P15738coll2 126310

WORLD HUNGER cmd the GLOBAL
CONTROVERSY over GM CROPS
Seeds of
Contention
Per Pinstrup-Anders e n
and Ebb e S c h i o le r
S E E D S OF CONTENTION
AN INTERNATIONAL
FOOD POLICY RESEARCH
INSTITUTE BOOK
SEEDS OF CONTENTION
World Hunger and the Global Controversy

over GM Crops
Per P i n s t r u p - A n d e r s n
e a nd Ebbe Schioler
The Johns Hopkins University Press

Baltimore <tr London
© 2 0 0 0 Per Pinstrup-Andersen/Ebb
e Schioler
and Rosinante Forlag A/S
English-languag
e translation © 2001 Internationa
l Food Policy
Research Institute
A ll rights reserved. Published 2001
Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
The Johns Hopkins University Press

2715 N o r th Charles Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21218-4363
www.press.jhu.ed
u
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publicatio

n Data
Pinstrup-Andersen
, Per.
Seeds of contention : world hunger and the global controversy
over G M crops / Per Pinstrup-Anderse
n and Ebbe Schi0ler.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographica
l references and index.
I S B N 0-8018-6826-2
1. Food supply. 2. Food supply—Developin

g countries.
3. Crops—Geneti
c engineering—Economi
c aspects. 4. Crops—
Genetic engineering—Economi
c aspects—Developin
g countries.
5. Agriculture—Economi
c aspects. I . Schialer, Ebbe. I I. Title.
HD9000.5.P564 2001
338.1'6—dc2i 2001002303
A catalog record for this book is available from the British Library.
CONTENTS
Foreword • v ii
Preface • xi
I n t r o d u c t i o n: W h at Is the Debate A l l About? • 1
1 A g r i c u l t u r al Research: M a k i ng a Difference
in People's Lives • 7
2 T he Expanding Boundaries of Research: Risks

and Benefits • 32
3 W h at Is W r o ng w i th M o re of the Same? • 57
4 T he Alternatives • 72
5 Can the Poor Benefit f r om Genetically M o d i f i ed
Foods? • 86
6 W h o Sets the Agenda? • 106
7 M o v i ng F o r w a r d: Handle w i th Care • 127
Notes • 147
Index • 157
v
FOREWORD
" A person w ho has f o od has many problems. A person w ho

has no f o od has o n ly one p r o b l e m ", says a Chinese proverb. Per
Pinstrup-Anderse
n and Ebbe Schioler suggest that w h e t h er geneti-
cally m o d i f i ed food is seen as a b o on or a bane depends p a r t ly on a
person's social location. The authors choose to locate themselves
in solidarity w i th poor people. "The p o or should be given the op-
p o r t u n i ty to decide for themselves" may be the most i m p o r t a nt
sentence i n this book, because hunger is n ot o n ly about lack of
food, or even lack of capital, it's also f i n a l ly about powerlessness
—
the lack of a b i l i ty to choose.
N o one v o l u n t a r i yl dies of u n d e r n u t r i t i o
n and related diseases.
People i n the industrialize
d w o r ld can choose w h e t h er or n ot to eat
genetically m o d i f i ed potato chips or take genetically m o d i f i ed pre-
s c r i p t i on drugs w i th t h e ir m o r n i ng orange juice. They should n ot
prevent people i n the developing w o r ld f r om having the oppor-
t u n i ty to make t h e ir o wn choices.
This b o ok raises i m p o r t a nt questions about the role of various
strategies to combat hunger. W h o should o wn new technologies
t h at are based on native grains or p u b l ic goods. Can we t r u st
p r o f i t - d r i v en corporations? W i l l corporations spend money to de-
velop f o od products for the parts of the w o r ld where people need i t
most b ut have the least a b i l i ty to pay for it?
VII
VIII FOREWORD
H ow m u ch should we t r u st science? I f there's one t h i ng we

should k n ow by the beginning of the t w e n t y - f i r st century, i t is t h at
science and technology do n ot provide panaceas. The Green Rev-
o l u t i on saved m i l l i o ns of lives, and yet the folks w ho brought us
p e n i c i l l in and the computer also b r o u g ht us germ warfare, the
I C B M, and ozone depletion.
The p u b l ic "debate" has n ot been very constructive. The public
discussion has mostly been a w ar of perceptions. Seeds of Contention
moves past t a i n t ed words and juiced-up r e p o r t i ng by p r o v i d i ng a
sane and careful analysis of w h at is k n o w n, and n ot k n o w n, about
genetically m o d i f i ed foods as a solution to the p r o b l em of hunger.
The book is an i n v i t a t i on to fair, open, and nuanced p u b l ic discus-
sion. The l o n g - t e rm effects of genetically m o d i f i ed foods remain
uncertain a nd potentially risky. But t h en so is the m o r n i ng c o m-
mute to w o rk or the flight to visit grandma. The risks of using ge-
netically m o d i f i ed foods have to be carefully weighed against w h at
they could do to reduce hunger a nd environmenta
l destruction.
W e w ho have reaped such huge benefits f r om gene m a n i p u l a t i on i n
medicine should r e m a in open to new agricultural products that
m i g ht save thousands of lives.
Pinstrup-Anderse
n and Schieler sometimes answer the ques-
tions they raise and other times p o i nt i n the d i r e c t i on where the
answers are l i k e ly to be f o u n d. They say w h at works i n one part of
the w o r ld w i ll be different t h an w h at w o r ks somewhere else. There
are "no silver bullets." They r e c o m m e nd a progressive conserva-
t i s m — an approach that w o u ld encourage innovations, i n c l u d i ng
biotech, that have the p o t e n t i al to help end hunger, b ut t h at w o u ld
do the testing, check the evidence, and be w a ry of single-solutio
n
proposals. Genetically m o d i f i ed foods are n ot the solution to
hunger b ut are p a rt of a larger solution that relies most heavily on
t r a d i t i o n al methods i n agriculture.
There are t wo salutary meta-themes i n the b o o k — m o r a l iyt and
politics. B o th proponents and opponents of genetically m o d i f i ed
foods use m o r al arguments. One side claims that genetically m o d-
i f i ed foods m i g ht b r i ng lasting destruction to the environment, h u-
FOREWORD IX
m an health, and the well-being of p o or people; the other argues

t h at G M Os have the p o t e n t i al to alleviate hunger and poverty
w h i le i m p r o v i ng the q u a l i ty of the environment. B o th sides c l a im
the m o r al h i gh ground, b ut the best p a th is probably somewhere
between the extremes.
The other meta-theme is politics. This book is w r i t t en for a p o p-
ular audience. The authors assume that public o p i n i on really
matters, that an i n f o r m ed and aroused citizenry can affect the out-
come of the debate t h r o u gh politics. Hunger is a p r o b l em we can
solve. But governments must do t h e ir part. Bread for the W o r ld
members and others have successfully l o b b i ed Congress for debt
relief to help h u n g ry people i n the poorest countries. This v i c t o ry
has led to a revival of hope that w o r ld hunger can be cut i n h a lf by
2015. The U.S. government could do its part by c o m m i t t i ng an ad-
d i t i o n al 1 b i l l i on dollars a year to poverty-focuse
d foreign assis-
tance to Africa—the place where hunger is deepest and getting
worse. That's equivalent to a penny per day per A m e r i c a n.
The f u n d i ng should include support for public research and test-
i ng on biotech agriculture. Private f i r ms take p u b l ic agricultural
products and t h en m o d i fy t h e ir genes. But t h en those companies
o wn the outcomes, and they seldom f i nd i t profitable to develop
and market products for p o or people. Someone has to l o ok out for
the well-being of poor people. A n d that someone is m a i n ly govern-
m e n t — t he protector of the c o m m on good, the defender of the
public interest, the agency w i th the resources and capacity to b r i ng
about large-scale results.
This book is stuffed like a Thanksgiving turkey w i th interesting
examples that are grounded i n sound science. The authors are to be
congratulated for explaining difficult issues i n such a readable and
engaging way, w i t h o ut c o m p r o m i s i ng the scientific i n t e g r i ty for
w h i ch the I n t e r n a t i o n a
l Food Policy Research I n s t i t u te is so w e ll
k n o w n. I r e c o m m e nd this book to all w ho are concerned about
e n d i ng hunger. DAVID BECKMANN
President, Bread for the World and

