Plant
Protection Act of 2000. APHIS protects agriculture and the
environment by ensuring that biotechnology is developed and
used in a safe manner.
Through a strong regulatory framework, BRS ensures the
safe and confined introduction of new GE plants with
significant safeguards to prevent the accidental release of any
GE material. APHIS has regulated the biotechnology industry
since 1987 and has authorized more than 10,000 field tests of
GE organisms. In order to emphasize the importance of the
programme, APHIS established BRS in August 2002 by
combining units within the agency that dealt with the
rE:gulaticn of biotechnology.
Importance of Agriculture Biotechnology 235

Fig. Growth and Tuberization of Transgenic Plants with

Altered Expression PCM-J as Compared to Control. A: Control Plant
on the left, and three independent Transgenic Plants to the right of
control. Comparison of tuber shape and size D: (control), C: (transgenic).
D: Tuberizatioll pattern of one of the independent Transgenic Plants
expressing the highest amount of PCM-J (left, control; right, Transgenic
plant). E: When the Transgenic Plant from figure D, was allowed
to grow, aerial tubers were produced.
Biotechnology, Federal Regulation, and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, February 2006, USDA-APHIS Fact
Sheet
• EPA - evaluates potential environmental impacts,
especially for genes which encode for pesticide
production
• DHHS, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) -
evaluates human health risk if the plant is intended
for human consumption
Ecological risks
The potential impact on nearby ecosystems is one of the
greatest concerns associated with transgenic plants.
Transgenes have the potential for significant ecological
impact if the plants can increase in f;eqUf~ncy and persist in
natural populations. These concerns are similar to those
surrounding conventionally bred plant breeds. Several risk
factors should be considered: .
 236 -Importance of Agriculture Biotechnology

• Is the transgenic plant capable of growing outside a

cultivated area?
• Can the transgenic plant pass its genes to a local wild
species, and are the offspring also fertile?
• Does the introduction of the transgene confer a
3elective advantage to the plant or to hybrids in the
wild?
Many domesticated plants can mate and hybridise with
wild relatives when they are grown in proximity, and whatever
genes the cultivated plant had can then be passed to the hybrid.
This applies equally to transgenic plants and conventionally
bred plants, as in either case there are advantageous genes that
may have negative consequences to an ecosystem upon release.
This is normally not a significant concern, despite fears over
'mutant superweeds' overgrowing local wildlife: although
hybrid plants are far from uncommon, in most cases these
hybrids are not fertile due to polyploidy, and will not multiply
or persist long after the original domestic plant is removed
from the environment. However, this does not negate the
possibility of a negative impact.
In some cases, the pollen from a domestic plant may travel
many miles on the wind before fertilising another plant. This
can make it difficult to assess the potential harm of
crossbreeding; many of the relevant hybrids are far away from
the test site. Among the solutions under study for this concern
are systems designed to prevent transfer of transgenes, such
as Terminator.
Techn()logy, and the genetic transformation of the
chloroplast only, so that only the seed of the transgenic plant
would bear the transgene. With regard to the latter, there is
some controversy that the technologies may be inequitable and
might force dependence upon producers for valid seed in the
case of poor farmers, whereas the latter has no such concern
but has technical constraints that still need to be overcome.
There are at least three possible avenues of hybridization
. leading to escape of a transgene:
Importance of Agriculture Biotechnology 237

• Hybridization with non-transgenic crop plants of the

same species and variety.
• Hybridization with wild plants of the same species.
• Hybridization with wild plants of closely related
species, usually of the same genus.
However, there are a number of factors which must be
present for hybrids to be created.
• The transgenic plants must be close enough to the wild
species for the pollen to reach the wild plants.
• The wild and transgenic plants must flower at the
same time.
• The wild and transgenic plants must be genetically
compatible.
In order to persist, these hybrid offspring:
• Must be viable, and fertile.
• Must carry the transgene.
Studies suggest that a possible escape route for transgenic
plants will be through hybridization with wild plants of related
species.
1. It is known that some crop plants have been found to
hybridize with wild counterparts.
2. It is understood, as a basic part of population genetics,
that the spread of a transgene in a wild population
will be directly rebted to the fitness effects of the gene
in addition to the rate of influx of the gene to the
population. Advantageous genes will spread rapidly,
neutral genes will spread with genetic drift, and
disadvantageous genes will only spread if there is a
constant influx.
3. The ecological effects of trans genes are not known, but
it is generally accepted that only genes which improve
fitness in relation to abiotic factors would give hybrid
plants sufficient advantages to become weedy or
invasive. Abiotic factors are parts of the ecosystem
which are not alive, such as climate, salt and mineral
content, and temperature. Genes improving fitness in
 238 Importance of Agriculture Biotechnology

relation to biotic factors could disturb the (sometimes

fragile) balance of an ecosystem. For instance, a wild
plant receiving a pest resistance gene from a transgeruc
plant might become resistant to one of its natural pests,
say, a beetle. This could allow the plant to increase in
frequency, while at the same time animals higher up
in the food chain, which are at least partly dependent
on that beetle as food source, might decrease in
abundance. However, the exact consequences of a
transgene with a selective advantage in the natural
environment are almost impossible to predict reliably.
It is also important to refer to the demanding actions that
government of developing countries had been building up
among the last decades.
GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD CONTROVERSIES
The GM food controversy is a dispute over the advantages
and disadvantages of genetically modified food crops. Although
. no major health hazards have come to light since GM food was
introduced 13 years ago, and close to 150 studies are published
to attest their safety. Consumer rights groups such as the
Organic Consumers Association and Greenpeace emphasize the
long term health risks which GM could pose, or that the risks
of GM have not yet been adequately investigated.
Unnecessary delays to GM crop use by farmers pose
another kind of risk. Agricultural scientist and economists
express concern about the harm delaying welfare and
environmental improvements, for instance by pro-vitamin A
enriched Golden rice which has the potential to prevent much
childhood death from infectious disease, and insect protected
Bt rice which can reduce exposure of farmers to synthetic
insecticides.
Safety disputes
Toxic GM-potatoes
In August 1998 widespread concern, especially in Europe,
was spar_ked by remarks by nutrition researcher, Dr ArpaJ
 Importance of Agriculture Biotechnology 239 ;

Pusztai, regarding some·of his research into the safety of GM

foods.
Pusztai claimed his
experiments showed that rats fed
on potatoes genetically engineered
to express a lectin from snowdrop
had suffered serious damage to
their immune systems and shown
stunted growth. The lectin . .
expressed by the genetically Fig. ToxIc GM-potatoes
modified potatoes is tQxic to insects and nematodes and is
allegedly toxic to mammals. He was criticized by leading
British politicians, the majority of scientific peers with expertise
in the area and by the GM companies because the
announcement of his results in a television interview, preceded
the scientific publication of his results. When his studies were
finally published in The Lancet, no evidence of stunted growth
or damage to immune system was substantiated. The Lancet
paper's actual summary was:
Diets containing genetically
_ modified (GM) potatoes expressing the
lectin Galanthus nivalis agglutinin
(GNA) had variable effects on different
parts of the rat gastrointestinal tract.
Some effects, such as the proliferation
of the gastric mucosa, were mainly due
to the expression of the GNA transgene.
However, other parts of the construct
or the genetic transformation (or both)
could also have contributed to the
overall biological effects of the GNA- Fig. Galanthus nivalis
GM potatoes, particularly on the small intestine and caecum.
The paper was accompanied by an editorial explanation
for allowing the paper's publication (Genetically modified
foods: "absurd" concern or welcome dialogue?), and an
independent critique which had a contrary evaluation of the
data: Adequacy of methods for testing the safety of genetically
modified foods. This was followed by a lively follow. up debate
240 Importance of Agriculture Biotechnology

in several later issues of the journal. Nonetheless, controversy

.about Pusztai's assertions still lingers, caused by strongly held
but opposing views on his cohclusions and data.
On the one hand, there are claims of misrepresentation of
Pusztai's results by Rowett Research Institute, but on the other
hand, there are concerns by scientists about overstatement of
the quality of his findings by non-governmental organizations,
and emphasis on matters well removed from the actual
labouratory observations which are rarely discussed in public
debate, against the context well over one hundred other studies
published by 2006 that support the safety of GM foods and
feeds, and commentaries such as that of Nina Fedoroff.
Research protocols were sent by Pusztai to 24 independent
scientists in different countries (including experts in
physiology, medicine, toxic pathology, nutrition, microbiology
and biochemistry). These disagree with the conclusions of the
review committee and argued that his research was of good
quality and justified his conclusions. Among casualties' in
I

