Briefing Number 3 August 1998

This briefing examines how genetically engineered foods are being promoted as essential to feeding the world’s growing population and discusses whether such claims are valid.

The proponents of genetically engineered (GE) foods argue that biotechnology is essential to feed the world’s growing population and build a sustainable agricultural system¹. The population, which is currently 5.8 billion, is expected to reach 8 billion by 2020 and 11 billion by 2050^{2 ,3}. The advocates of genetic engineering believe that the increasing demand for food must be met without expanding the amount of land used for agricultural purposes (to protect biodiversity) and by addressing issues of soil erosion, salinisation, overgrazing and pollution of water supplies^3,4 . However, many organisations in less developed countries, aid agencies and environmental groups are less positive about the role genetic engineering can play in solving problems of hunger and tackling environmental degradation.
 
 

Who Is Behind GE Foods?

The development of GE foods is not being driven by farmers, consumers or less-developed countries but by large multinational chemical companies who have recognised a business opportunity. Six major companies now dominate the production of GE foods worldwide: Monsanto, DuPont, Hoechst, Novartis, Rhône Poulenc and Zeneca. These now style themselves as the ‘Life Sciences’ industry with activities which may span food, food additives and pharmaceuticals as well as their more traditional roles of chemical and pesticide production.

Governments of developed countries are also supporting the introduction of GE foods. In 1994, the Biotechnology and Biological Science Research Council (BBSRC) was formed to replace the Agriculture and Food Research Council in Britain, reflecting a change in emphasis in agricultural research. Many representatives of large corporations sit on Research and Strategy Boards of the BBSRC⁵ , giving them the ability to influence the research programme. In sharp contrast, consumer and public interest groups (other than the Country Landowners’ Association) are given no such opportunity for input.

The European Commission also finances the promotion of GE crops and foods. For example, they have granted £1 million to the so-called ‘FACTT’ project⁶, with a similar amount being contributed by Hoechst and other partners. In effect, the project has become a sales promotion for the GE oilseed rape developed by Hoechst subsidiaries AgrEvo and Plant Genetic Systems to bring about ".. the creation of familiarity with and acceptance of transgenic crops for farmers, extension organisations, processing industry, regulatory organisations, consumer groups and public interest groups".⁶
 
 

What GE Foods Are Being Developed?

Looking at the products which are being developed should give some clues as to their role in meeting global food needs. The United States leads the world in the commercialisation of GE crops and clearly illustrates the direction research and development (R&D) is taking (see Box 1).

Disease resistance forms the next major class of GE crops in the R&D phase. Most of the virus disease resistance involves using genes from the virus itself to induce resistance in the crops. The mechanisms which underlie this are poorly understood and concerns have been raised that recombinations with other viruses may lead to the production of new strains of disease-causing viruses⁸ .

Also in R&D are more herbicide and insect resistant crops and crops with improved characteristics for processing, such as oils with higher concentrations of certain fatty acids and wheat with modified starch content to aid in bread making. Other aims are to improve shelf lives of a wider range of fruits and to make crops resistant to frost and drought. Improving nutritional content is also proposed.

What is noticeable about these developments is that they are mainly being applied to crops of importance to the developed world and fit "comfortably into modern foods systems that emphasise food processing, consumer niche markets and production efficiency" ⁹. There is virtually nothing that is directly relevant to less developed countries and internationally there are just four "coherent, coordinated" GE research programmes on Third World crops². Even these are minimally resourced.¹⁰

The World Bank Panel on Transgenic Crops concluded that technology transfer projects between multinational corporations and less developed countries were so rare that the examples they cited were "exceptional" ². At best, therefore, it seems that applications to such countries will be largely incidental, arising from so-called "spillover innovations".²
 
 

How Is The Market For GE Foods Being Established?

‘Life sciences’ companies are building large international networks to market their GE crops throughout the world. Monsanto in particular have adopted an extremely aggressive take-over policy in recent years, systematically acquiring seed companies, small cutting edge biotechnology firms and companies holding important genetic resources (see Box 2). Together with strategic agreements to market seeds worldwide, this has established Monsanto in the forefront of GE crop supply and they now dominate the maize, cotton and soybean markets. In their own words, "The opportunity to expand geographically is creating exponential growth potential for existing products".⁷

Monsanto and other ‘life sciences’ companies’ control over the world’s commercial seed trade means that 40% of this trade is now owned by just ten companies. This market dominance is reinforced through patenting genetic material. Monsanto, for example, have made sweeping patent claims to all GE cotton (US 5,159,135; EP 270355) and brassicas (US 5,188,958; EP 270615; WO 8707299).