Bread for the W o r ld Institute
PREFACE
One cannot f o l l ow events i n the media for l o ng before c o m-

i ng across stories, comments, or letters to the editor on the use of
genetic engineering i n food and agriculture. A n d often, the slant
taken is negative. M o st of those w ho voice t h e ir opinions or r e p o rt
on the battles s u r r o u n d i ng gene technology seem to be opposed to
i t. I n the opposite camp are farmers, researchers
, and some private
corporations
, w ho are at pains to emphasize the p o t e n t i al of this
new technology. T h e n, somewhere i n the m i d d l e, is the large share
of consumers w ho are t r y i ng to make sense of the debate.
F o r m i ng the almost silent m a j o r i ty i n this i n t e r n a t i o n a
l debate
are the people of the developing countries. A m i d st all the polemic,
t h e ir interests and t h e ir options are heavily downplayed, except
w h en they are used as pawns. This is regrettable, since an ex-
tremely i m p o r t a nt aspect of the fundamental debate on the use of
genetic engineering i n food and agriculture is thus overlooked:
w h at good can i t do?
W e cannot claim, w i th any j u s t i f i c a t i o n, that we speak i n this
b o ok on behalf of the developing countries. O n the contrary, we
believe t h at t oo many w e l l - t o - do individuals and groups f r om Eu-
rope and N o r th America have taken an unacceptably paternalisti
c
p o s i t i o n, c l a i m i ng to represent the interests of the developing
countries and to k n ow w h at is best for the p o or w i t h in these coun-
XI
XII PREFACE
tries. Instead, we propose that the p o or should be given the oppor-

t u n i ty to decide for themselves.
O ur a im is to illustrate the gravity of the food situation for farm-
ers and consumers i n developing countries and to p o i nt to some re-
alistic ways i n w h i ch genetic engineering can help i m p r o ve the sit-
uation w i t h o ut t a k i ng unacceptable risks, i f people i n developing
countries choose to do so. This technology needs to be handled re-
sponsibly, and we have cited a n u m b er of essential requirements
for the safe application of genetic engineering and its end products
in the food sector in developing countries.
N e i t h er of us is a biologist, nor are we particularly enamored of
technology. W e b o th have w o r k ed for many years on developing-
w o r ld issues, agricultural research, and f o od policy. Therefore, this
b o ok is n ot a scientific treatise on m o d e rn biotechnology and i t
makes o n ly l i m i t ed reference to academic sources. But i t is based
on a w e a l th of f o r m al and i n f o r m al source materials, as w e ll as
studies carried o ut by a host of researchers
, i n c l u d i ng the staff of
the I n t e r n a t i o n a
l Food Policy Research Institute, whose director
general is one of the authors of this book.
This book is a revised and updated version of a book published i n

D e n m a rk i n fall 2000. W e are grateful to a n u m b er of people for
t h e ir help i n p r o d u c i ng this e d i t i o n. O ur thanks go i n particular to
Barbara J. Haveland for translating the Danish text a nd to Phyllis
Skillman, L i n da Strange, and H e i di Fritschel for e d i t o r i al assis-
tance.
PER PINSTRUP-ANDERSEN
EBBE SCHI0LER
INTRODUCTION
What Is the Debate All About?
D o y ou recall the reports about the threat to the m o n a r ch

butterfly, w i d e ly publicized i n the early summer of 1999? Lab-
oratory research conducted i n the U n i t ed States showed that m o n-
arch caterpillars died after eating p o l l en f r om a new variety of ge-
netically m o d i f i ed c o rn (maize). The media o u t c ry on behalf of
this much-loved b u t t e r f ly was l o ng and l o u d. The c u l p r it clearly
was m o d e rn science r un amok.
Do you recall reading the story, i n the same summer, about a v i l-
lage i n southwestern Z i m b a b we where a skinny three-year-old g i r l,
exhausted f r om weeks of fever and barely supported by occasional
feedings of t h in porridge, lay d y i ng on a mat, surrounded by c r y i ng
relatives? O f course y ou d o n 't recall this. I t was n ot reported, be-
cause the media were n ot there. A n d the outcry? This d id n ot ex-
t e nd beyond the confines of the girl's small village.
As i t happens, the t wo stories are i n t e r t w i n e d. They are b o th
about food—for the haves and the have-nots—and h ow we produce
i t, n ow and i n the future. Unfortunately
, o n ly the story of the en-
dangered b u t t e r f ly was a matter of p u b l ic discussion. Later i n the
year, t h o u g h, the butterfly story was discredited by new research—
monarchs i n t h e ir natural habitat had suffered no h a rm f r om the
genetically m o d i f i ed crop. This t i m e, most of the media d id n ot
bother to carry the story.
1
2 S E E D S OF CONTENTION
Science, b u i l d i ng on the w o rk of generations of farmers and of

earlier researchers
, has produced a new t o ol w i th the p o t e n t i al to
make agriculture more productive and more e n v i r o n m e n t a lyl
friendly, and even to make crops more n u t r i t i o u s. A g r i c u l t u r al b i-
otechnology, i n c l u d i ng the use of genetic engineering to create n ew
varieties of food crops, is n ot w i t h o ut its risks, as critics i n the i n-
dustrialized countries have been q u i ck to p o i nt out. But the heated
debate i n Europe is showing signs of d r o w n i ng out all serious con-
sideration of the i m p o r t a nt promise this technology holds for the
p o or i n developing countries—peopl
e for w h om the risk calcula-
t i on may involve n ot a small price difference at the grocery store
b ut the difference between food for t h e ir families and hunger, be-
tween life and death.
In the industrialize
d countries, a n u m b er of questions usually
arise about agricultural biotechnology a nd genetically m o d i f i ed
( G M) food:
• Is G M f o od safe to eat?
• H ow w i ll the technology affect the environment?
• W h at w i ll happen to w i ld plants, insects, birds?
• W i l l consumers be offered a reasonable choice based on solid
i n f o r m a t i o n?
• H ow w i ll t r a d i t i o n al agriculture and r u r al life be affected?
• W i l l companies such as M o n s a n to have t oo m u ch power?
• Should the patenting of m o d i f i ed genes be p e r m i t t e d?
• Are we using science ethically?
• Are we playing God?
These are i m p o r t a nt questions, and the answers have great w e i g ht

for m i l l i o ns of p e o p l e — m i l l i o n
s of m a i n ly well-fed, essentially
healthy people. But other questions rarely make i t o n to the list:
• H ow can this technology i m p r o ve the quality of the f o od we

eat?
• W i l l i t boost agricultural p r o d u c t i v i t y?
• Can i t be of benefit to the p o or populations of developing
countries?
WHAT IS THE D E B A T E ALL A B O U T ? 3
These questions are the topic of this book.

Taking a balanced v i ew of the p o t e n t i al and the risks of agricul-
t u r al biotechnology is neither easy n or popular at the m o m e n t, and
the debate on the pros and cons seems somewhat l i ke a battle-
ground. F r om one t r e n c h, Mae-Wan H o, a biologist at the O p en
University i n the U n i t ed K i n g d o m, shouts, "Genetic engineering
biotechnology is an unprecedente
d i n t i m a te alliance between b ad
science and b ig business, w h i ch w i ll spell the end of h u m a n i ty as
we k n ow i t, and the end of the w o r ld at large." A n d L o rd M e l c h e t t,
1
director of Greenpeace U.K., also voices his concern: "Genetically

m o d i f i ed crops pose a greater threat to the environment t h an n u-
clear wastes or chemical p o l l u t i o n . " F r om the opponent's trench
2
comes the response of the chairman of the agricultural conglomer-