these events was Dr Andrew Chesson, vice chairman of

European Commission scientific committee on animal
nutrition and former top scientist at the Rowett Institute who
was fired for publicly defending Pusztai's research.
Various reports concerning the poiiticisation of the peer
review process and alleged deliberate misrepresentation of
Pusztai's results were voiced by newspapers and some
scientists.
Dangerous Corn
Another controversy recently arose around biotech
company Monsanto's data on a 90-Day Rat Feeding Study on
a strain of GM corn. In May 2005, critics of GM foods pointed
to differences in kidney size and blood composition found in
this study, .suggesting that the observed differences raises
questions about the regulatory concept of substantial
equivalence. Some argued that this study suggested human
health might be affected, by eating GM food.
Importance· of Agriculture Biotechnology 241
However, the EU regulatory authorities that examined the
Monsanto data concluded that the observed small numerical
decrease in rat kidney weights was not biologically
meaningful, and the weights were well within the normal
range of kidney weights for control animals. There were no
corresponding microscopic findings in the relevant organ
systems, and all blood chemistry and organ weight values fell
within the "normal range cf historical control values" for rats.
Thus, certain government authorities concluded that there
were no effects on the functioning of kidneys in rats fed a diet
of GM. Nevertheless, the debate about the Monsanto com is
not over. Genetics Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini, indicated in
a scientific study that rats nourished with the 1If863 Monsanto
com, showed toxicity signs in their livers and kidneys. The
European Committee has approved the Ii'f863 com for animal
and human consumption.
Allergenicity
A gene for an allergenic trait has been transferred·
unintentionally from the Brazil nut into genetically engineered
soybeans while intending to improve soybean nutritional
quality for animal feed use. Brazil nuts were already known
to produce food allergies in certain people prior to this study.
In 1993 Pioneer Hi-Bred International developed a soybean
variety with an added gene from the Brazil nut.
This trait increased the levels in the GM soybean of the
natural essential amino acid methionine, a protein building
block commonly added to poultry feed to improve effective
protein quality. Investigation of the GM soybeans revealed that
they produced immunological reactions with people suffering
from Brazil nut allergy, and the explanation for this is that the
methionine rich protein chosen by Pioneer Hi-Bred is the major
source of Brazil nut allergy. PIoneer Hi-Bred discontinued
further development of the GM soybean and disposed of all
material related to the modified soybeans.
While this study indicates the possible risks of GM foods,
and indeed any new food source, some point out it establishes
the commitment the developmental community has toward
242 Importance of Agriculture Biotechnology

consumer safety as well as the competence- of current

safeguards. Food allergy problems occur with many
conventional foods, and Kiwi fruit, for instance, as a relatively
new food in many communities, has become widely eaten
despite provoking allergies in certain individuals.
Another allergy issue was published in November 2005,
when a pest resistant field pea developed by the Australian
CSIRO for use as a pasture crop was shown to cause an allergic
reaction in mice.
Respected plant scientist Maarten J Chrispeels has made
interesting comments about this example that illustrate how
foods offer many different types of risks:
The recent Prescott et al paper in JFAC contains a v~ry
interesting study on the immunogenicity of amylase [starch
digestion enzyme] inhibitor in its native form (isolated from
beans) and expressed as a transgene in peas. First of all,
amylase inhibitor is a food protein, but also a "toxic" protein
because it inhibits our digestive amylases. This is one of the
reasons you have to cook your beans! (The other toxic bean
protein is phytohemagglutinin and it is much more toxic).
This particular amylase inhibitor is found in the common
bean (other species have other amylase inhibitors). Even
though it is a food protein, it is unlikely ever to be used for
genetic engineering of human foods because it inhibits our
amylases. What the results show is that the protein, when
synthesized in pea cotyledons has a different immunogenicity
than when it is isolated from bean cotyledons (the native form).
This is somewhat surprising but may be related to the presence
of slightly different carbohydrate chairts.
The immunologist who tested the pea noted that the
episode illustrated the need for each new GM food to be very
carefully evaluated for potential health effects.
Environmental and Ecological Impacts
As discussed above there is some evidence for positive
impacts of the planting of GM crops on reduced greenhouse
gas emissions and pesticide loads in the environment.
Importance of Agriculture Biotechnology 243
However, there has been controversy over the results of a farm-
scale trial in the United Kingdom comparing the impact of GM
crops and conventional crops on farmland biodiversity. Some
claimed that the results showed that GM crops had a
significant negative impact on wildlife.
Others pointed out that the studies showed that using
herbicide resistant GM crops allowed better weed control and
that under such conditions there were fewer weeds and fewer
weed seeds. This result was then extrapolated to suggest that
GM crops would have significant impact on the wildlife that
might rely on farm weeds. In July 2005 the same British
scientists showed that transfer of a herbicide-resistance gene
from GM oilseed rape to a wild cousin, charlock, and wild
turnips was possible.
Many agricultural scientists and food policy specialists
view GM crops as an important element in sustainable food
security and environmental management. This point • of view
is summarised in the ABIC Manifesto:
On our planet, 18% of the land mass is used for
agricultural production. This fraction cannot be increased
substantially. It is absolutely essential that the yield per unit
of land increases beyond current levels given that: The human
population is still growing, and will reach about nine billion
by 2040;70,000 km 2 of agricultural land (equivalent to 60% of
the German agricultural area) are lost annually to growth of
cities and other non-agricultural uses; Consumer diets in
developing countries are increasingly changing from plant-
based proteins to animal protein, a trend that requires a greater
amount of crop-based feed.
Public Perception
Research by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology
has shown that in 2005 Americans' knowledge of genetically
modified foods and animals continues to remain low, and their
opinions reflect that they are particularly uncomfortable with
animal cloning. The Pew survey also showed that despite
continuing concerns about GM foods, American consumers do
244 ImpLlrtance of Agriculture Biotechnology

not support banning new uses of the technology, but rather

seek an active role from regulators to ensure that new products
are safe.
Interestingly, about 550 Amish farmers in Pennsylvania
have adopted GM crops, because they allow for less intensive
farming (less pesticides, etc.), are more productive (under these
specific conditions), and do not conflict with the Amish
lifestyle.
Opponents of genetically modified food often refer to it
as "Frankenfood", after Mary Shelley's character Frankenstein
and the monster he creates, in her novel of the same name.
The term was coined in 1992 by Paul Lewis, an English
professor at Boston College who used the word in a letter he
wrote to the New York Times in response to the decision of the
US Food and Drug Administration to allow companies to
market genetically modified food. The term "Frankenfood" has
become a battle cry of the European side in the US-EU
agricultural trade war.
The authors of The Frankenfood Myth provide some support
for genetically modified food:
• Henry I. Miller of Stanford's Hoover Institution and
Gregory Conko of the Competitive Enterprise Institute
make the case that foods modified by recombinant
DNA splicing present no new or special dangers, but
in fact may improve the lives of countless millions
worldwide.
INTERNATIONAL TRADE OF GENETICALLY
MODIFIED FOODS
The European Union and the United States have strong
disagreements over the EU's regulation of genetically modified
food. The US claims these regulations violate free trade
agreements; the EU counter-position is that free trade is not
truly free without informed consent.
In Europe, a series of unrelated food crises during the
1990s created consumer apprehension about food safety in
general, eroded public trust in government oversight of the
Importance of Agriculture Biotechnology 245

food industry, and lef~ some consumers unwilling to consider

"science" to be a guarantee of quality.
This has further fueled widespread public concern about
genetically modified organisms (GMO), in terms of potential
environmental protection (in particular biodiversity), health,
and safety of consumers. Critics of GM foods contend that
there is evidence that the cultivation of genetically modified
plants may lead to environmental changes. Directives such as
directive 2001/18/EC were designed to require authorisation
for the placing GMO on the market, in accordance with the
precautionary principle.
Many European consumers are demanding the right to
make an informed choice about whether or not to consume
GMO foods. Some polls indicate that Americans would also
like labeling, but it has not yet become a major issue. New EU
regulations should require strict labeling and traceability of
all food and animal feed containing more than 0.5 percent GM
ingredients.
A 2003 survey by the Pew Research Centre found that a
majority of people in all countries surveyed felt that GM foods
were "bad". The lowest scores were in the US and Canada,
where 55% and 63% (respectively) were against it, while the
highest were in Germany and France with 81 % and 89%
disapproving. The survey also showed a strong tendency for
women to be more opposed to GM foods than men.
In 2002, Oregon Ballot measures gave voters in that state
one of the first opportunities in the United States to directly
address that issue. The measure, which would have required
the labeling of genetically engineered foods, failed to pass by
a ratio of 7 to 3.
Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf, member of the
German Green Party and vice president of the
Landwirtschaftsausschuss (committee of agriculture) of the
European Commission said on the 1 July 2003: "In America
55% of the consumers are against GM food and 90% in favour
of a clear labeling."
 246 Importance of Agriculture Biotechnology

