Prakash
Interviews
AgBioWorld
Articles
Other
Articles
Biotech
and Religion
Media Contacts
Press
Releases
Special
Topics
Spanish
Articles
|
 |
|
|
By Norman E. Borlaug, Nobel Prize Laureate for Peace,
1970
Plant Physiology
October 2000, Vol. 124, pp. 487-490, www.plantphysiol.org
During the 20th century, conventional breeding produced a vast number
of varieties and hybrids that contributed immensely to higher grain yield,
stability of harvests, and farm income. Despite the successes of the Green
Revolution, the battle to ensure food security for hundreds of millions
miserably poor people is far from won. Mushrooming populations, changing
demographics, and inadequate poverty intervention programs have eroded
many of the gains of the Green Revolution. This is not to say that the
Green Revolution is over. Increases in crop management productivity can
be made all along the line: in tillage, water use, fertilization, weed
and pest control, and harvesting. However, for the genetic improvement
of food crops to continue at a pace sufficient to meet the needs of the
8.3 billion people projected to be on this planet at the end of the quarter
century, both conventional technology and biotechnology are needed.
WHAT CAN WE EXPECT FROM BIOTECHNOLOGY?
The majority of agricultural scientists, including myself, anticipate
great benefits from biotechnology in the coming decades to help meet our
future needs for food and fiber. The commercial adoption by farmers of
transgenic crops has been one of the most rapid cases of technology diffusion
in the history of agriculture. Between 1996 and 1999, the area planted
commercially with transgenic crops has increased from 1.7 to 39.9 million
ha (James, 1999). In the last 20 years, biotechnology has developed invaluable
new scientific methodologies and products, which need active financial
and organizational support to bring them to fruition. So far, biotechnology
has had the greatest impact in medicine and public health. However, there
are a number of fascinating developments that are approaching commercial
applications in agriculture.
Transgenic varieties and hybrids of cotton, maize, and potatoes, containing
genes from Bacillus thuringiensis that effectively control a number of
serious insect pests, are now being successfully introduced commercially
in the United States. The use of such varieties will greatly reduce the
need for insecticides. Considerable progress also has been made in the
development of transgenic plants of cotton, maize, oilseed rape, soybeans,
sugar beet, and wheat, with tolerance to a number of herbicides. The development
of these plants could lead to a reduction in overall herbicide use through
more specific interventions and dosages. Not only will this development
lower production costs; it also has important environmental advantages.
Good progress has been made in developing cereal varieties with greater
tolerance for soil alkalinity, free aluminum, and iron toxicities. These
varieties will help to ameliorate the soil degradation problems that have
developed in many existing irrigation systems. These varieties will also
allow agriculture to succeed in acidic soil areas, thus adding more arable
land to the global production base. Greater tolerance of abiotic extremes,
such as drought, heat, and cold, will benefit irrigated areas in several
ways. We will be able to achieve more crop per drop by designing plants
with reduced water requirements and adopting between crop/water management
systems. Recombinant DNA techniques can speed up the development process.
There are also hopeful signs that we will be able to improve fertilize
ruse efficiency by genetically engineering wheat and other crops to have
high levels of Glu dehydrogenase. Transgenic wheats with high Glu dehydrogenase,
for example, yielded up to 29% more crop with the same amount of fertilizer
than did the normal crop (Smil, 1999). Transgenic plants that can control
viral and fungal diseases are not nearly as developed. Nevertheless, there
are some promising examples of specific virus coat genes in transgenic
varieties of potatoes and rice that confer considerable protection. Other
promising genes for disease resistance are being incorporated into other
crop species through transgenic manipulations.