ate M o n s a n t o: "After all, we are the technical experts. W e k n ow we
are right. The 'antis' obviously d o n 't really understand the science
and are just as obviously pushing a h i d d en agenda, probably to de-
stroy c a p i t a l i s m . " ' T h u
s the adversarial positions harden.
W e must l o ok elsewhere for a cooler consideration of this ques-
t i o n. I n the summer of 1999, Britain's respected N u f f i e ld Council
on Bioethics published an analysis of the ethical a nd social aspects
of the application of genetic m o d i f i c a t i on technology to agricul-
t u r al plants. I n its s u m m i ng up, the r e p o rt steers a m i d d le course:
" W e reaffirm our v i ew that G M crops represent an i m p o r t a nt n ew
technology w h i ch ought to have the p o t e n t i al to do m u ch good i n
the w o r l d, p r o v i d ed t h at proper safeguards are m a i n t a i n ed or i n-
troduced."
The M o n s a n to chairman is r i g ht about one t h i n g, however. The
science i n v o l v ed is n ot w e ll understood. Simplification
s abound
a nd lead easily to an atmosphere of fear-mongering
. "Genes are
spreading i n the w i l d ," reads a headline i n a Danish newspaper^
i m p l y i ng that this is cause for alarm. W h y so? After all, the spread
of genes is very o ld news indeed, u n d e r l y i ng the entire evolution-
ary process i n the p l a nt k i n g d o m. Should we n ot l o ok at genes as
the biological i n f o r m a t i on units i n any l i v i ng cell? N o, say the fear-
mongers, genes are those dangerous l i t t le thingamajigs that re-
searchers are shamelessl

y j u g g l i n g — in the hope of m a k i ng a for-
tune. So i t is o n ly natural that consumers a nd supermarkets
, as the
media report, crave "gene-free" foods. M e e t i ng such a demand
w o u ld be as impossible as delivering "chemical-free" food, as
claimed on some labels.
Likewise, familiar agricultural products developed w i th t r a d i-
t i o n al breeding techniques are sometimes labeled " n a t u r a l" to dis-
t i n g u i sh t h em f r om those developed w i th biotechnology—thi
s in
spite of the well-established
, sophisticated methods, the expensive
equipment, and the l o ng laboratory hours that often go i n to t r a d i-
t i o n al breeding. N ot m u ch food w o u ld be available i f nature's o r i g-
i n al c o n t r i b u t i on had n ot been i m p r o v ed u p o n.
As we show i n this book, caution about the use of G M crops is
warranted. Fear is not. But the fear is having its effect. For example,
an I n d i an nongovernmenta
l organization opposed the U n i t ed
States' sending f o od a id that i n c l u d ed G M foods to the I n d i an state
of Orissa. The l ot was, i n the eyes of the organization, "genetically
c o n t a m i n a t e d . " A n d a private organization based i n England
6
asked, "Are G M crops the next i n line of inappropriat

e products to
be d u m p ed on poor countries?" 7
Part of the sentiment against G M crops springs f r om distrust of
the m u l t i n a t i o n al companies that have developed m a ny of these
products. The m u l t i n a t i o n asl are accused of stopping at n o t h i ng i n
the battle for customers i n the r u r al areas of developing countries,
resorting to such ploys as "free seed trials, special open days [ in test
fields], misleading p r o m o t i o n s, golf tournaments and credits." 8
The distrust of private corporations, of course, is n ot l i m i t ed to the

area of G M food. Unethical behavior by some corporations can
cast a shadow on all of them.9 But even i f we accept that some m u l-
tinationals' practices may have u n d e r m i n ed public confidence i n
t h e ir activities, should this b l o ck a ll r a t i o n al j u d g m e nt about the
usefulness of a technology that c o u ld be developed by p u b l i c ly
funded research for the benefit of the h u n g ry families of the devel-
o p i ng w o r l d?
Indeed, i f we take the t i me to listen, we can hear voices f r om the
WHAT IS THE D E B A T E ALL A B O U T ? 5
developing w o r ld i n o p p o s i t i on to this o u t r i g ht rejection of agri-

cultural biotechnology
. Cyrus N d i r i t u, director of Kenya's Institute
for A g r i c u l t u r al Research, has said, "The on-going debate emerging
especially f r om Europe about the real and perceived hazards of b i-
otechnology i n Africa can be taken as being aimed at creating fear,
mistrust, and general confusion to the p u b l ic and has failed to seek
messages and views of the African policymakers and stakehold-
e r s . " Similarly, Hassan A d a m u, the N i g e r i an m i n i s t er of agricul-
10
ture, w r o te i n a Washington Post op-ed article i n September 2000,

" A g r i c u l t u r al biotechnology holds great promise for Africa and
other areas of the w o r ld where circumstances such as poverty and
p o or g r o w i ng conditions make farming difficult . . . To deny des-
perate, h u n g ry people the means to c o n t r ol their futures by pre-
suming to k n ow w h at is best for t h em is n ot only paternalistic b ut
m o r a l ly w r o n g . "
11
This is at the core of the debate. Some see no p o i nt i n t a k i ng ag-

r i c u l t u r al biotechnology further, since we—those of us l i v i ng i n the
industrialize
d world—already have w h at we need i n our supermar-
kets. Others regard biotechnology as one more t o ol to i m p r o ve the
gloomy f o od prospects of the developing w o r l d. Given that the
starving three-year-old Zimbabwean g i rl i n our opening story is
n ot an exception b ut p r e t ty close to the rule i n m a ny areas of that
c o u n t r y — a nd i n the rest of Africa and large parts of Asia—should
we n ot be open to using every available t o ol to change the situ-
ation, i n c l u d i ng agricultural biotechnology
?
N ot necessarily
, some argue. Alternative solutions are available.
For instance, "The m a in p r o b l em w i th the food supply is n ot a
question of p r o d u c t i v i t y, b ut a question of d i s t r i b u t i o n — r i g h t ? "
12
F r om the Kenyan p o i nt of view, the situation does n ot seem quite

that simple. A c c o r d i ng to Cyrus N d i r i t u, "The n o t i on that, at a
global level, the p r o b l em is n ot one of inadequate food p r o d u c t i o n,
b ut of d i s t r i b u t i o n, is correct i n a statistical sense, b ut i t is t r i v i al
and h i g h ly misleading. I t suggests, for example, t h at r e d i s t r i b u t i on
of static food p r o d u c t i on is the solution to food deficiency, and fur-
ther, i t relegates the need to increase p r o d u c t i on i n regions like Af-
6 S E E D S OF C O N T E N T I O N
rica to a subsidiary r o l e . " ' Let's assume, t h o u g h, that the r i ch

1
w o r ld d id f i nd the w i ll to set up a massive r e d i s t r i b u t i on p r o g r a m;

this w o u ld require a huge expenditure—o
n establishing transpor-
t a t i on networks, among other things; w o u ld necessarily mean d i-
v e r t i ng funds f r om long-term local development and support p r o-
grams ; and fails to take i n to account t h at agriculture is the p r i m a ry
occupation i n m u ch of the developing w o r l d. As we discuss i n
Chapter 4, there are m a ny excellent reasons w hy food should be
g r o wn where i t is consumed.
So i n response to the question "do we really need G M foods?"
the well-fed consumer m i g ht w e ll answer no, n ot really. But i f b i-
otechnology research were directed to solving the problems of
p o or farmers i n developing countries, a l l o w i ng t h em to produce
crops that y i e ld more, are more n u t r i t i o u s, and can cope w i th dis-
eases, insect attacks, drought, and infertile soils, the answer to the
broader question "does the w o r ld need G M foods?" may w e ll be a
f i rm yes! After all, those of us l i v i ng i n the industrialize
d w o r ld
w o u ld say yes to the use of genetic engineering to develop med-
icines to solve any h u m an health p r o b l e m.
The p o t e n t i al for using agricultural biotechnology to fight these
problems of the developing w o r ld w i ll be lost i f the present resist-
ance to genetic m o d i f i c a t i on continues, and even grows, because
investors w i ll direct their funds i n to other areas, and public author-
ities w i ll regard G M organisms as far too controversial for support.
The developing countries cannot go i t alone. Here, as i n other sci-
entific fields, new discoveries and breakthrough results are shaped
in a global dialogue among enthusiastic researchers w o r l d w i d e.
W e discuss all the issues i n t r o d u c ed here t h r o u g h o ut the book.
For now, we leave the last w o rd to a researcher w ho has been w o r k-
i ng for m a ny years to develop a better tuberous crop—cassava—fo
r
Africa. He r e m i n ds us that, ethically, o p t i ng o ut of t a k i ng risks may
not be the r i g ht t h i ng to do, "for there is also a risk i n v o l v ed i n al-
ways just saying n o ! " * W e hope this b o ok helps persuade more
1
people to reconsider that all t oo easy and u n d e m a n d i ng " n o !"