The European Union and United States are in strong

disagreement over the EU's ban on most genetically modified
foods. The value of agricultural trade between the US and the
European is estimated at $57 billion at the beginning of the
21st Century, and some in the U.S., especially farmers and food
manufacturers, are concerned that the new proposal by the
European Union could be a barrier to much of that trade.
In 1998, the United States exported $63 million worth of
maize to the EU, but the exports decreased to $12.5 million in.
2002.
The drop-off might also be due to falling commodities
prices, less demand due to the recession, U.S. maize being
priced out of foreign markets by a strong dollar, and importing
countries' reaction to the planned invasion of Iraq. Similar
European public opposition to Israeli treatment of Palestinians
. has also affected Israeli food exports. However, American farm
industry advocates blame the EU's ban.
The European Parliament's Committee on the
Environment, Public Health and Food Safety proposal,
adopted in the summer of" 2002 and expected to be
implemented in 2003, has deep cultural roots that are difficult ~
to understand for the US agricultural community. It requires
that all food/feed containing or derived from genetically
modified organisms be labeled and any GM ingredients in
food be traced. It would also require documentation tracing
biotechnological products through each step of the grain
handling and food production processes.
The new European tax, tariff and trade proposal would
particularly affect US maize gluten and soybean exports, as a
high percentage of these crops are genetically modified in the
USA (about 25 percent of US maize and 65 percent of soybeans
are genetically modified in 2002).
The ultimate resolution of this case is widely thought to
rest on labeling rather than food aid. Many European
consumers are asking for food regulation (demanding labels
that identify which food has been genetically modified), while
Importance of Agriculture Biotechnology 247

the American agricultural industry is arguing for free trade

and is strongly opposed to labeling, saying it gives the food a
negative connotation.
Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen's Global Watch
indicates that American agricultural industry is "using trade
agreements to determine domestic health, safety and
environmental rules" because they fear that "by starting to
distinguish which food is genetically modified, then they will
have to distinguish energy standards, toxic standards that are
different to those that European promotes."
The American Agricultural Department officials answer
that since the United States does not require labeling, Europe
should not require labeling either. They claim mandatory
labelling could imply there is something wrong with
genetically modified food, which would be also a trade barrier.
Current U.S. laws do not require GM crops to be labeled or
traced because U.S. regulators do not believe that GM crops
pose any unique risks over conventional food. Europe answers
that the labeling and traceability requirements are not only
limited to GM food, but will apply to any agricultural goods.
The American agricultural industry also complains about the
costs implied by labeling.
The ban over agricultural biotechnology things is said by
some Americans to breach World Trade Organisation rules.
Robert B. Zoellick, the United States trade representative,
indicated the European position toward GMO was thought of
as "immoral" since it could lead to starvation in the
[{developing country/developing world} of wars], as seen in
some famine-threatened African countries (eg, Zambia,
Zimbabwe, and Mozambique) that refuse to accept US aid
because it contains GM food.
Zoellick's critics argue that US concern over Third World
starvation is merely a cover for other issues. Some money for
development aid is used by the American government via the
World Food Programme (WFP) to help their farmers by buying
up overproduction and giving it to the UN organisation. GM-
scepticism interferes with this programme. American farmers
248 Importance of Agriculture Biotechnology

lost marketshare in certain countries after changing to

genetically modified food because of sceptical consumers.
Another European response to the claims of immorality
is that the EU gives 7 times more in development aid than the
US, yet its economy is less than 10% bigger than America's,
and its GDP/head much lower than that of the US.
In May 2003, after initial delay due to the war against Iraq,
the Bush administration officially accused the European Union
of violating international trade agreements, in blocking
imports of U.S. farm products through its long-standing ban
on genetically modified food. Robert Zoellick announced the
filing of a formal complaint with the WTO challenging the
moratorium after months of negotiations trying to get it lifted
voluntarily. The complaint was also filed by Argentina,
Canada, Egypt, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, Chile,
Colombia, EI Salvador, Honduras, Peru, and Uruguay. The
formal WTO case challenging the EU's regulatory system was
in particular lobbied by U.S. biotechnology giants like
Monsanto and Aventis and big agricultural groups such as the
National Corn Growers Association.
EU officials questioned the action, saying it will further
damage trade relations already strained by the U.S. decision
to launch a war against Iraq despite opposition from members
of the U.N. Security Council. The US move was also interpreted
as a sanction against the EU for requesting the end of illegal
tax breaks for exporters or face up to $4 billion in trade
sanctions in retaliation for Washington's failure to change the
tax law, which the WTO ruled illegal four years ago.
Ratification of the Biosafety Protocol
In June 2003, the European Parliament ratified a three-
year-old U.N. biosafety protocol regulating international trade
in genetically modified food, expected to come into force in
fall 2003 since the necessary number of ratification was reached
in May 2003. The protocol lets countries ban imports of a
genetically modified product if they feel there is not enough
scientific evidence the product is safe and requires exporters
Importance of Agriculture Biotechnology 249

to label shipments containing genetically altered commodities

such as corn or cotton. It makes clear that products from new
technologies must be based on the precautionary principle and
allows developing nations to balance public health against
economic benefits.
Jonas Sjoestedt, a Swedish Left member of the ED
assembly, said that "this legislation should help the ED to
counter recent accusations by the D.S administration that the
ED is to blame for the African rejection of GM food aid last
year." The United States did not sign the protocol, saying it
was opposed to labeling and fought import bans.
In 1998, a de facto moratorium led to the suspension of
approvals of new genetically modified organisms (GMO) in
the European Union pending the adoption of revised rules to
govern the approval, marketing and labelling of biotech
products. Imports and cultivation of already approved GM
varieties and food products continued. In July 2003, European
environment ministers and the European Parliament agreed
to new controls on GMOs that could eventually lead the then
15 members bloc to re-open the Union's markets to new
genetically modified products in 2004.
The new labeling and traceability rules, which cover both
food and feed, require any products with a GMO content of
more than 0.9 percent to be labelled. Labelling is also required
for products that have been derived from GMOs, but where
the GM content might no longer be detectable (such as soy oil
produced from genetically modified soy).
The threshold for the presence of unapproved GMOs is
0.5 percent provided that the GMOs have been judged as safe
for human health and the environment by the relevant
Scientific Committees or the European Food Authority. This
amount will be set for 3 years. After 3 years, all food containing
non-authorized GMO will be banned. Animals fed with
transgenic cereals are not covered by the labeling
requirements.
Traceability of GMO products is mandatory, from sowing
to final product. Genetically modified goods will have to carry
250 Importance of Agriculture Biotechnology

a specid harmless DNA sequence (a DNA code bar)

identifying the origin of the crops, making it easier for
regulators to spot contaminated crops, feed, or food, and
enabling products to be withdrawn from the food chain should
problems arise. A series of additional sequences of DNA with
encrypt,ed information about the company or what was done
to the product could also be added to provide more data.
Following the entry into force of the new regulations, the
first genetically modified food product (canned maize) since
1998 was approved for marketing in the European Union in
May 2004. While a number of other biotech products have been
approved since then, approvals remain controversial.
European ministers have continuously failed to reach a
decision in support of or against the applications, highlighting
the big divide among member states. As a result, the approvals '
were granted by the European Commission, which is entitled
to take a decision in case ministers fail to do so.
The U.S. population has historically placed a considerable
degree of trust in the regulatory oversight provided by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture and its agencies. There is little
tradition of people having a close relationship with their food,
with the overwhelming majority of people having bought their
food in supermarkets for years. But the 2003 survey by the
Pew Research Centre showed that even in the U.S., 55% see
GM food as "bad" food.
In Europe, and particularly in the UK, there is less trust
of regulatory oversight of the food chain. In many parts of
Europe, a larger measure of food is produced by small, local
growers using traditional (non-intensive & organic) methods.
Arpad Pusztai, considered by many to be the leading
expert on GM foods, was silenced with threats of a lawsuit
after he unexpectedly discovered that rats fed an experimental
GM food developed immune system damage and other serious
health problems in just ten days. Pusztai later reviewed an
industry-sponsored study and found that seven of forty rats
fed a GM crop died within two weeks; others developed
stomach lesions. The crop was approved without further tests.
Importance of Agriculture Biotechnology 251