I would like to share one dream that I hope scientists will achieve
in the not too distant future. Rice is the only cereal that has immunity
to the Puccinia sp. of rust. Imagine the benefits if the genes for rust
immunity in rice could be transferred into wheat, barley, oats, maize,
millet, and sorghum. The world could finally be free of the scourge of
the rusts, which have led to so many famines over human history. The power
of genetic engineering to improve the nutritional quality of our food
crop species is also immense. Scientists have long had an interest in
improving maize protein quality. More than 70 years ago, researchers determined
the importance of certain amino acids for nutrition. More than 50 years
ago, scientists began a search for a maize kernel that had higher levels
of Lys and Trp, two essential amino acids that are normally deficient
in maize. Thirty-six years ago, scientists at Purdue University (West
Lafayette, IN) discovered a floury maize grain from the South American
Andean highlands carrying the opaque-2 gene that had much higher levels
of Lys and Trp. But as is all too often the case in plant breeding, a
highly desirable trait turned out to be closely associated with several
undesirable ones. The dull, chalky, soft opaque-2 maize kernels yielded
15% to 20% less grain weight than normal maize grain. However, scientists
from the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (Mexico City)
who were working with opaque-2 maize observed little islands of translucent
starch in some opaque-2 endosperms. Using conventional breeding methodologies
supported by rapid chemical analysis of large numbers of samples, the
scientists were able to slowly accumulate modifier genes to convert the
original soft opaque-2 endosperm into vitreous, hard endosperm types.
This conversion took nearly 20 years. Had genetic engineering techniques
been available then, the genes that controlled high Lys and Trp could
have been inserted into high-yielding hard-endosperm phenotypes. Thus
through the use of genetic engineering tools, instead of a 35-year gestation
period, quality protein maize could have been available to improve human
and animal nutrition 20 years earlier. This is the power of the new science.
Scientists from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (Zurich) and
the International Rice Research Institute (Los Baņos, The Philippines)
have recently succeeded in transferring genes into rice to increase the
quantities of vitamin A, iron, and other micronutrients. This work could
eventually have profound impact for millions of people with deficiencies
of vitamin A and iron, causes of blindness and anemia, respectively.
Because most of the genetic engineering research is being done by the
private sector, which patents its inventions, agricultural policy makers
must face a potentially serious problem. How will these resource-poor
farmers of the world be able to gain access to the products of biotechnology
research? How long, and under what terms, should patents be granted for
bio-engineered products? Furthermore, the high cost of biotechnology research
is leading to a rapid consolidation in the ownership of agricultural life
science companies. Is this consolidation desirable?
These issues are matters for serious consideration by national, regional,
and global governmental organizations. National governments need to be
prepared to work with and benefit from the new breakthroughs in biotechnology.
First and foremost, governments must establish regulatory frameworks to
guide the testing and use of genetically modified crops. These rules and
regulations should be reasonable in terms of risk aversion and implementation
costs. Science must not be hobbled by excessively restrictive regulations.
Since much of the biotechnology research is under way in the private sector,
the issue of intellectual property rights must be addressed and accorded
adequate safeguards by national governments.
STANDING UP TO THE ANTISCIENCE CROWD
The world has or will soon have the agricultural technology available
to feed the 8.3 billion people anticipated in the next quarter of a century.
The more pertinent question today is whether farmers and ranchers will
be permitted to use that technology. Extremists in the environmental movement,
largely from rich nations and/or the privileged strata of society in poor
nations, seem to be doing everything they can to stop scientific progress
in its tracks. It is sad that some scientists, many of whom should or
do know better, have also jumped on the extremist environmental bandwagon
in search of research funds.
When scientists align themselves with antiscience political movements
or lend their name to unscientific propositions, what are we to think?
Is it any wonder that science is losing its constituency? We must be on
guard against politically opportunistic, pseudo-scientists like the late
Trofim D. Lysenko, whose bizarre ideas and vicious persecution of his
detractors contributed greatly to the collapse of the former USSR.
We all owe a debt of gratitude to the environmental movement that has
taken place over the past 40 years. This movement has led to legislation
to improve air and water quality, protect wildlife, control the disposal
of toxic wastes, protect the soils, and reduce the loss of biodiversity.
It is ironic, therefore, that the platform of the antibiotechnology extremists,
if it were to be adopted, would have grievous consequences for both the
environment and humanity. I often ask the critics of modern agricultural
technology: What would the world have been like without the technological
advances that have occurred? For those who profess a concern for protecting
the environment, consider the positive impact resulting from the application
of science-based technology. Had 1961 average world cereal yields (1,531
kg/ha) still prevailed, nearly 850 million ha of additional land of the
same quality would have been needed to equal the 1999 cereal harvest (2.06
billion gross metric tons). It is obvious that such a surplus of land
was not available, and certainly not in populous Asia. Moreover, even
if it were available, think of the soil erosion and the loss of forests,
grasslands, and wildlife that would have resulted had we tried to produce
these larger harvests with the older, low-input technology! Nevertheless,
the antibiotechnology zealots continue to wage their campaigns of propaganda
and vandalism.