1 • AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
Making a Difference in People's Lives
One of history's most famous prophets of d o om was the

English clergyman Thomas M a l t h u s. I n the late eighteenth century
M a l t h us made the astute observation that p o p u l a t i on g r o w th
w o u l d, at some p o i nt i n a n ot too distant future, lead to widespread
famine, given t h at farmers w o u ld n ot be able to produce enough
food to feed everyone. Mass starvation w o u ld t h en b r i ng about a
h o r r i f y i n g — b ut necessary—reductio
n i n the p o p u l a t i o n, establish-
i ng a new balance between the n u m b er of people and the food
available. Such cycles w o u ld recur at regular intervals.
This was a logical conclusion for a scholar of his day. As far back
as anyone c o u ld remember, the y i e ld per acre of farmland had re-
m a i n ed more or less constant, and i n Malthus's p a rt of the w o r ld
n ot m u ch v i r g in l a nd was left to p ut under the plow. N or was i t fea-
sible to transport food products over l o ng distances. So Malthus's
gloomy logic seemed perfectly reasonable and carried a l ot of
w e i g ht i n his o wn day and, indeed, i n to our o wn t i m e.
W h i le the w o r l d 's p o p u l a t i on g r o w th m i g ht have been moderate
in Malthus's day, i t was great enough t h at its i n c l u s i on as a dy-
namic factor i n future projections seemed reasonable
. A n d t h o u gh
farmers' grain yields d id increase, they grew slowly, at a rate of less
than o .i percent per year. Food p r o d u c t i on was therefore deemed
7
to be a static factor, and a collision between r a p id p o p u l a t i on

g r o w th and slow agriculturalg r o w th was considered inevitable.
H ad M a l t h us looked farther back as w e ll as f o r w a rd he m i g ht
n ot have been so pessimistic. The average wheat y i e ld i n Great
B r i t a in rose f r om between 500 and 700 kilograms per hectare dur-
i ng the M i d d le Ages to 1.68 tons per hectare i n 1850. The situation
1
had i m p r o v ed a good deal by Malthus's t i m e, compared w i th his

father's and his grandfathers
' days. But n ot u n t il the early t w e n-
t i e th century d id a n y t h i ng happen to allay the pessimism. Crop
yields began to c l i mb steadily and t h en to soar. A g r i c u l t u re had be-
come a part of m o d e rn society, w i th science and technology play-
i ng a key role.
The Research Factor: Altering the Status Quo
In fact, quite a l ot had already been achieved i n agriculture by the

t i me the academics and engineers got i n on the act. Farmers every-
where, d o wn t h r o u gh the ages, noted w h i ch crops gave the best
yields. They altered their w o r k i ng methods, fought weeds, spread
manure f r om t h e ir livestock on the fields, regularly left sections of
the l a nd fallow, and rotated t h e ir crops to avoid depleting the soil
of its nutrients. A n d, just as i m p o r t a n t, they carefully set aside
seeds f r om the sturdiest plants to sow the f o l l o w i ng year. I n every
field, weak, robust, and average plants naturally spring up, and i t
w o u ld take a bad farmer—or a disastrously poor harvest—for the
second-raters to be set aside for seed. The same principles applied
in a n i m al husbandry: the best animals were crossbred, a practice
that led i n the course of t i me n ot o n ly to sturdier, m o re productive
i n d i v i d u al breeds b ut also to entirely new strains. The tireless ef-
forts of generation after generation of farmers p a id off i n strains of
plants and animals n ow k n o wn as land races. W h i le such strains
have all b ut vanished f r om the l a nd i n the industrialize
d w o r l d,
they are still v i t al to the existence of many farmers i n the devel-
o p i ng countries.
Extensive research led to levels of agricultural p r o d u c t i v i ty
vastly different f r om the almost static p a t t e rn t h at had been the
A G R I C U L T U R A L RESEARCH 9
n o rm for centuries the w o r ld over. Better education of farmers,

generally a nd i n specific areas relevant to farming, was essential for
the i m p l e m e n t a t i o
n and consolidation of the n e w ly acquired ex-
pertise. I m p r o v ed soil c u l t i v a t i o n, weed c o n t r o l, ways to combat
pests and diseases, and the use of fertilizers and i r r i g a t i o n, where
necessary, p r o m o t ed best possible development of plants. The
other v i t al factor was the propagation of more productive plants.
T h is was accomplished by laboratories and seed growers w ho dis-
covered the w o rk of the Austrian m o nk Gregor M e n d e l, w h i ch was
published i n 1866 b ut had remained more or less u n n o t i c ed for
decades. W o r k i ng f r om Mendel's theories (his laws of heredity)
and his carefully detailed experiments, they arrived at new varie-
ties t h r o u gh systematic crossbreeding
, selecting offspring that
c o m b i n ed the best properties of the parents.
Advances i n agriculture d u r i ng the past century have m i r r o r ed
those i n the health sector. Better l i v i ng conditions, hygiene, and
nursing care b r o u g ht about major improvements i n health and life
expectancy, and these advances were further enhanced by the dis-
covery of new medicines and the development of m o d e rn medical
technology. The hefty boost to the p o p u l a t i on t h at resulted led, i n
t u r n, to a greater need for more food and hence more productive
farming.
Since the beginning of the t w e n t i e th century, the balance be-
tween i m p r o v ed f a r m i ng methods and more robust crop and live-
stock strains has c o n t i n u ed to f o l l ow the same u p w a rd curve. I n-
itially, the n ew crop varieties d id n ot make a great difference, b ut
yields did increase, m a i n ly because g r o w i ng conditions were so
m u ch i m p r o v e d. I n England, the average wheat crop increased by
approximatel
y 28 percent between 1901 (at w h i ch t i me i t was no
greater t h an fifty years earlier) and 1913. But the most dramatic
change t o ok place i n the next eighty years, w h en yields more t h an
t r i p l e d, r i s i ng to almost 7 tons per hectare by 1990. I n Ireland the
increase was even more impressive, reaching 8.2 tons per hectare
by 1990. 2
This p a t t e rn was repeated for m a ny other crops i n many coun-

tries, n ot o n ly i n the developed regions of the w o r ld b ut also i n

Asia and L a t in America. After centuries of o n ly slight increases,
yields suddenly shot up exponentially
. The explanation was the
same everywhere. First, farmers became more skilled at t e n d i ng
t h e ir l a nd as a result of systematic findings about o p t i m um farm-
i ng c o n d i t i o n s; here we see the first u p t u rn i n the curve. T h en the
new crop varieties began to make t h e ir presence felt, sparking off
an upsurge that i n many places is still going strong.
Bleak Outlook for the Developing World
D u r i ng the years since M a l t h us first p r o p o u n d ed his views, his fol-

lowers—the neo-Malthusians—hav
e h ad good reason to insist that
t h e ir predictions were b o u nd to come true. F r om t i me to t i me cer-
t a in parts of the w o r ld were h it by famine i n the wake of crop fail-
ure or b l i g h t. A famous and heartbreakin
g example was the mas-
sive potato b l i g ht i n I r e l a nd i n the m i d - n i n e t e e nh
t century, w h en
widespread famine depopulated w h o le sections of the country,
leading to mass emigration—perhap
s escape is a better w o r d — p r i-
m a r i ly to the U n i t ed States.
In the densely populated developing countries, i n the weeks be-
fore harvest, the lives of m a ny h u ng by a thread. U n t il quite re-
cently, China and the I n d i an subcontinent experienced appalling
famines i f crops failed, and the scale of these disasters was often
n ot apparent u n t il l o ng after the v i c t i ms were dead and buried.
A nd apart f r o m — a nd alongside—thes
e crises, i n m a ny parts of the
w o r ld large numbers of people were permanently malnourished
.
It was i n the populous nations of Asia, i n the years f o l l o w i ng the
Second W o r ld War, that Malthus's v i s i on seemed l i k e ly to come
true. The p o p u l a t i on was increasing fast, w h i le agriculture was s t i ll
conducted along t r a d i t i o n a,l n ot very productive lines. M e a n w h i l e,
the g r o w th of agriculture i n the developed w o r ld showed that a dy-
namic rise i n p o p u l a t i on c o u ld be matched by a dynamic increase
in agricultural o u t p u t — in p r i n c i p l e, at least.
Because f a r m i ng methods and scientific breakthrough
s do, i n
fact, resemble one another o n ly " i n p r i n c i p l e" f r om one place to
another, findings have to be m o d i f i ed to meet the conditions and