In May, when the U.S. filed a challenge with the World

Trade Organization (WTO) disputing Europe's GM food
policy, Trade Representative Robert Zoellick stated,
"Overwhelming scientific research shows that biotech foods
are safe and healthy." According to Andrew Kimbrell, director
of the Centre for Food Safety, "The evidence in the book Seeds
of Deception refutes U.S. \ science and safety claims, and
undermines the basis of their WTO challenge."
Kimbrell says, "Author Jeffrey M. Smith's book also
presents a compelling argument that nations may use to ban
GM foods altogether." Countries gained the right to impose
such a ban on September 11, three months after the UN
biosafety protocol was signed by 50 nations. "The revelations
in the book," says Kimbrell, "are being made public at a pivotal
time in the global GM debate, and could tip the scales against
the biotech industry."
The World Trade Organization has made a preliminary
ruling that European Union restrictions on genetically
engineered crops violate international trade rules. The United
States, Canada, and Argentina together grow 80 percent of all
biotech crops sold commercially, by which the EU regulates
such crops. The countries argued that the EU's regulatory
process was far too slow and its standards were unreasonable
given that the overwhelming body of scientific evidence finds
the crops safe.
Future of Agriculture Biotechnology

COMES OF AGE
Transgenic crop plants - those with a genetic trait
introduced by a molecular technique - have begun to make
the journey from laboratory to field. Tomatoes with improved
quality traits such as longer shelf-life, oil-seed rapes that are
more tolerant of herbicides, and virus-resistant potatoes are
only three examples of the many innovations that will soon
appear in commercial farming. The likely extent of
commercialisation will be vast; the economic consequences will
also be enormous. But can one be sure that these plants will
be as safe in an open environment as their traditional
counterparts? Over the last several years, the advance of plant
biotechnology towards commercialisation has speeded up at
a remarkable rate.
More than 1,180 small-scale field trials with transgenic
plants were conducted in the OEeD area between 1986 and
1992; the number of trials has nearly doubled each year. The
aim of researchers in these trials is to assess, in an open
environment, the performance (virus resistance, for example)
and environmental behaviour (say, the distance to which
pollen spreads) of transgenic plants which have been
developed in laboratories and tested in greenhouses. The trials
involved around 30 different kinds of crops.
Oilseed rape, potato, maize, soybean, tobacco, cotton and
tomato are the: most commonly used 'hosts' (crop plants into
Future of Agriculture Biotechnology 253

which a gene is inserted), and account for more than 80% of

the total trials. The traits most commonly tested are resistance
to herbicides, viruses and insects, and quality traits. Herbicide
resistance alone accounts for 40% of the total number of traits
tested. The trials were conducted mainly in the United States,
Canada, the United Kingdom, France, India and Belgium,
which accounted for 95% of the total in the area.
Because of differing, national circumstances, biosafety
issues can vary, for valid scientific reasons. In the United States,
for example, the major crop plants - maize, soybean, wheat
and cotton - have virtually no wild relatives, which would
make the issue of 'outcrossing' (uncontrolled interbreeding
between domesticated and wild species) unimportant for these
crops. For Norway, by contrast, with strong economic
dependence on native trees, it would be important to ensure
that introduction of traits into related species of tree does not
adversely influence the long-term reliability of this natural
resource.
In commercial production, which is imminent and will be
on a huge scale, crop plants will be grown in a completely open
environment. But small-scale trials are limited in their ability
to predict certain kinds of events that may arise in large-scale
cultivation in the open. For example, a small-scale trial may
not Seizo Sumida works in the "Biotechnology Unit of the
Science and Technology Policy Division of the OECO
Directorate for Science".
BIOTECHNOLOGY SAFETY
It was the introduction of new molecular techniques in
the early 1970s that initiated the discussion on safety in
biotechnology. The 1986 OECD report on the safety
considerations of recombinant DNA was one of the first
international scientific frameworks for the safe use of
organisms derived from the technique in industry, agriculture
and the environment, and the OECD countries adopted the
scientific principles into their regulatory systems.
In the light of rapid accumulation of experience and
knowledge in the field, the OECD resumed its safety work in
254 Future of Agriculture Biotechnology

April 1988 to update and extend the particular principles set

out in the earlier report. The result was a set of developmental
principles for small-scale field trials of genetically modified
organisms, published in 1992. The OEeD further initiated, in
1991, similar activities on large-scale field trials, completing
its work on transgenic plants in early 1993.
The work produced three reports: safety considerations
for large-scale trials of crop plants, analysis of small-scale field
trials and a historical review of crop breeding practices,
published this autumn.
Large-scale trials, conducted, for example, over a wider
geographical area, may be the only means of obtaining the data
to answer the questions of plant safety. In order to tackle these
issues, the OEeD has developed a new set of scientific
principles for the environmental safety of the 'scale-up' of crop
plants. These principles are intended as guidelines primarily
for the regulatory agencies, scientists and industries
responsible for the authorisation of the environmental release
of crop plants in OEeD countries. (The system for
authorisation varies considerably from country to country.)
Under these guidelines, a transgenic plant under
consideration is first examined by the relevant authorities for
'safety issues'. A 'safety issue' is some property of a plant (say,
the possibility of gene transfer to a wild relative by out
crossing, the possibility that the plant becomes a weed, and
so on) which mayor may not give rise to an adverse effect in
the environment. When such a factor is directly identified in 3.
given environment, it gives rise to a 'safety concern'.
For example, out crossing between herbicide-resistant
transgenic sunflower and its wild relative could be a 'safety
concern' in some areas of the United States. The identification
of such a concern indicates where the analysis should then
focus, and what form risk management should take. Standard
agronomic practices in crop cultivation may form part of risk-
management, because crops are so domesticated that they
usually cannot compete with wild plants outside the plot or
field. Maize, for example, cannot survive without human help
(that is, it cannot 'escape' from the cultivated field).
rurure of Agriculture Biotechnology 255

The knowledge and experience gained with crop plants

developed by traditional breeding methods are essential to
address the issues of environmental safety. This kind of
experience can guide risk/safety analysis, applying risk-
management ,and indicating where more information is
required, and the more that is known about a given plant, its
traits, its environment and their likely interactions, the easier
risk/safety-analysis and risk-management become.
In the small-scale field trials, there have so far been no
surprises in the behaviour of the transgenic plants, in relation
to what might be predicted from the crop host and the genetic
trait. At the moment large-scale field trials have yet to be
conducted. The OECD will be providing guidance to the
agencies and others involved in authorising or carrying out
these large-scale trials.
There is a substantial difference in the views on safety
assurance between the European Community countries and
the US and Japanese governments. Directives issued by the
EC authorities have insisted that all transgenic organisms be
regulated. The US and Japanese governments emphasise that
the issue, rather, is whether ~he final products offer a risk,
regardless of how the organism was modified. This difference
in approach was evident when the OECD work on large-scale
releases of transgenic crop plants started in 1991. But, after a
couple of years of intense discussion, all the OECD countries
have reached consensus at least on the scientific principles
underlying the safety of the large-scale releases.
The transgenic organisms are now held to present rish
that are of the same basic sort as those posed by any other
organism. This agreement reflects changing scientific,
technological and economic circumstallces. OECD
governments have recognised that experience of transgenic
plants has been accumulating rapidly, that evolution of
modern biotechnology is dynamic and fast, and that they have
to adapt their positions according to new circumstances if they
are to maintain the basis for further development of their
256 Future of Agriculture Biotechnology

agricultural and food sectors. This trend will also facilitate

international R&D co-operation, investment and trade.
The possibilities of plant biotechnology are enormous. The
regeneration of a whole plant from a piece of cellular tissue is
now common. The insertion of a new gene into a plant by
molecular techniques is possible in many species. What is
more, technical evolution is extraordinarily swift, which means
that safety issues will have to be revisited, and scientific
principles updated, as knowledge and experience in large-scale
field releases accumulate.
A Nitrogen Fix
Some plants can find their own fertilizer, but com isn't
one of them. It can cost farmers $40 per acre to fertilize a
cornfield. Wisconsin scientists went looking for bacteria that
live in com and can capture nitrogen from the air. Greenhouse
experiments narrowed the field to seven strains, and field tests
showed the bacteria improved com yields up to 10 percent.
Several companies are interested in licensing the technology,
which could result in seed com coated with growth-promoting
bacteria and reduced nitrogen runoff into streams and rivers.
Florida researchers found a gene in pond algae that helps
the microscopic plants compete better for nitrogen. They then
worked with a biotech company to create a transgenic wheat
plant that produced significantly more grain than conventional
wheat for the same amount of fertilizer.
Booster Shots
Despite some natural resistance, barley is a pushover for
stem rust. Minnesota scientists genetically enhanced that
resistance, the first time a gene for rust resistance has been
isolated from a small-grain cereal crop. Not only is this
genetically engineered resistance better than the original barley
plant, scientists think it also may work in wheat. Fire blight, a
bacterial disease in apple trees, annually costs growers more
than $100 million. It can be treated only with the antibiotic
streptomycin, but not for long - some bacteria already are
resistant. Cornell researchers are using biotechnology to
Future of Agriculture Biotechnology 257