One particularly egregious example of antibiotechnology propaganda came
to my attention during a recent field tour to Africa. An article in Independent
(Walsh, 2000) newspaper from London, entitled "America Finds Ready Market
for Genetically Modified Food: the Hungry," is accompanied by a ghastly
photograph depicting a man near death from starvation, lying next to food
sacks. The caption below reads "Sudanese man collapsing as he waits for
food from the UN World Food Program."
The article's author, Declan Walsh, writing from Nairobi, implies that
there is a conspiracy between the U.S. government and the World Food Program
(WFP) to dump unsafe, American, genetically modified crops into the one
remaining unquestioning market: emergency aid for the world's starving
and displaced. I, for one, take heartfelt umbrage against this insult
to the WFP, whose workers and collaborators helped feed 86 million people
in 82 countries in 1999. The employees of the WFP are among the world's
unsung heroes, who struggle against the clock and under exceedingly difficult
conditions to save people from famine. Their achievements, dedication,
and bravery deserve our highest respect and praise.
In his article, Walsh quotes several critics of the use of genetically
modified food in Africa. Elfrieda Pschorn-Strauss, from the South African
organization Biowatch, says "The US does not need to grow nor donate genetically
modified crops. To donate untested food and seed to Africa is not an act
of kindness but an attempt to lure Africa into further dependence on foreign
aid." Dr. Tewolde Gebre Eg-ziabher of Ethiopia states that "Countries
in the grip of a crisis are unlikely to have leverage to say, 'This crop
is contaminated; we're not taking it.' They should not be faced with a
dilemma between allowing a million people to starve to death and allowing
their genetic pool to be polluted." Neither of these individuals offers
any credible scientific evidence to back their false assertions concerning
the safety of genetically modified foods. The WFP only accepts food donations
that fully meet the safety standards in the donor country. In the United
States, genetically modified foods are judged to be safe by the Department
of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Environmental
Protection Agency and thus they are acceptable to the WFP. That the European
Union has placed a 2-year moratorium on genetically modified imports says
little per se about food safety, but rather it says more about consumer
concerns, largely the result of unsubstantiated scare mongering done by
opponents of genetic engineering.
Let's consider the underlying thrust of Walsh's article that genetically
modified food is unnatural and unsafe. Genetically modified organisms
and genetically modified foods are imprecise terms that refer to the use
of transgenic crops (i.e. those grown from seeds that contain the genes
of different species). The fact is that genetic modification started long
before humankind started altering crops by artificial selection. Mother
Nature did it, and often in a big way. For example, the wheat groups we
rely on for much of our food supply are the result of unusual (but natural)
crosses between different species of grasses. Today's bread wheat is the
result of the hybridization of three different plant genomes, each containing
a set of seven chromosomes, and thus could easily be classified as transgenic.
Maize is another crop that is the product of transgenic hybridization
(probably of teosinte and Tripsacum). Neolithic humans domesticated virtually
all of our food and livestock species over a relatively short period 10,000
to 15,000 years ago. Several hundred generations of farmer descendants
were subsequently responsible for making enormous genetic modifications
in all of our major crop and animal species. To see how far the evolutionary
changes have come, one only needs to look at the 5000-year-old fossilized
corn cobs found in the caves of Tehuacan in Mexico, which are about one-tenth
the size of modern maize varieties. Thanks to the development of science
over the past 150 years, we now have the insights into plant genetics
and breeding to do purposefully what Mother Nature did herself in the
past by chance.
Genetic modification of crops is not some kind of witchcraft; rather,
it is the progressive harnessing of the forces of nature to the benefit
of feeding the human race. The genetic engineering of plants at the molecular
level is just another step in humankind's deepening scientific journey
into living genomes. Genetic engineering is not a replacement of conventional
breeding but rather a complementary research tool to identify desirable
genes from remotely related taxonomic groups and transfer these genes
more quickly and precisely into high-yield, high-quality crop varieties.
To date, there has been no credible scientific evidence to suggest that
the ingestion of transgenic products is injurious to human health or the
environment. Scientists have debated the possible benefits of transgenic
products versus the risks society is willing to take. Certainly, zero
risk is unrealistic and probably unattainable. Scientific advances always
involve some risk that unintended outcomes could occur. So far, the most
prestigious national academies of science, and now even the Vatican, have
come out in support of genetic engineering to improve the quantity, quality,
and availability of food supplies. The more important matters of concern
by civil societies should be equity issues related to genetic ownership,
control, and access to transgenic agricultural products.