As well as global marketing protected under patent monopolies, the ultimate technical mechanism has also been developed to tie farmers into corporate control. A recent US patent application (US 5,723,765) by Delta and Pine Land Co (now owned by Monsanto) and the US Department of Agriculture involves a technique that genetically disables a seed’s capacity to germinate again. Dubbed "Terminator Technology" by critics, it will be impossible to save seed for planting the next season. It is being targeted at rice, wheat, sorghum and soybeans with the prospect that seed companies will begin to insist on the use of the technology, gain even greater control over staple food crops and maximise profits through repeated seed sales¹² . 

Is Genetic Engineering The Best Solution?

The ‘life sciences’ companies claim that their development of GE crops is essential to feed the world and eradicate starvation. However, added to the issues of market control and cost, GE crops may act against food security for other reasons.

Herbicide resistant crops bring risks to the environment, human health and farming¹⁷ and dependency on external inputs, such as branded herbicides, means that they are unlikely to be available to poor, small-scale farmers. Viruses and pests may develop immunity to the toxins produced by disease and insect resistant crops, thus involving farmers in a costly treadmill of replacing varieties with newer, more potent ones.

Research clearly indicates that new weed problems may be created if advantages such as herbicide and disease resistance are passed to wild native flora, allowing them to survive in conditions where they would normally have been unable to do so. Such problems may be even more acute in tropical countries where the majority of the major food crops evolved and related wild species abound.

Furthermore, the analysis expounded by many of those promoting genetic engineering for its ability to feed the world does not address many of the long-term issues nor the seemingly intractable problems and contradictions of today. For example, the problems of agricultural production in Africa have simply been attributed to "inefficient agricultural systems" which can be solved by the faster introduction of modern agricultural methods³. Such a simplistic dismissal of the problems of food production in Africa such as poverty, war and unpredictable rainfall to sell technological solutions seems cynical in the extreme. It also ignores some of the problems associated with the introduction of modern agriculture.

A farming system which relied on GE crops could, like other intensive systems, result in short-term yield increases but simultaneously degrade the underlying ecosystems¹⁹ . The yield of Roundup Ready soybeans in the US was apparently 5% higher on average in 1996 and 1997 than that of conventionally bred varieties²⁰ . However, not all farmers have had positive experiences with GE crops ¹¹ . For instance, the Mississippi Seed Arbitration Council has ruled that Monsanto’s GE Roundup Ready cotton failed to perform as advertised last year and recommended that nearly $2 million be paid to three farmers who had large losses. In Arkansas last year, farms growing GE insect resistant cotton had, on average, lower yields than conventional varieties and crops had to be harvested twice rather than once.
 
 

Is There An Alternative To Genetic Engineering?

There are alternative systems which could provide food security and increase food production in the future if they were coupled with mechanisms to address inequalities in food supply. Systems which do not involve high levels of input are already widely used, are becoming more sophisticated and can be as productive as high input systems, although they will have differential impacts depending on the part of the world in which they are applied. They also have the added advantage of bringing environmental benefits. These approaches focus on soil, water and nutrient conservation, green manures, raised fields, terracing and integrated pest management. They are most successful in complex and varied agricultural systems and yields can be increased dramatically. In sustainable agriculture projects in Honduras, maize yields have been increased by 300%; in India, yields of millet have been increased by up to 154%; in Burkina Faso, sorghum and millet yields increased by 275% (see Ref 21 for details of these and many other case studies). These are real, tangible benefits for people now, not PR promises for the future.

Following a comprehensive study of sustainable, low input systems around the world, Jules Pretty of the International Institute of Environment and Development has concluded²¹ that introducing such systems would lead to:

However, despite their clear advantages, and in contrast to the promotion of genetic engineering, these alternative approaches to agriculture have been starved of resources and research.
 
 

Conclusions

Although global food production has increased over the past three decades, the benefits have not been evenly reaped. In 1994, food production could have supplied 6.4 billion people (more than the actual population) with an adequate 2,350 calories per day, yet more than 1 billion people do not get enough to eat².