enhance the tree's existing genes to help it fight fire blight,

greatly reducing tree death.
Health Benefits
Breast cancer-fighting taxol <;>nce was available only from .
slow-growing Pacific yew trees, and efforts to manufacture the
compound have been problem-ridden. Washington State
scientists have tracked the biological pathway the tree follows
to produce the drug and have identified about half the genes
involved. Once the work is complete they hope to be able to
produce more taxol at lower cost and investigate new taxol
derivatives with greater potency and fewer side effects.
Georgia researchers used enzyme biotechnology to attach
beneficial fatty acids to conventional fats and oils, the least
recommended part of the food pyramid. Labouratory trials
with mice showed the designer fats lowered cholesterol and
bolstered immune system cells, an encouraging outcome for
people with AIDS and for other immuno-suppressed people.
Hot Chocolate
Chocolate manufacturers in Pennsylvania have the milk
they need to support their $5 billion retail industry, but
imported cocoa is hard to come by, with 40 percent of the crop
lost to insects and disease each year. Pesticides help but they're
expensive and nobody wants them near the rain forests where
most cocoa is grown. Traditional plant breeding for resistance
is slow and uncertain. Starting with plants endowed with
superior flowers and pest resistance, Penn State researchers
cloned individual cells and grew them into full-size cocoa
plants.
It's now possible to clone as many as 4,000 plants from
just one flower, and the university has worked with scientists
in seven cocoa-producing countries to make sure they're
comfortable with the technology.
The $45 million Texas citrus industry is at risk from two
highly infectious plant diseases that have caused widespread
damage around the world. Texas A&M scientists have moved
258 Future of Agriculture Biotechnology

genes into Red Rio grapefruit that helps protect the trees
against citrus tristeza virus, brown aphids and citrus canker,
a bacterial disease. The genetic protection comes from a vaccine
derived from the original virus, an insect destroying protein
from a lily commonly found in the northeastern United States
and a milk gene that battles bacteria.
Advancing animal well-being may get some help from
research that identifies the genetic basis for aggressive
behaviour. Purdue researchers showed that breeding swine
and poultry to cooperate rather than compete can improve
productivity and decrease mortality. An experimental line of
quail bred to behave had 25 percent better feed efficiency. In
pigs, 20 percent more growth for the same amount of feed
could increase net incomes by $2 billion.
Veterinary medicine and animal disease diagnosis have
improved thanks to new genetic technologies that speed
vaccine and diagnostic tool development. Tennessee
researchers devised several antibodies that detect a substance
called antigen 85 in cows infected with Johne's disease, one of
the top three diseases in beef and dairy cattle and resp<:msible
for $250 million annual economic losses.
They hope Ag85 helps them
develop a vaccine and a better
diagnostic kit. Scientists at the
Virginia-Maryland Regional College
of Veterinary Medicine developed a
livestock vaccine against brucellosis,
a disease that affects both animals and
humans. The U.S. Army has asked re-
searchers to develop a human vaccine
as well. These tools would become
even more critical in the event of a Fig. Tritrichomonas
bioterrorism incident. foetus
Basic genetic research helped Nevada animal scientist!>
develop a vaccine for Tritrichomonas foetus, a parasite that
causes a reproductive disease in cattle. The vaccine is the only
pretreatment available for the disease and may save Nevada
Future of Agriculture Biotechnology 259

cattle ranchers $950,000 per year. Western U.S. cattle producers

also are looking forward to another Nevada project that will
detect epizootic bovine abortion, a tick-borne disease that
causes cows to lose their unborn calves at six to nine months.
The test is quicker, better and cheaper and may lead to new
treatments. Officials estimate this disease may kill up to 90,000
calves annually in California alone.
The late sixties and seventies witnessed Indian plant
breeders taking giant $trides in enhancing wheat and rice
productivity, transforming India from an importing nation to
one exporting food grains. More recently rate of gain in
productivity seems to have plateaued. There were times when
breeders looked at the emerging fields of mutation breeding
and tissue culture with awe and expectations. The iilusion is
over and we are witness to the real picture. These have
occupied their place in the history of development of science
and/or as an adjunct to the major field, the discipline nuclear
to crop science research, i.e. plant breeding.
Indian plant biotechnology has come of age accomplishing
research projects of national and international importance, e.g.
rice genome sequencing project. Plant Biotechnology (PB)
offers two major options to plant breeders. Marker- assisted
selection (MAS) offers to make selection for desirable
segregants precise and expression independent 1. The
question, however, which traits and who will do it, remains
unattended. The molecular biologists who have so far been
experimenting with it are alienated from those who will
ultimately be practising MAS. The moment science of MAS
for a trait of importance is perfect enough to be- come a
technology, the same needs to be transferred to the end users,
the plant breeders in this case.
The interesting aspect of plant biotechnology outputs is
that they need to pass through plant breeders before they reach
the final consumers. Molecular biologists who tag a trait, need
to be encouraged to convert it into a technology for use by
breeders. Research managers can playa role to en- sure that
funds invested in these scientific endeavours lead to usable
260 Future of AgricultJlre Biotechnologtj

technology and. the same is passed on to breeders to cut down

the enormous costs involved in the elabourate plant breeding
operations. The next logical question is to decide which traits
to tag? The obvious answer is those which breeders f~nd
difficult to select for. Transgenic technology is the other major
important intervention that PB offers.
This tool has immense potential and the same is evident
from the fact that currently over 130 million acres are planted
under transgenic crops the world over. The global market
value of biotech crops, which stood at 3.8 billion US dollars in
1998, is slated to rise to five billion US dollars by 2005.
India has also benefited from this technology by adopting
boll worm-resistant transgenic cotton. This is one field, which
needs to be strengthened by investing human and financial
resources in the form of groups dedicated to specific trait and
crop. Development of technology needs to be regarded as an
equally important contribution as publication. Only such an
approach will encourage researchers to be focused and
dedicated to the product development rather than just the
publication, which in turn will make PB more relevant and
responsive to the society's needs.
Biotechnology has transformed many parts of the
chemical industry, agriculture, and medicine. This area of
science has little demarcation between basic and applied
research, and new discoveries and innovations, in most cases,
can find direct application. Innovations, techniques, and tools
that have emerged and revolutionized modern biotechnology
include genetic engineering, cell fusion technology, bioprocess
technologies, and structure-based molecular designs including
drug development, drug targeting, and drug delivery systems.
In the 1980s the Government of India considered the need
for creating a separate institutional framework to strengthen
biology and biotechnology research in the country. Scientific
agencies supporting research in modern biology included:
Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), Indian
Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), Indian Council of
Medical Research (ICMR), Department of Science and
Future of Agriculture Biotechnology 261

Technology, and University Grants Commission.

Biotechnology was given an important boost in 1982 with the
establishment of the National Biotechnology Board. Its
priorities were human resource development, creation of
infrastructure facilities, and supporting research and
development (R&D) in specific areas.
The success and impact of the National Biotechnology
Board prompted the Government to establish a separate
Department of Biotechnology (DBT) in February 1986. There
have been major accomplishments in areas of basic research
in agriculture, health, environment, human resource
development, industry, safety, and ethical issues.
Basic Research
Basic research is essential on all aspects of mod- ern
biology including development of the tools to identify, isolate,
and manipulate the individual genes that govern the specific
characters in plants, animals, and microorganisms.
Recombinant DNA .(rDNA) technology is the basis for these
new developments. The creativity of the scientists and the basic
curiosity-driven research will be the keys to future success.
India led through the work of G.N. Ramachandran, in which
he elucidated the triple helical structure of collagen. The
Ramachandran plot has prov,en to be fundamental in solving
the protein structure. Areas of biosystematics using molecular
approaches, mathematical modeling, and genetics including
genome sequencing for human beings, animals, and plants,
will continu~ to have priority as we move into the next century.
The tremendous impact of genome sequencing is
increasingly evident in many fields. As an increasing number
of new genes are discovered, short, unique, expressed
sequenced tags segments are used as signatures for gene
identification. The power of high throughput sequencing,
together with rapidly accumulating sequenced data, is opening
new avenues in biosciences.
In the plant genome area, the sequencing of Arabidopsis
and rice genome will soon be completed and cataloging and
262 Future C!f Agriculture Biotechnology

mapping of all the genes will be done. There have been major
achievements in basic bioscience in the last decade or so in
India, where we have expertise in practically all areas of
modem biology. The institutions under the CSIR, ICMR, ICAR,
DST, and DBT have established a large number of facilities
where most advanced research work in biosciences is being
done. In the identification of new genes, development of new
drug delivery systems, diagnostics, recombinant vaccines,
computational biology, and many other related areas,
considerable success has been achieved.
Breakthroughs include studies on the three-dimensional
structure of a novel amino acid, a long protein of mosquito
(University of Poona), and demonstration of the potential of
the reconstituted Sendai viral envelops containing only the F
protein of the virus, as an efficient and site-specific vehicle for
the delivery of reporter genes into hepatocytes (Delhi
University).
Agriculture and Allied Areas
The post Green Revolution era is almost merging with the
gene revolution for improving crop productivity and quality.
The exploitation of heterosis vigour and development of new
hybrids including apomixis, genes for abiotic and biotic
resistance, and developing planting material with desirable
traits and genetic enhancement of all important crops will
dominate the research agenda in the next century. Integrated
nutrient management and development of new biofertilizers
and biopesticides would be important from the view- point
of sustainable agriculture, soil fertility, and a clean
environment.
Stress biology, marker-assisted breeding programmes,
and studying the important genes will continue as priori- ties.
We will have to switch to organic farming practices, with
greater use of biological software on a large scale.
In India we have achieved the cloning and sequencing of
at least six genes, developed regeneration protocols for citrus,
coffee, mangrove species, and new types of biofertilizer and
Future of Agriculture Biotechnology 263

biopesticide formulations, including mycorrhizal fertilizers.