demands of different areas. To reduce the threat of famine i n Asia,
t r a d i t i o n al crops f r om the industrialize
d countries—wheat
, i n par-
t i c u l a r — h ad to be adapted for this different environment, b ut
better methods of c u l t i v a t i ng local crops, p r i m a r i ly rice, also had
to be discovered. B o th the soil and the climate were different f r om
those i n the developed countries, and the chance t h at research and
extension workers w o u ld be c o m m u n i c a t i ng t h e ir discoveries to a
well-educated f a r m i ng c o m m u n i ty was s l i m.
A nd there was no t i me to lose. I n the early 1960s, the wheat y i e ld
in India and China was on a par w i th that of Europe d u r i ng the M i d-
dle Ages—600 to 800 kilograms per hectare. A l t h o u gh the yield for
rice was higher, the pattern was also m u ch the same as that seen i n
European farming i n the o ld days, w i th l i t t le or no rise i n annual
yields. But i n these Asian countries, the gradual i n t r o d u c t i on of
better l i v i ng conditions and m o d e rn health-care techniques led to a
d r op i n the m o r t a l i ty rate, w h i le the b i r th rate remained steady and
the survival rate among young children increased. B o th of these
heavily populated nations—China and I n d i a — a nd a n u m b er of
others i n that p a rt of the w o r l d — t he Philippines and Indonesia, for
example—relie
d u p on age-old farming traditions that w o r k ed w e ll
enough as l o ng as the p o p u l a t i on stayed w i t h in reasonable bounds.
A nd d o wn t h r o u gh the ages, people c o u ld appropriate new l a nd for
farming by clearing forests, establishing fields on hillsides, or culti-
vating new, drier areas where the f a r m i ng conditions were n ot as
good. But the expansion of agricultural p r o d u c t i on t h r o u gh the ap-
p r o p r i a t i on of new l a nd was rapidly reaching its l i m it and the neg-
ative environmenta
l effects were becoming more obvious.
T h r o u g h o ut the 1960s, starvation on a t r u ly massive scale was
staved off by w h at the countries themselves c o u ld produce, supple-
mented by foreign aid. This was a s h o r t - t e rm measure designed to
tide these countries over w h i le scientists i n laboratories and test
fields at research centers i n the Philippines, M e x i c o, and elsewhere
w o r k ed flat o ut to reverse the regions' d o w n w a rd spiral i n agri-
culture.
Turning the Tide: A New Agricultural Package
In the 1950s, t wo leading A m e r i c an p h i l a n t h r o pci institutions, the

F o rd and Rockefeller foundations, spearheade
d the development
of techniques and crops capable of p r o d u c i ng the sort o f results
that agriculture i n the industrialize
d countries had achieved o n ly
over several generations. Thanks to an i n i t i al i n j e c t i on of capital
f r om the t wo foundations and the efforts of a host of enthusiastic
researchers
, i n c l u d i ng m a ny f r om developing-countr
y institutions,
new, high-yielding varieties of wheat and rice were developed, c r u-
cially different f r om the t r a d i t i o n al strains i n that the plants were
shorter and sturdier w i th a better balance between straw and grain
weight. A n d these plants responded better to fertilizers—a crucial
factor, inasmuch as the new, h i g h - y i e l d i ng varieties were part of a
package aimed at r e v i t a l i z i ng Asian agriculture. A t its best the
package i n c l u d ed n ot o n ly new seed b ut also chemical fertilizers,
insecticides to combat plant diseases, and i r r i g a t i o n. Individually,
each of these factors c o u ld b r i ng about some increase i n p r o d u c t i v-
ity, b ut c o m b i n ed they really made a huge difference.
The results of these n ew agriculturalpackages were soon visible.
Farmers and t h e ir families ate better, sent more c h i l d r en to school,
and b u i lt better houses. As the new crop varieties became m o re
w i d e ly used, the average y i e ld rose steadily, just as i t had done i n
the industrialize
d countries. Since 1961, China has seen an average
annual increase i n wheat y i e ld per hectare of 91 kilograms. Be-
tween 1968 and 1990, India's rice p r o d u c t i on rose by 50 kilograms
per hectare each year.
The initiative taken by the F o rd and Rockefeller foundations
stimulated other efforts to ensure f o od security i n developing
countries. Permanent research stations were established for rice i n
the Philippines i n 1961 (the I n t e r n a t i o n a
l Rice Research Institute),
and for maize and wheat i n M e x i co i n 1966 (Centro Internaciona
l
de M e j o r a m i e n o
t de M a iz y Trigo, C I M M Y T ) .' Official devel-
o p m e nt organizations i n the industrialize
d countries decided to
p o ol their resources to help the developing countries, and i n 1971
they f o r m ed an association called the Consultative Group on Inter-

national A g r i c u l t u r al Research (CGIAR). T he CGIAR has expanded
to include sixteen i n s t i t u t i o ns conducting research on all the key
crops o f the developing w o r l d, on livestock p r o d u c t i on and disease
c o n t r o l, fish a nd aquaculture, forestry a nd agroforestry, plant ge-
netics, a nd food policy. O ne center has been established w i th the
p r i m a ry purpose of h e l p i ng developing countries conduct t h e ir
o wn research. A l l research findings are freely available to research-
ers and all other interested parties w o r l d w i d e.
D u r i ng the 1970s, as the threat o f famine i n Asia d w i n d l e d, solid
and convincing research findings also b r o u g ht hope for L a t in
America a nd to some extent n o r t h e rn Africa. T he CGIAR c o u ld
not, of course, take a ll the credit. T he n ew discoveries a nd tech-
niques a nd t h e ir adaptation to local conditions were achieved i n
collaboration w i th national research i n s t i t u t i o n ,sw h i le private en-
terprise a nd some private research i n s t i t u t i o ns played an i m p o r-
tant part i n ensuring delivery of the necessary ingredients to the
villages.
One Picture, Many Interpretations
n i n agricultural p r o d u c t i v i ty i n many parts of

The transformatio
the developing w o r ld became k n o wn as the Green Revolution.
There is something almost m y t h i c al about this t e r m, a nd m a n y—
more or less justified—counter-myth
s have been attached to i t.
Before l o o k i ng at w h at was achieved, let's recap the initiative's
p r i me m o t i v a t i o n: m i l l i o ns of lives were at risk f r om starvation;
results were needed, and fast. This is n ot to say that measures were
taken uncritically, regardless of the cost. But there was never any
d o u bt t h at an increase i n p r o d u c t i v i ty h ad t o be t he t op p r i o r i t y.
W e must also emphasize at the outset that the Green Revolution
was n ot a one-off exercise o f the 1960s a nd 1970s. I t is an ongoing
phenomenon, w i th results still f o r t h c o m i ng and adjustments con-
stantly being made i n the l i g ht of new experience.
C r i t i c i sm of the Green Revolution centers on w h at i t brought i n
its wake a nd on w h at i t d id n ot achieve. Let's consider the latter
first. Here, as i n other contexts, Africa is seen as the forgotten con-

t i n e n t, left b e h i nd by the Green Revolution. I n Africa, critics say,
the new varieties and n ew technologies proved useless or were
never given a proper chance. This may be so, b ut we need to l o ok
more closely at w h at happened i n the case of Africa.
In the 1960s the focus of the Green Revolution was on Asia and
L a t in America; at that t i me these were the continents most at risk,
containing, as they d i d, the lion's share of the developing w o r l d 's
p o or inhabitants. Sub-Saharan Africa supported forms of agricul-
ture and crops t h at c o u ld derive no direct benefit f r om the techno-
logical packages developed for the f a r m i ng methods practiced i n
other parts of the developing w o r l d. But w o rk was soon under way
to develop crops and techniques specifically suited to African agri-
culture. Today four CGIAR centers have t h e ir headquarter
s i n Af-
rica and all have research stations i n the region. As a result, crops
such as maize, bananas, cassava, and rice have undergone a m a r k ed
increase i n p r o d u c t i v i ty i n a n u m b er of A f r i c an countries. Crops
neglected by private research because they are of no interest i n the
industrialize
d w o r l d, such as the r o ot crop cassava and the grain
m i l l e t, are continually being i m p r o v e d. But soaring p o p u l a t i on fig-
ures take t h e ir t o ll on all these advances; Africa's food p r o d u c t i on
per capita has been falling for many years now. A real r e v o l u t i on i n
African agriculture is s t i ll needed. I n sub-Saharan Africa today,
crops typically provide a y i e ld at the same level as that i n Asia be-
fore the Green Revolution—or that i n Europe d u r i ng the M i d d le
Ages.
One example of a research venture geared specifically to Africa
is the successful battle, waged t h r o u gh advanced i n t e r n a t i o n a
l re-
search, against the pests that attack the cassava p l a nt (see Box 1).
A nd w h at of the adverse events that the Green Revolution
b r o u g ht i n its wake? One accusation is t h at i t made the r i ch richer
and the p o or poorer. This v i ew is n ot based on any l o n g - t e rm ob-
servation of the facts. Critics frequently cite the villages of I n d ia as
a s t r i k i ng example, p o i n t i ng o ut that, as a rule, the large-scale
farmers were quicker to exploit the p o t e n t i al of the new technol-
B OX 1
I N S E C T W A R S IN A F R I C A ' S CASSAVA FIELDS
Imported Insects
In the 1960s an old acquaintance—th