Modern agricultural systems have caused serious environmental damage, including pollution and health problems through the use of large amounts of chemical inputs, and the erosion of genetic diversity through reliance on a small number of crops and varieties. Small farmers in less developed countries, unable to afford the expensive inputs of intensive agricultural systems, have been prevented from competing with cheap imports and their livelihoods have been placed at risk. National debt burdens have forced poor countries to focus on cash crops, not staple foods. Genetic engineering looks set to perpetuate and intensify many of the problems which have led to present day food insecurity. Corporate control, products designed for a developed world market, packages of expensive seed and inputs coupled with the potential for further environmental harm as a result of genetic pollution mean any benefits will remain concentrated in developed nations.

The complex issues surrounding food provision are unlikely to be solved by a new technological fix. However, by selling GE foods as a panacea to political and social problems, governments and industry may be able to avoid difficult questions while large multinational corporations can look forward to a prosperous future. The promotion of genetic engineering as an essential prerequisite to feed the world of the future is therefore little more than a smokescreen to drive acceptance of the technology in the developed world and the global aspirations of the companies involved.
 
 

References

1. See e.g. Monsanto’s advertisement in The Observer, 2nd August 1998, ‘Worrying about starving future generations won’t feed them. Food biotechnology will.’
2. Kendall, H.W., Beachy, R., Eisner, T., Gould, F., Herdt, R., Raven, P.H., Schell, J.S. & Swaminathan, M.S. (1997) Bioengineering of crops: report of the World Bank Panel on Transgenic Crops. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank: Washington DC.
3. Vasil, I.K. (1998) Biotechnology and food security for the 21st century: a real-world perspective. Nature Biotechnology 16: 399-400.
4. Monsanto (1997) Report on Sustainable Development including Environmental, Safety and Health Performance. Monsanto: Missouri.
5. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council Annual Report 1996-97. BBSRC: Swindon.
6. FACTT: A project to promote Familiarisation with and Acceptance of Crops incorporating Transgenic Technologies in modern agriculture. A demonstration project under Framework Programme IV ­ European Commission. Paper OCS 8/96, Annex D & Draft Technical Annex ­ December 19 1995.
7. Monsanto Company 1997 Annual Report.
8. Beringer, J. (1994) Are there unresolved issues regarding the possible generation of new viral pathogens from transgenic plants? Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on The Biosafety of Field Tests of Genetically Modified Plants and Microorganisms. November 13-16 1994, Monterey, California.
9. Rissler, J. & Mellon, M. (1996) The Ecological Risks of Engineered Crops. MIT Press: Cambridge MA.
10. Puonti-Kaerlas, J. (1998) Cassava Biotechnology. Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews 15: 329-364.
11. The Gene Exchange. Summer 1998. Union of Concerned Scientists: Washington DC.
12. RAFI News Release 13 March 1998. Biotech activists oppose the "terminator technology". New patent aims to prevent farmers from saving seed.
13. Mooney, P.R. (1996) The Parts of Life. Agricultural biodiversity, indigenous knowledge and the role of the third system. Development Dialogue Special Issue 1996: 1-2.
14. Patenting, piracy and perverted promises. Patenting life: the last assault on the commons. Genetic Resources International: Barcelona (undated).
15. Information from various briefings prepared by RAFI International, Ottowa, Canada.
16. India to challenge Basmati rice ‘invention’. Nature 391: 728, 19 February 1998.
17. GeneWatch (1998) Genetically engineered oilseed rape: agricultural saviour or new form of pollution? GeneWatch: Litton, Buxton, UK.
18. Bunders, J.F.G. (1990) Biotechnology for small-scale farmers in developing countries. Analysis and assessment procedures. VU University Press: Amsterdam.
19. Buttel, F.H. (1997) Some observations on agro-food change and the future of agricultural sustainability movements. In ‘Globalising Food. Agrarian questions and global restructuring’ D Goodman & M.J. Watts (eds) Routledge: London.
20. Monsanto (1998) Background. The Roundup Ready soyabean system: sustainability and herbicide use. 11pp
21. Pretty, J.N. (1995) Regenerating Agriculture. Earthscan: London.

GeneWatch is an independent organisation concerned with the ethics and risks of genetic engineering. It questions how, why and whether the use of genetic technologies should proceed and believes that the debate over genetic engineering is long overdue.

Subscribe to GeneWatch’s briefing series for news on what’s happening in genetic engineering:

The Courtyard, Whitecross Road, Tideswell, Buxton, Derbyshire, SK17 8NY, UK Phone: +44 (0)1298 871898 Fax: +44 (0)1298 872531 E-mail: gene.watch@dial.pipex.com Website: http://www.genewatch.org