Research to develop new genetically improved (transgenic)
plants for brassicas, mung bean, cotton, and potato is well
advanced. Indus- tries have also shown a keen interest in the
options of biotechnology and are participating in field trials
and pilot level productions.
The successful tissue culture pilot plants in the country,
one at TERI in New Delhi and the other at NCL in Pune are
now functioning as Micropropagation Technology Parks. This
has given a new direction to the plant tissue culture industry.
The micropropagation parks serve as a platform for effective
transfer of technology to entrepreneurs, including training and
the demonstration of technology for mass multiplication of
horticulture and trees. Considerable progress has been made
with cardamom and vanilla, both important crops.
Yield of cardamom has increased 40 percent using tissue-
cultured plants. Between 1996 and 1998, in just eight countries,
the area covered by new genetically improved transgenic
plants (from 16.8 to 27.8 million hectares). Some of the main
crops grown are soybean, corn, canola, cotton, and potato. The
United States, Argentina, Brazil, and China have moved ahead
quickly. The new plants exhibited herbicide, insect, and viral
resistance, and over- all improvement in product quality.
While the Green Revolution gave us self-reliance in food, the
livestock population has pro- vided a "Whi~e Revolution,"
with 80 percent of the milk in India coming from small and
marginal farms. This has had a major social impact.
A diverse infrastructure has been established to help
farmers in the application of embryo transfer technology. The
world's first IVF buffalo calf (PRATHAM) was born through
embryo transfer technology at the National Dairy Research
Institute, Kamal. Multiple ovulation and embryo transfer, in
vitro embryo production, embryo sexing, vaccines and
diagnostic kits for animal health have also been developed.
Waste recycling technologies that are cost effective and
environmentally safe, are being generated. The animal science
area is also opening up many avenues for employment
generation.
264 Future of Agriculture Biotechnology

With a coastline of more than 8,000 kilometers, and two

island territories of Andaman and Nicobar and Lakshadweep,
there is great potential for marine resource development and
aqua- culture. To achieve an annual target production of 10
million metric tons of fish, scientific aquaculture offers great
possibilities. In fact, aquaculture products are among the
fastest moving commodities in the world. We have to
continuously improve seed production, feed, health products,
cryopreservation, genetic studies, and related environmental
factors. This is an area which will help substantially in the
diversification of the breadbasket, and in combating nutritional
deficiency.
Food Security
Food security is another area in which biotechnology
offers major inputs for healthier and more nutritious food.
Millions of people are malnourished, and Vitamin A deficiency
affects 40 mil-lion children. There are also serious deficiencies
of iodine, iron, and other nutrients. A recent UNICEF report
on food and nutrition deficiencies in children describes this
as a silent, invisible emergency with no outward sign of a
II

problem." Every year over 6 million children under the age of

5 die worldwide. About 2.7 mil- lion of these children die in
India. More than half of these deaths result from inadequate
nutrition. With the advent of gene transfer technology and its
use in crops, we hope to achieve higher productivity and better
quality, including improved nutrition and storage properties.
We also hope to ensure adaptation of plants to specific
environmental conditions, to increase plant tolerance to stress
conditions, to increase pest and disease resistance, and to
achieve higher prices in the marketplace. Genetically improved
foods will have to be developed under adequate regulatory
processes, with full public understanding. We should ensure
the safety and proper labeling of the genetically improved
foods, so consumers will have a choice.
It is scientifically well established that an environmentally
benign way of ensuring food security is through
bioengineering of crops. For the 4.6 billion people in
Future of Agriculture Biotechnology 265

developing countries, one billion do not get enough to eat and

live in poverty. Is there any other st:dtegy or alternative?
Biotechnology will provide the new tools to breeders to
enhance plant capacity. Since we know that 12 percent of the
world land is under agricultural crops, it is projected that the
per capita availability may be reduced from 2.06 hectares to
0.15 hectare by 2050.
Plant Biotechnology
With more than 47,000 species of plants and two hot-spots
of biodiversity, 8 percent of the total biodiversity of the earth
is available in the Indian subcontinent. The bioresource and
biodiversity constitute the mainstay of the economy of the poor
people, and special emphasis is required for plant
biotechnology research. Isolation of genes for abundant
proteins, combining molecular genetics and chromosome
maps, and a much better understanding of the evolutionary
relationship of the members of the plant kingdom, have led
to the potential of plant species being the major source of food,
feed, fiber, medicine, and industrial raw material.
Molecular fingerprinting and areas of genomics and
proteonics will penetrate the barriers of fertilization to allow
transfer of important characters from one plant to another. By
identifying appropriate determinants of male sterility, we can
extend the benefit of hybrid seeds to more crops. We must hel}.>
the farmer by ensuring hybrid vigour generation after
generation. Additional research on apomixis would open up
such possibilities.
We have set up a National Plant Genome Re- search
Centre at Jawaharlal Nehru University. A number of centers
for plant molecular biology in different parts of the country
were initially responsible for training significant numbers in
crop biotechnology. There are innumerable possibilities of
producing more proteins, vitamins, pharmaceuticab, coloring
material, bioreactors, production of edible vaccines,
therapeutic anti- bodies and drugs. Promising leads are
available in these areas, and a number of genetically improved
crops are ready for field trials of transgenic plants. Work on
266 Future of Agriculture BlOtechnologtj

developing transgenic cotton, brassica, mung bean, and potato

has significantly advanced.
Environment
A special area of global concern amongst the scientific
community i~ environmental protection and conservation, and
the need for a policy of sustainable development in harmony
with the environment. The Stockholm Conference in 1972, and
the UNCED Conference in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, both focused
world attention on areas of pollUtion, biodiversity
conservation, and sustain- able development. Plants and
microbes are becoming important factors in pollution control.
World Bank estimates show that pollution in India is costing
almost US$80 billion, as well as the human cost in terms of
sickness and death.
New developments such as bioindicators,
phytoremediation methods, bioleaching, development of
biosensors, and identification and isolation of microbial
consortia are priority research areas. Significant work has been
done in India, but developing a more biologically oriented
approach towards pollution control would be extremely
important. Cleaning up the large river systems and ensuring
the destruction of pesticide residue in large slums in the city
are priorities in which a biotechnological approach would be
environmentally safe.
Phytoremediation to remove the high levels of explosives
found in the soil has become a reality. Although it was known
that some microbes can denitrify the nitrate explosives in the
laboratory, they could not thrive on site. French and others
have transferred this degradative ability from the microbe to
tobacco plants, and these have produced a microbial enzyme
capable of removing the nitrates.
Biodiversity
The global biosphere can survive only if resource
utilization is about 1 percent and not 10 percent. The global
environment is regulated by climate changes and biosphere
dynamics. Knowledge about biodiversity accumulated in the
Future of Agriculture Biotechnology 267

last 250 years is being used by scientists throughout the world.