One of the great challenges facing society in the 21st century will
be a renewal and broadening of scientific education at all age levels
that keeps pace with the times. Nowhere is it more important for knowledge
to confront fear born of ignorance than in the production of food, still
the basic human activity. In particular, we need to close the biological
science knowledge gap in the affluent societies now thoroughly urban and
removed from any tangible relationship to the land. The needless confrontation
of consumers against the use of transgenic crop technology in Europe and
elsewhere might have been avoided had more people received a better education
about genetic diversity and variation. Privileged societies have the luxury
of adopting a very low-risk position on the genetically modified crop
issue, even if this action later turns out to be unnecessary. But the
vast majority of humankind, including the hungry victims of wars, natural
disasters, and economic crises who are served by the WFP, does not have
such a luxury. I agree with Mr. Walsh when he speculates that esoteric
arguments about the genetic makeup of a bag of grain mean little to those
for whom food aid is a matter of life or death. He should take this thought
more deeply to heart. We cannot turn back the clock on agriculture and
only use methods that were developed to feed a much smaller population.
It took some 10,000 years to expand food production to the current level
of about 5 billion tons per year. By 2025, we will have to nearly double
current production again. This increase cannot be accomplished unless
farmers across the world have access to current high yielding crop production
methods as well as new biotechnological breakthroughs that can increase
the yields, dependability, and nutritional quality of our basic food crops.
We need to bring common sense into the debate on agricultural science
and technology and the sooner the better!
CONCLUSIONS
Thirty years ago, in my acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize,
I said that the Green Revolution had won a temporary success in man's
war against hunger, which if fully implemented, could provide sufficient
food for humankind through the end of the 20th century. But I warned that
unless the frightening power of human reproduction was curbed, the success
of the Green Revolution would only be ephemeral. I now say that the world
has the technology that is either available or well advanced in the research
pipeline to feed a population of 10 billion people. The more pertinent
question today is: Will farmers and ranchers will be permitted to use
this new technology? Extreme environmental elitists seem to be doing everything
they can to derail scientific progress. Small, well financed, vociferous,
and antiscience groups are threatening the development and application
of new technology, whether it is developed from biotechnology or more
conventional methods of agricultural science.
I agree fully with a petition written by Professor C.S. Prakash of Tuskegee
University, and now signed by several thousand scientists worldwide, in
support of agricultural biotechnology, which states that no food products,
whether produced with recombinant DNA techniques or more traditional methods,
are totally without risk. The risks posed by foods are a function of the
biological characteristics of those foods and the specific genes that
have been used, not of the processes employed in their development.
The affluent nations can afford to adopt elitist positions and pay more
for food produced by the so called natural methods; the 1 billion chronically
poor and hungry people of this world cannot. New technology will be their
salvation, freeing them from obsolete, low yielding, and more costly production
technology.
Most certainly, agricultural scientists and leaders have a moral obligation
to warn the political, educational, and religious leaders about the magnitude
and seriousness of the arable land, food, and population problems that
lie ahead, even with breakthroughs in biotechnology. If we fail to do
so, then we will be negligent in our duty and inadvertently may be contributing
to the pending chaos of incalculable millions of deaths by starvation.
But we must also speak unequivocally and convincingly to policy makers
that global food insecurity will not disappear without new technology;
to ignore this reality will make future solutions all the more difficult
to achieve.
LITERATURE CITED
James C (1999) Global Review of Commercialized Transgenic Crops: 1999.
International Service for the Acquisition of Agribiotechnology Applications
Briefs No.12 Preview. International Service for the Acquisition of Agribiotechnology
Applications, Ithaca, NY Smil V (1999) Long Range Perspectives on Inorganic
Fertilizers in Global Agriculture. Travis P. Hignett Memorial Lecture,
International Fertilizer Development Center, Muscle Shoals, AL Walsh D
(2000) America finds ready market for genetically modified food: the hungry.
In The Independent. London, March 30, 2000
Norman E. Borlaug
c/o Chris Dowswell
International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center
Apartado Postal 6-641Colonia Juarez, Mexico
D.F. 06000
|