e cassava mealy bug—made its
presence felt in the West African countryside. It had been introduced,
as the biologists put it, by accident, from South America. It ate and ate,
spreading rapidly eastward, and the situation looked totally disastrous
for the cassava. The researcher
s were at their wits' end. Cassava is a
major crop in South America, but oddly enough the cassava mealy bug
has posed no problem there, and so little research has gone into i t.
As if this were not enough, in 1971 another nasty pest, the cassava
green spider mite, showed up, also from South America. It was first
discovered in Uganda, where it seemed to feel very much at home, and
spread from there.
Both of these insects can ruin anywhere from 30 to 50 percent of a
harvest. But one needs to know that it is, in fact, insects that are doing
the damage, because it takes an extraordinaril
y powerful microscope
and a trained eye to spot them.
A Natural Reaction
It took many years and a lot of experiments to reach a solution to the

problem. There had to be a good explanation for why the cassava
mealy bug, which the researcher
s turned their attention to first, was
not a problem in South America.
Two internationa
l research centers: CIAT (Centro Internaciona
l de
Agricultura Tropical) in Colombia and IITA (Internationa
l Institute of
Tropical Agriculture) in Nigeria, instituted a search for the mealy bug
in Brazil, a country that grows a lot of cassava. After much research,
they discovered that the bug was held in check by parasitic wasps, al-
though none of those species that were tested in the net cages of the
laboratorie
s really rose to the bait.
Fresh expeditions to diverse corners of South America eventually
unearthed several promising parasitic wasps. The trick was to find out
which of these was the most effective. Numerous requirement
s had to
be met: it could not be harmful to useful insects or carry any disease
into Africa; it had to be able to survive conditions in the African cas-
sava belt, which can vary greatly over such a wide area; and it had to
have an insatiable appetite and still be able to survive when mealy bugs
were not so plentiful.
One small wasp appeared to be a likely candidate. It was transferred
from South America to a laboratory in London where it could be certi-
fied as disease-fre
e and be hatched by the thousands. Tests in the fields
in West Africa lived up to all expectations
, and the wasp cut a swath
along the trail left by the mealy bug. It was usually deposited in small
batches in the stricken areas,but occasionally dropped from airplanes.
Easier and Easier
A team of highly specialized researcher

s had been assigned to the pro-
ject and the most modern methods and instruments were employed in
order to obtain the desired objective. After that it was a case of devel-
oping a technique that could be replicated even in the most modest
laboratorie
s in Africa. And it was the IITA scientists who came up w i th
the simple and ingenious solution to producing the wasps, locally, by
the millions.
The Ugandan researcher
s at the research station in Namulonge are
now running the system themselves. The entire production set-up con-
sists of no more than a sleeve of thin plastic, 1.5 meters in length, filled
w i th sawdust and suspended from a cord. Above this hangs a small
bucket w i th a hose for watering the sawdust. Lots of little holes have
been cut in the plastic bag. Short lengths of cassava stalk are stuck into
the holes and before long these put out roots and leaves, giving the i m-
pression of a little Christmas tree of cassava cuttings. The cassava plant
really can get by w i th very little nourishment
.
The tree is transferred into a tent made of very fine mosquito net-
ting, into which the destructive mealy bugs are then released. They
come from little net cages in which they have gorged themselves on
cassava leaves. Their delight in all this fresh guzzling potential is short-
lived, however, as cassava branches crawling with parasitic wasps are
inserted into the tent. N ow it is the wasps' turn to feed, and this they
do in record time.
This process can quietly go on until such time as the wasps are
needed somewhere else. W h en that happens, the lower part of the tent
is covered w i th a length of black fabric and the wasps crawl up toward
the light at the top and into a little canister of clear plastic.
W i t h in 12 hours, most of the wasps are inside the plastic canister,
which is then packed into a cool box (complete w i th cooling ele-
ments), to keep the wasps subdued. Thereafter, it is a matter of getting
out to the field before the temperature rises. The wasps are released
onto the stricken field and soon have things under control.
The very first such operation took place in Uganda, when the mealy
bug turned up there in 1992. In those days the Ugandans were not
equipped to tackle the problem themselves, but w i t h in 12 hours of the
discovery, IITA had flown in a consignment of parasitic wasps. After
that it was only a three-hour drive in the little cool box before the bat-
tle for "biological control" commenced.
Green Is Not Always Good
Having learned from their experience

s w i th the mealy bug, the re-
searchers could—in theory, at any rate—calculat
e that the other pest,
the cassava green spider mite, would also be susceptible to biological
control. Attempts had been made to spray it w i th insecticide, but for
many good reasons—primaril
y financial ones—these never really
came to anything.
The internationa
l research centers therefore dispatched new expe-
ditions to various parts of South America, and five different predator
mites captured in Colombia were tried out against the cassava green
spider mite. Between 1984 and 1988, 5.2 m i l l i on predator mites were
deployed at 341 locations in 11 African countries. None survived, pre-
sumably because they could find no other food once they had eaten the
cassava mites.
It was an expensive lesson, and the next attempt focused specifically
on locating predator mites from regions w i th climates more closely re-
sembling those in Africa. There was a lot riding on the second deploy-
ment, too. Five different predator mites were dropped off at 365
points, again in 11 countries, between 1989 and 1995. Three of these d id
fairly well.
The big surprise proved to be a predator mite not included in the ex-
periment u n t il 1993. It can now be found in over 1,000 districts in both
East and West Africa: a lively character, capable, in its first season, of
ranging 12 kilometers from the drop-off point and, in the second year,
of traveling up to 2 00 kilometers. It now covers over 4 0 0 , 0 00 square
kilometers. This predator mite, which has both a first and a last
name—Typhlodromalus aripo—also lives on pollen, the nectar from
flowers, and the sap of plants, so even when the number of cassava
mites is falling off, it manages to survive. It can produce t wo genera-
tions for every one of the green mite's, so it is not much of a contest.
In fact this predator mite has more than paid its way. Researcher
s
have calculated that when the predator mite is let loose in a field at-
tacked by the cassava green spider mite, production rises by between
30 and 4 0 percent. In West Africa alone this has resulted in a gain of
US$48.5 m i l l i on per year.
Source: Ebbe Schi0ler, " W i t h o ut Poison, But Naturally," in Good News from Af-
rica (Washington, D.C.: Internationa
l Food Policy Research Institute, 1998).
ogy than were the smaller farmers. This outcome was unavoidable
.
Even t h o u gh small-scale farmers w o u ld like to produce more and
earn more, t h e ir first concern must be to avoid loss, so they seldom
dare to risk everything on a new technique or variety. But once they
see the results achieved on the larger farms, they become as ac-
tively involved as large-scale farmers. A nd where water, fertilizer,
and insecticides are readily available, they are used on farms of all
sizes.
The Internationa
l Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), a
CGIAR center, has carried out one of the few long-term surveys of
the effects of the Green Revolution at the village level, conducted in
the district of N o r th A r c o t, in the not too prosperous southern-
most part of India.4 The study, w h i ch compared the 1983-84 and
1973-74 crop seasons, revealed that the small farmers of the d i s t r i ct
kept abreast of new f a r m i ng techniques and new varieties of grain.
Contrary to the critics' predictions, the g r o w th in agricultural pro-
duction d id not result in a concentration of land in the hands of
fewer people. Average incomes rose dramatically over the decade,
almost d o u b l i ng for farmers g r o w i ng rice on irrigated land ( c o m-
pared w i th a 4 0 percent increase for those f a r m i ng n o n i r r i g a t ed
land). Farm laborers also noticed a m a r k ed i m p r o v e m e nt in i n-
come. The extra income was spent m a i n ly on food: measured in
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH 19
b o th calories and p r o t e i n, the family larder was m u ch better

