Genetically Modified Organisms in Agriculture illuminates the greatest technological controversy of the day, combining research information about the most common genetically engineered crops, Bt corn and cotton and glyphosate-resistant soybeans with a diverse range of opinion pieces. It represents the range of debate by bringing together essays by employees of Monsanto, Consumer's Union and a British grocery chain as well as anti-globalization activist Vananda Shiva and Dennis Avery, author of "Saving the Planet with Plastic and Pesticides." After reading it, I discovered that the benefits of genetically engineered crops are currently small and that the risks, like that of nuclear power, depend on fine details of biochemistry and ecology. I reccomend this book to anyone who's interested in the science, economics and politics of this controversial technology.
Title: Genetically Modified Organisms in Agriculture, Economics and Politics.
Editor: Gerald C. Nelson
Publisher: Academic Press, San Diego
ISBN: 0-12-515422-4
Year: 2001
Pages: 344
Libraries: Mann
The two most significant genetic modifications in current use are the Bt (Bacillis Thuringensis) gene and a gene for resistance to glyphosate, an herbicide marketed as "Roundup." The Bt gene produces a protein which is toxic to many insects, such as the European Corn Borer -- it protects corn and cotton from pests without the use of chemical herbicides, although the gene is expressed throughout the plant, so the pollen can kill the Monarch butterfly if it blows onto milkweed patches near GMO cornfields. Glyphosate resistance (GR) allows farmers to use glyphosate, an inexpensive and relatively safe herbicide that kills nearly all plants rather than selective herbicides that would require farmers to identify weeds and treat them with specific herbicides at certain points of their life cycles.
Although genetically modified crops have been rapidly adopted (In 1999, 70% of cotton in Alabama and 30% in the US contained the Bt gene) the economic benefits have been suprisingly small. It's estimated that GMOs save US consumers about $55 million a year, somewhere around 20 cents a person. If GR soybeans were adopted universally in the US, US soybean production would increase by a mere 0.4% and prices would drop by 0.4%. According to a paper by David Bullock and Elisavet I. Nitsi, farmers paid $6.25 an acre for GR soybean seeds while the average farmer saw only $4.07 an acre in savings -- although GR resistance helped farmers who had severe weed problems, GR soybeans cost the average farmer $2.18 an acre.
This book also shows that the risks of genetically modified organisms depend intimately on minor details. For instance, Starlink corn, which was recently withdrawn from the market, is one of many varieties of Bt corn commercially available. Although the Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac proteins appear to be harmless to humans, there is concern that Starlink's Cry9C protein could cause allergic reactions. Similarly, although pollen from Bt corn could possibly put Monarch butterflies at risk, the pollen travels only a limited range and is released only at a particular time -- so the risk depends greatly where Bt corn is used relative to the migration paths of the butterfly.
The book contains essays that discuss the regulatory environment for genetically modified crops in different countries, tensions between the US and European Union over GMO exports, and the role of the World Trade Organization. Malcome Kane, the directory of Sainbury's Supermarkets, describes the impact of consumer resistance on his store, which rejected genetically modified organisms as a result of public outcry. Although a genetically modified tomato paste was initially successful, consumer advocacy groups and the press created a consumer awareness that caused sales to drop dramatically. As a result, Sainsbury needed to develop a strategy for certifying products as non-GMO; as many retailers in Europe adopted this policy, a great tension in relations developed with the US, which is aggressively pushing biotechnology.
Other essays present, and then demolish the common claim that GMO crops are a "miracle" which could end hunger. Current GM technology is primitive, inserting only one or two genes with little control over how the genes are expressed -- without a deep understanding of the mechanisms that regulate genes in plants, the best we can do now is attach a "viral promoter" which forces a plant to express a gene with full force. With current technology, every gene must be combined with an antibiotic resistance gene so that we can know that the new gene was successfully implanted. Although the risk is small, this can only increase the risk of antibiotic resistance developing in bacteria. The creation of high-yielding GMO crops would require the implantation of 20 or 30 genes with a sophisticated system to regulate them -- which is science fiction compared to current technology. Although GMO crops might be resistant to short-term frosts and droughts, they can't create fertility in the soil when none is there. High-yielding GMO crops will still need a high level of inputs such as water and fertilizer, and as such they aren't a magical solution to the problems of tropical agriculture.