There are many gen~ banks, botanical gar- d~ns, and herbaria
for conservation purposes. There are also molecular
approaches including DNA fingerprinting for plant
conservation. The totality of gene species and ecosystems has
become exceedingly important, not only to under- stand the
global environment but also from the viewpoint of the
enormous commercial significance of the biodiversity.
Biotechnology is becoming a major tool in conservation
biology. Twelve percent of the vascular plants are threatened
with extinction. Over 5,000 animal species are threatened
worldwide, including 563 Indian species. India also has about
2000 species of vascular plants that are threatened. Biodiversity
is under threat, and understanding the scale of this destruction
and extinction is essential. Questions such as who owns the
biodiversity, who should benefit from it, and what is the role
of society and the individual are pertinent. There is a Kashmiri
proverb that says: We have not inherited the 'World from our
forefathers, 'We have borrowed it from our children.
More research is needed on forests, marine re- sources,
bioremediation methods, restoration ecology, and large-scale
tree plantations. The last has reached 1 dO million hectares and
may increase substantially in the next decade. Marin~
resources provide many goods and benefits including
bioactive materials, drugs, and food items and must be
characterized and conserved.
Medical Biotechnology
X major responsibi!ity of biotechnobgists in the 21st
century will be to develop low-cost, afford- able, efficient, and
easily accessed health care systems. Advances in molecular
biology, immunology, reproductive medicine, genetics, and
genetic engineering have revolutionized our understanding of
health and diseases and may lead to an era of predictive
medicine. Genetic engineering promises to treat a number of
mono- genetic disorders, and unravel the mystery of
polygene tic disorders, with the help of research on genetically
improved animals.
268 Future of Agriculture Biotechnology
Globally, there are about 35-40 biotechnology-derived
therapeutics and vaccines in use and more than 500 drugs and
vaccines in different stages of clinical trials. Every year about
12 million people die of infectious diseases. The main killers
according to WHO are acute respiratory infection, diarrhoea
diseases, tuberculosis, malaria, hepatitis, and HIV-AIDS. There
are vaccines being developed for many diseases, and
diagnostic kits for HIV, pregnancy detection, and hepatitis are
being developed. The technologies have been transferred to
industry.
The Department of Biotechnology has developed
guidelines for clinical trials for recombinant products, which
have now been accepted by the Health Ministry and circulated
widely to industry. Promising leads now exist to develop
vaccines for rabies, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, cholera, JEV,
and other diseases. Recombinant hepatitis B vaccine and
LEPROVAC are already on the market.
There is a Jai Vigyan technology mission on the
development of vaccines and diagnostics. A National Brain
Research Centre is being established to improve knowledge
of the human brain and the brain diseases. The discovery of
new drugs and the development of the drug delivery system
are increasingly important. Bioprospecting for important
molecules and genes for new drugs has begun as a multi-
institutional effort. A recombinant vaccine for BCG and
hepatitis is being developed. The age-old system of Ayurveda
practiced in India needs to be popularized and made an
integral part of health care. The global market for herbal
products may be around US$5 trillion by 2050.
Industrial Biotechnology
Advances in biotechnology can be converted into
products, processes, and technologies by creating an
interdisciplinary team. The pharmaceutical sector has had a
major impact in this field, as rare therapeutic molecules in the
pure form be- come available. Diagnostics have expanded,
with over 600 biotechnology-based diagnostics (valued at
about US$20 billion worldwide) now avail- able in clinical
Future of Agriculture Biotechnology 269

practice. The polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based

diagnostics are the most common.
Indian efforts in the diagnostic area have been
commendable, and it is expected that sales will rise from about
U5$235 million to U5$470 million in the next century. The
consumption of biotechnology products is expected to increase
from U5$6.4 billion to about U5$13 billion by 2000. Industrial
enzymes have emerged as a major vehicle for improving
product quality.
In India a number of groups are gearing up to produce
industrial enzymes such as alpha-amylose, proteases, and
lipases, increasing three-fold by the end of the century, which
will match or surpass the computer industry in size,
importance, and growth. India is now producing 13 antibiotics
by fermentation. Capacity exists to produce important vaccines
such as DPT, BCG, JEV, cholera, and typhoid. Cell culture
vaccines such as MMR and rabies, and hepatitis-B, have also
been introduced
Bioinformatics
The coming together of biotechnology and informatics is
paying rich dividends. Genome projects, drug design, and
molecular taxonomy are all becoming increasingly dependent
on in- formation technology. Information on nucleotides and
protein sequences is accumulating rapidly. The number of
genes characterized from a variety of organisms and the
number of evolved protein structures are doubling every two
years.
DBT has established a national Bioinformatics Net- work
with ten Distributed Information Centres (DICs) and 35 sub-
DICs. AJai Vigyan Mission on establishment of genomic
databases has been started, with a number of graphic facilities
created throughout the country. This system has helped
scientists involved in biotechnology re- search.
Ethical and Biosafety Issues
The bioethics committee of UNE5CO established in 1993
has evolved guidelines for ethical issues associated with the
270 Future of Agriculture Biotechllology

'lse of modern biotechnol0gy. Biosafety guidelines for

genetically improved organisms (GIOs) need to be strictly
followed to prevent harm to human health or the environment.
A three-tier mechanism of Institutional Biosafety Committees
has been instituted in India: the Review Committee on Genetic
Manipulation, the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee,
and the state level coordination committees.
It is important to give a clear explanation of the new
biotechnologies to the public to allay their fears. New models
of cooperation and partnership have to be established to ensure
close linkages among research scientists, extension workers,
industry, the farming community, and consumers.
Gene transformation is done worldwide with four broad
objectives:
1. To develop products with new characteristics;
2. To develop pest and disease resistance;
3. To improve nutritional value;
4. To modify fruit ripening to obtain longer shelf life.
Thus the aims and objectives are laudable and the tools
are available. The new technology does, however, call
for a cautious approach following appropriate
biosafety guide- lines. About 25,000 field trials of
genetically modifed crops have been conducted
worldwide. The anticipated benefits are better planting
material, savings on inputs, and genes of different
varieties can be introduced in the gene pool of crop
species for their improvement. The potential risks
include weediness, transgene flow to nontarget plants,
and the possibility of new viruses developing with
wider host range and their effects on unprotected
species. For crops such as corn and cotton with single
gene introductions, there is very little problem
expected. When multiple genes are involved scientists
have to be more cautious. The time has arrived for a
serious look at ethical and biosafety aspects of
biotechnology. Re- searchers, policymakers, NGOs,
progressive farmers, industrialists, government
Future of Agriculture Biotechnology 271

representatives, and all concerned players need to

come together and share a platform to address the
following issues.
• Environmental safety
• Food and nutrition security
• Social and economic benefits
• Ethical and moral issues
• Regulatory issues.
Human Resource Development
There are about 50 approved MS, postdoctoral, and MD
training programmes in biotechnology in progress or just
about to start, in different institutions and universities covering
most Indian States. Short-term training programmes,
technician training courses, fellowships for students to go
abroad, training courses in Indian institutions, popular lecture
series, awards, and incentives form an integral part of the
human resource development activities in India.
A special feature of the programme has been that since
1996 many students after completion of their training course
join ind ustries or work in biotechnology-based pro- grams in
institutions and laboratories. National Bioscience Career
Development Awards have been instituted. Special awards for
women scientists and scholarships to the best students in
biology help promote biotechnology in India and give
recognition ana reward to the scientists.
Some Special Programmes
Biotechnology-based activities to benefit the poor and
weaker sections and programmes for women have been
launched. A unique feature is the establishment of a
Biotechnology Golden Jubilee Park for Women which will
encourage a number of women entrepreneurs to take up
biotechnology enterprises that benefit women in particular.
This will also encourage women biotechnologists to
develop relevant technologies. States are taking a keen interest
in developing biotechnology-based activities. The States of
272 Future of Agriculture Biotechnology

Uttar Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Kerala,

West Bengal, Jammu and Kashmir, Haryana, Mizoram, Punjab,
Gujarat, Meghalaya, Sikkim and Bihar have already started
large-scale .demonstration activities and training programmes.
Investment Required
The Indian Government has made substantial investments
in biotechnology research. Bringing Indian biotechnology
products to market will require the involvement of large and
small enq-epreneurs and business houses. This will require
substantial investments from Indian and overseas investors.
The worldwide trend is that large companies are becoming
major players in development of biotechnology products, and
also in supporting product-related biotechnology re- search.
Expectations
In the years ahead, biotechnology R&D should produce a
large number of new genetically improved plant varieties in
India, including cotton, rice, brassicas, pigeon pea, mung bean,
and wheat. Tissue culture regeneration protocols for important
species such as mango, saffron, citrus, and neem will lead to
major commercial activities. Micropropagation technology will
provide high-quality planting materials to farmers.
Environment-friendly biocontrol agents and biofertilizer
packages 'will hopefully be made available to farmers in such
a way that they can produce these in their own fields.
The country should be in a position to fully utilize, on a
sustainable basis, medicinal and aromatic plants. The
development through molecular biology of new diagnostic kits
and vaccines for major diseases would make the health care
system more efficient and cheaper. Genetic counselling clinics,
molecular probes, and fingerprinting techniques should all be
used to solve the genetic disorders in the population.
The establishment of ex situ gene banks to conserve
valuable germplasm and diversity, and a large number of
repositories, referral centers for animals, plants, and
microorganisms should be possible. Detailed genetic readouts
of individuals could be available. Information technology and
Future of Agriculture Biotechnology 273

biotechnology together should become a major economic force.