stocked t h an before. The economic life of the area received a tre-
mendous shot i n the a r m, thanks to the higher incomes f r om farm-
i ng and the resulting d e m a nd for b o th goods and services. I n r u r al
areas, the incomes of the poorer inhabitants u n d e r w e nt a greater
percentage increase t h an d id those of t h e ir more prosperous neigh-
bors, w h i le i n the towns the reverse was true, w i th private enter-
prises r un by the w e l l - t o - do reaping the greatest benefit f r om i n-
creased consumer demand.
But How Green Was This Revolution?
A n o t h er c r i t i c i sm of the Green Revolution is the adverse effect on

the e n v i r o n m e nt of the wholesale use of agrochemical
s and vast i r-
r i g a t i on systems. There is no doubt that such c r i t i c i sm is justified.
In certain parts of Asia severe damage has been done where evap-
o r a t i on of i r r i g a t i on water over m a ny years has saturated large
areas of l a nd w i th salt. A n d i t cannot be denied that h u m an beings
a nd animals have been damaged by crop spraying.
W h en the Green R e v o l u t i on was i n i t i a t e d, even i n the m o re
technologicall
y advanced societies, an extremely cavalier attitude
was taken t o w a rd the risks inherent i n the new technology. L o w-
flying aircraft spraying insecticide over t u r n ip fields were s i m p ly
considered a sign of progress, whether i n D e n m a rk or the state of
W i s c o n s i n. T h is attitude h e ld d u r i ng the relatively l o ng spell f r om
the end of the Second W o r ld W ar to the 1970s, f o l l o w i ng the p u b-
lication of Rachel Carson's seminal w o rk Silent Spring i n 1962. N i -
trate p o l l u t i on caused by excessive and inappropriat
e use of fertil-
izers i n industrialize
d agriculture cannot be excused by saying
we d id n ot k n ow any better. A n d i t is n ot as t h o u g h, at any t i me i n
the last h u n d r ed years, A m e r i c an and European farmers have
needed to produce increasing quantities of food s i m p ly to support
survival.
A n o t h er factor that must be taken i n to account is that the extra

food needed by the developing countries h ad to be p r o v i d ed either
by an increase i n p r o d u c t i v i ty on farmed l a nd or t h r o u gh the ap-
p r o p r i a t i on of v i r g in and, i n many cases, fragile l a nd for agricul-

ture. W h i le the c u l t i v a t i on of new tracts of l a nd was a viable solu-
t i on i n some countries, i n many others any more drastic inroads
i n to as yet uncultivated l a nd could be undertaken o n ly to the det-
r i m e nt of the s u r r o u n d i ng countryside, entailing a loss of v i t al
natural resources. C I M M Y T, the center c o n d u c t i ng research i n to
maize and wheat, has calculated that, w i t h o ut the scientific break-
throughs associated w i th the Green Revolution, the increase i n I n-
dia's wheat p r o d u c t i on alone between 1966 and 1993 w o u ld have
necessitate
d p l o w i ng up another 40 m i l l i on hectares of l a n d .' I f no
y i e ld increase had taken place i n developing countries since the
1960s, an a d d i t i o n al 300-500 m i l l i on hectares w o u ld have been
needed. Or, to p ut it another way, were i t n ot for the achievements
6
of agricultural researchers
, m u ch l a nd p o o r ly suited for agriculture
w o u ld have been p l o w ed up at a h i gh cost to the environment.
?
W i l d l i fe w o u ld have suffered, biodiversity w o u ld have been re-
duced, more forests w o u ld have been cut d o w n, and l a nd degrada-
t i on w o u ld have been rampant.
Here we need to r e t u rn to the idea of the Green Revolution as an
ongoing process. W o rk is still under way as researchers strive to
develop agricultural techniques and seed varieties that meet b o th
p r o d u c t i on needs and e n v i r o n m e n t a
l goals. The Rockefeller Foun-
dation's B r i t i sh president, G o r d on Conway, has dubbed this en-
deavor "the D o u b ly Green R e v o l u t i o n . " The first of the new crop
8
varieties were less likely to bend i n the m i d d le and flop to the

g r o u nd close to harvest t i m e. They were also heavily reliant on all
the ingredients i n the support package—water
, fertilizer, pesti-
cides—and, i n a n u m b er of areas, were less w e ll equipped to cope
w i th the prevailing local conditions t h an were the l a nd races they
replaced. The one clear p o i nt i n their favor was their higher yield.
Fresh Aspects of Research Findings
N ew properties are c o n t i n u a l yl being b r ed i n to agricultural plants,

and all the latest crops have a certain a m o u nt of i m m u n i ty to c o m-
m on plant diseases and some resistance to pests, w h i le r e t a i n i ng
t h e ir h i g h - y i e ld advantage. N ew varieties make m o re efficient use

of the n u t r i e n ts i n the soil, and m a ny can survive on less water
than their predecessors
. This k i nd of crop meets the needs of
small-scale farmers—in Africa, for example—who cannot afford to
use commercial fertilizers and insecticides and w ho a im to keep
the risks of losing a crop low.
To cite one example, i n southern Africa, C I M M YT has made
great strides i n the development of a maize that can w i t h s t a nd
drought. A comparative study showed that under o p t i m um grow-
i ng conditions, the best C I M M YT varieties gave the second-best
y i e ld (4 to 7 percent less t h an the t op scorer) of all the maize varie-
ties tested, the m a j o r i ty of w h i ch were propagated by local seed
manufacturer
s for use by c o m m e r c i al farmers. But the crucial dif-
ference for a farmer faced w i th an uncertain rainfall is that, w h en
the rains failed, the C I M M YT maize came out the clear winner,
w i th a 40 to 50 percent better y i e ld t h an varieties that h ad the hig-
hest yields under o p t i m um conditions. This is n ot far f r om the
w i n - w in situation that small-scale farmers crave and C I M M YT is
w o r k i ng toward.^
Even so, the " d o u b ly green" is possibly too l i m i t ed a r e v o l u t i o n,
given that there is m u ch more to m o d e rn agricultural research
than just a profitable g r o w th i n y i e ld and responsible management
of natural resources. Social factors such as poverty, dietary consid-
erations, and gender equality also must be taken i n to account w h en
establishing p r i o r i t i es for the development of new crops. I n this
b o ok we l o ok p r i m a r i ly at h ow to increase p r o d u c t i v i ty and reduce
risks i n an e n v i r o n m e n t a lyl sound fashion, b ut we also discuss
other aspects of responsible current research w o r k.
Box 2 presents a b r i ef s u m m a ry of a recent, broad-based re-
search project i n v o l v i ng a n u m b er of the aspects o u t l i n ed above.
This research is being carried out at one of the CGIAR centers, the
West Africa Rice Development Association, w h i ch has its head-
quarters i n the Cote d'lvoire and conducts research i n to the devel-
o p m e nt of rice-based c r o p p i ng systems i n Africa.
B OX 2
G E T T I N G THE RICE RIGHT
Rice has been grown in Africa for at least 3,500 years—not the varieties
of rice that are grown in the low-lying plains of Asia, where fields are
flooded and the rice slops about in water for most of its growing sea-
son. The indigenous African rice gets by on rainwater and is sown in
the same, familiar manner as other grains. It does well here on Cote
d'lvoire. It can take most of what the climate has to offer and is resist-
ant to numerous diseases and harmful insects. But its yield is not what
one might call impressive, and so most farmers concentrate on grow-
ing one of the imported Asian varieties that do not grow in flooded
fields. In a good year the harvest is considerably better w i th the Asian
rice. But not every year is a good year. Far from i t: the rains may fail, or
an outbreak of some serious plant disease may occur, or insects may at-
tack. In such years one w o u ld do better to stick to the African rice. A
wise farmer grows a little of both.
Damned Weed
But then there are the weeds. In the fields around here, the weeds we
are talking about are not benign little plants like dandelions or butter-
cups or ground elder. They are stout thistles, coarse grasses, large
thick-leaved plants w i th tough stalks, and little bushes that in next to
no time can produce a powerful, deep-reachin
g root system that
chokes everything in sight, i f regular, thorough weeding is not carried
out.
And weeding in itself poses a major problem, w i th farm labor so
scarce. Everything is done by hand and hoe, and even though the chil-
dren do their bit, it is still touch and go. It takes 4 0 days of sweating
and straining each year to keep just 1 hectare of land weed-free. A nd
that is one good reason why the African rice is still popular: it is a
speedy grower and in no time at all can spread into a whole little bush
of densely packed leaves, which cover the soil and overshadow the
weeds, making it hard for them to grow.
But, as mentioned previously, this rice does not yield a great crop,
no matter how carefully it is tended, not even when given plenty of
manure. This particular strain of rice does not produce very many
grains per plant, and i f its growing conditions are improved, it simply
puts out stronger shoots and leaves.
A good many bad things can be said of the African rice. It has the
unfortunate knack of shattering, so that some of the barely ripened
grains of rice fall onto the ground and are lost before they can be har-
vested. A nd the stem is so t h in that it w i ll often snap or be bent by the
w i nd and rain. A nd some of the rice, down in the shade between the
leaves, may not ripen. The seed also takes a long time to germinate af-
ter sowing. But the grains are fine and the rice tastes good.
At WARDA, the West African Rice Development Association, they
have been w o r k i ng for some years on the improvement of African rice.
But there is a definite l i m it to how much can be achieved, and so there
has been no great interest in pursuing that particular avenue.
But then again, a lot of work has been invested in adapting and i m-
proving the Asian rice varieties. The idea has, in fact, been to repro-
duce the excellent results achieved in Asia, where record harvests have
been produced, year after year, from the 1960s right up until recently.
The same formula was applied at WARDA: new varieties and plenty of
fertilizer, water, and insecticides where necessary to combat disease
and insects. Only about 2 0 percent of the farmers in West Africa have
been able to follow this method.
Over the years the Asian rice has also been rendered more resistant
to disease and insects, though it is still not as hardy as its African coun-
terparts. A nd the Asian varieties d id not help at all w i th the weed
problem. On the contrary, they grow tall, slender, and well spread out,
allowing their rivals plenty of scope. Consequently
, the fields had to be
sprayed w i th weed killer if there was to be any hope of attaining the
splendid returns that can be gained from the Asian rice.
This was never an option for smallholders
, and so they had to make
do w i th poorer returns and a little of each of the t wo types of rice in
their fields. But there was never a question of whether to grow rice, be-
cause in many countries in West Africa, rice is the staff of life. But
these countries are by no means capable of producing all that is needed
themselves. For every 10 kilos eaten in Cote d'lvoire, 4 are imported.
A nd the pattern is more or less the same for the rest of West Africa,
which, as a whole, imports more than 6 million tons of rice per year. It
is hard to picture such a mountain of rice.
Clearly, then, the rice researcher
s have more than enough to do.
The Farmers Know What They Want
A good rice plant must be able to flourish without the aid of fertilizer; it
must be capable of coping w i th a dry year; and of course it has to pro-
vide a decent yield. The rice grains should be large, the panicles firm,
and the plants tall: harvesting can be backbreakin
g work. Besides, tall
rice plants are generally believed to produce a good crop. But it is also
important that the rice should grow fast and ripen early, so that the gap
g rice stocks w i ll not be so long. And
between using up and replenishin
what about weed control? Well, it almost goes without saying that this
is most important, if one knows anything about farming.
An Almost Hopeless Task
When a new generation of internationa