It is expected that plants as bioreactors would be able to
produce large numbers of proteins of therapeutic value, and
many other important items. The recent discovery of the gene
for recalcitrant species was a land- mark event. In vitro mass
propagation can be carried out on any desired species with
nonrandom programming. Certainly the 21st century could
witness a major increase in new bioproducts generated
through modem biology.
To achieve the goal of self-reliance in this field, India will
require a strong educational and scientific base, clear public
understanding of the value of new biotechnologies, and
involvement of society in many of these biological ventures.
India has a large research and educational infra- structure
comprising 29 agriculture universities, 204 central and state
universities, and more than 500 national laboratories and
research institutions. It should therefore be possible to develop
capabilities and programmes so that these institutions act as
regional hubs for the farming community, where they can get
direct feedback about new technological interventions. It will
be equally important to establish strong partnerships and
linkages with industry, from the time a research lead has
emerged until the packaging of the technology and
commercializatIon are achieved.
Arther Kornberg, Nobel Laureate, stated: "Much has been
said about the future impact of biotechnology on industrial
development, but this does not yet apply to the less developed
countries that lack this infrastructure and industrial strength.
In view of the current power of biotechnology and its even
brighter future, there is no question that the less developed
countries must now position and strengthen their status in
biotechnology."
Kornberg further stressed that:"What a tragedy it would
be if these enlarged concepts of genetics, biology and chemistry
were available only to a small fraction of the world population
located in a few major centres of highly developed countries."
 Index

A Biologists 43,50, 71, 93, 99, 105,

230,259
Agracetus 134 Biosensors 266
Agriculture 3, 4, 33, 39, 45, 47, Biotechnology 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
54, 58, 59, 61, 63, 64, 65, 69, 8,9,28,30,31,32,33,34,35,
75,83,85, 120, 125, 126, 127, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42,43,
128, 129, 132, 135, 136, 139, 44, 46, 47, 48, 51, 52, 53, !is,
140,148,149,150,151,153,
56,57,58,65,,66,67,71,72,
154, 156, 158, 162, 163, 164,
80, 81, 86, 88, 89, 91, 92, 94,
167, 169, 171, 172, 173, 174,
119, 120, 123, 124, 126, 128,
175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180,
181,182, 185, 188, 190, 191, 131,139, 140, 142, 143, 162,
192,193, 194, 197, 199,200, 163, 164, 166, 167, 168, 169,
201,205,212,216,222,230, 170,171,172,173,174,180,
233,234,245,253,260,261, 202,214,215,216,217,218,
262,273 219,220,234,247,248,252,
Altered harvest 163,172 253, 255, 256, 257, 259, 260,
Ames test 90 263, 264, 265, 268, 269, 270,
Antibiotics 8,10,16,87,148,227, ?71, 272, 273
269
Applied genetics 86 c
Asilomar cO.Qference 164 California 104,105,152,165,259
Civilization 177, 222
B Commercial biotechnology 55
Bacillus thuringiensis 137, 204, Commercialization 52, 55, 182,
227,232,233 273
Bacteria 10, 11, 13,28,31,91, 92, Controversy 48, 49, 54, 69, 92,
101, 103, 164, 165, 167, 195, 105,108, 161, 162,172,208,
204, 216, 223, 227, 256, 258 219,22~236,23~240,243
Index 275

Criticism 96, 98, 99, 148, 149, Food and drug administration
151, 152, 153, 157, 158, 163, 8,31,166,167,214,218,235,
165, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 244
176, 209, 210 Foundation on economic trends
Crop productivity 216,217,262 105,167
Frankenstein 244
D
G
Debate over 105, 106, 108, 164,
220 Gene therapy 85
Deliberate 86, 87, 102, 103, 106, Genetic traits 163
107, 108, 109, 168, 209, 223, Genetically en&ineered microor-
224,240 ganisms 102
Deoxyribonucleic acid 1 Genetically engineered organ-
Discovery 1,77,88,92,105, isms 47, 55, 60, 75, 86, 106,
145,200,268,273 109,164
Distinction 101, 103, 132, 148, Geneticists 92, 99, 108, 109, 224
173 Germline 107
Green party 48,245
E
H
Effectiveness 154,159,193,206
Environmental applications 92 Harvesting 126
Environmentalism 49 Hormone 16,21,24,69,164,196
Environmentalists 85, 101, 108, Human gene therapy 85
138, 146, 149, 154, 156, 169 Human genome 165
Hybrid 10, 25, 27, 46, 67, 134,
F 137,176,197,206,223,224,
225,231,233,236,237,265
Farm animals 7
Hybridization 63, 86, 224, 229,
Farmers 3, 4, 34, 38, 44, 46, 55,
236,237
58, 81, 112, 114, 124, 128,
134, 135, 136, 138, 139, 140,
141, 146, 148, 149, 151, 152,
I
154, 157, 159, 160, 161, 169, Independence 182
171, 174, 176, 180, 181, 182, Industrialization 42, 64, 153
184, 186, 187, 189,190,191, Intervention 182,211,260
212,216,219,220,222,229,
233,236,238,244,246,247, L
256, 263, 270, 272
Fitness 237 Laboratories 252, 271, 273
276 Index

M Peer review 240

Pesticides, 4, 34, 45, 119, 125,
Mammals 239 130, 139, 148, 154, 157, 158,
Martin alexander 109 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164,
Methodology 90 171,173,204,211,216,244
Molecular genetIcs 93,198,229, Pharmaceuticals 9, 30, 46, 56,
265 195,228,265
Monsanto 84,133,134,136,154, Philosophical 107,148,149,154,
209,241,248 156, 161, 171, 172, 173, 174,
178
N Plant breeder 223, 229
Plasmids 119.
National academy of sciences Political 2, 4, 6, 8, 34, 41, 49, 60,
107,137,216 61,62, 66, 68, 69, 70, 73, 74,
National institutes of health 92, 75, 78, 79, 80, 82, 83, 107,
93,119 108, 129, 130, 150, 152, 157,
Nature 2, 9, 37, 40, 50, 53, 54, 181, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187,
59, 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 70, 72, 188,190
73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, Pollution 204, 266
81, 87, 88, 99, 100, 101, 107, Professional 6, 106, 230
110, 113, 127, 128, 130, 156, Protocols 168, 240, 262, 272
173, 175, 177, 212, 219, 220, Pseudomonas 104, 105
221, 223, 224, 229 Public opinion 32
Nuclear technology 91 Public sector 115, 131, 184, 186

o R

Organisms 2, 31, 37, 38, 39, 40, Recombinant DNA advisory

47, 49, 54, 55, 56, 60, 68, 69, committee 93, 164
Release "8, 11,54, 77, 86, 87, 89,
75, 77, 80, 85, 86, 87, 89, 90,
91,94,96,98,101,102,103,
91,92,94,98,101, 102, 104,
106, 107, 108, 109, 129, 130,
106,109, 127, 130, 131, 138, 164, 166, 168, 193,201,205,
164, 166, 194, 195,204,207, 214,215,227,234,236,254
210, 211, 234, 245, 246, 249, Research and development 3,
253,254,255,269,270 34,98,197,201,261
p s
Patent and trademark office 120 Science 8, 9, 44, 63, 64, 67, 72,
Patenting 33, 54, 56, 57, 58, 70, 80, 834 88, 92, 93, 101, lOS,
123,124,125,144,145 107, 108, 113, ISO, 152, 154,
Index 277

185, 186,212,219,245,251, Technology policy 253

259,260,263 Toxicological 90
Seed 10, 12, 19, 21, 24, 25, 34, Transgenic 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,
45, 51, 55, 56, 62, 63, 64, 66, 31, 33, 34, 55, 77, 194, 195,
70, 80, 114, 115, 116, 117, 199,206,207,209,226,227,
118, 120, 124, 127, 132, 134,
229,230,231,232,233,234,
135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 141,
146, 151, 181, 184, 185, 187, 235,236,237,238,249,252,
197, 198,205,209,221,229, 254,255,256,260,263,265,
236,252,256,264 266
Stanford university 93, 102 Trees 12,113,114,170,204,207,
Su.preme court 209 253,256,257,258,263
Synthetic chemicals 88

T
u
Universities 35,66,95, 112, 150,
Technology 34,35,36,39,41,44,
151, 153, 157, 167, 170, 190,
46,47,48,55,56,61, 64, 71,
74,88,91,94, 105, 115, 119, 271,273
128,133,143, 150, 151, 152, University of california at
162, 164, 170, 173, 174, 176, berkeley 104
179, 180, 181, 183, 184, 185,
187,203,211,212,219,220, v
221,229,244,256,257,259,
260,261,263,264,268,269, Vaccination 29
270,272,273 Vietnam 57
"This page is Intentionally Left Blank"