l researcher
s joined WARDA in
the early 1990s, they went right back to the beginning. Not that the i m-
provements already made on the African and Asian varieties of rice
were less than successful, but they never led to any real breakthrough
.
So the new researcher
s set themselves the goal of cross-breedin
g the
Asian and the African strains, i n an attempt to get the best out of both
types. One might think that that w o u ld be easy if one knew nothing
about crossing plants. In fact, it was a major undertaking
, and there
were many times when things looked far from hopeful before a suc-
cessful outcome was reached.
The researcher
s began by collecting seeds from all of the varieties of
African rice they could lay their hands on, from other research centers
throughout the world and from WARDA's o wn seed collection. This
gave them a grand total of 1,500 varieties. Since there were many of
these about which little was known, they were grown in trial plots and
descriptions of each entered in a large catalog. One long page was de-
voted to each rice plant, giving 47 facts concerning height, thickness of
the stem, how many leaves it was capable of producing, how quickly
the seed germinated, the length of the panicle, the number of grains,
the size of the grains, their color and shape, and of course how it
tasted. This catalog also included a great deal of other information,
chiefly regarding how well the plants grew and how well they thrived
w i th and without fertilizer and w i th limited amounts of rain.
Much was already known about the Asian rice. Not least by WARDA's
colleagues at the Internationa
l Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in the
Philippines
, where they have well over 100,000 seed varieties at their
fingertips.
A selection was thus made from among the most promising plants
possessin
g several good qualities from each of the t wo types that
seemed likely to thrive in West Africa. These then had to be crossed
this way and that, to bring out the very best in the new plants. There
really should be many different plants to choose from, since their per-
formance can vary greatly from place to place in a region as vast as
West Africa, w i th so many different types of soil, different patterns of
disease, different insects, and wide variations in the amount of rainfall.
N ow the hard work really began.
If the pollen of female and male rice plants is mingled, this w i l l, as a
rule, result in plants bearing grains of rice. But, as the researcher
s dis-
covered, these cannot germinate. And that, one might think, would be
the end of that. Not, however, at WARDA, because the researcher
s
there knew that in nature, such cross-pollination
s do occur now and
then. Hence, over the course of the thousands of years in which w i ld
and cultivated species of rice have been in existence, a major process of
regeneratio
n occasionally occurs. Researcher
s can cite instances of this
also having been achieved in the laboratories
.
So it was simply a matter of perseverance
. And sure enough, a tiny
percentage of hybrids was induced to germinate in the next genera-
tion. The offspring were a little on the spindly side and most of the
plants were the exact image of one or the other of their parents, but a
handful in each test turned out to be a mixture of both. A ll efforts now
had to be concentrated on these, but there is no denying that it was a
slow process: the new plants had to be tended through several genera-
tions to make them hardy enough to survive in the outside world. A nd
a rice plant takes at least 120 days to ripen.
More Good Ideas
The researcher
s therefore cast about for ways of speeding up the proc-
ess. Other researcher
s in China and Colombia taught them techniques
that enabled them to make direct crosses between the seedlings after
only a few weeks. Granted, this meant that they had to develop certain
substances in which the plants could grow, but this too they succeeded
in doing. W i t h in just t wo years, they had a small selection of plants
ready for use, something which, w i th the old methods, would have
taken at least five or six years.
While all this was going on, work was also being done to improve
the parent plants, and the selection process itself was made more ex-
acting. Then the fun really began. A ll right, so that might not be exactly
the w o rd that the researcher
s w o u ld use, but one can tell simply by
looking at them that that is what they are thinking.
In the spring of 1996 they rented fields from farmers in a number of
villages, and employed people from the villages to work them. Sixty
different varieties were planted: two small plots for each variety, one
w i th and one without fertilizer. African and Asian varieties were used,
plus 10 of the new hybrids.
Plenty New under the Sun
The researcher
s have made a radical break w i th tradition. Previously,
they would have spent years working in the test fields back at the re-
search center before finally selecting a couple of new varieties, "the
cream of the crop," which could then be offered to the farmers. In this
case, all the options are presented and the farmers themselves make
the selection. In Ponoundogou in 1997, they grew a total of 19 varieties.
Some were rejected as the tests progressed
, since the taste, the cooking
time, the color of the grains, and the ease w i th which they can be
ground down into flour also had to be assessed under actual con-
ditions.
No surveys have yet been made of the yields obtained by the farm-
ers: the tiny plot of land that can be sown from a packet of rice seed is
not enough on which to base any scientific statistics. But on WARDA's
test fields it is easy to see what can be achieved, w i th and without fer-
tilizer; and the new hybrids consistently yield considerably more than
their parents, even when no fertilizer is used. I f fertilizer is applied, the
new varieties can easily match the best of the Asian strains.
But the new varieties also have all the good points that each of their
parents boasted: tall sturdy stems, dense foliage at the foot of the
plant, speedy growth, no shattering of unripe seeds, and resistance to
many common diseases and insects. The new plants also cope well
w i th dry spells. And believe it or not, they have their own built-in
scarecrow: the spiky leaves at the very top form a circlet that sticks up
into the air, making it hard for the birds to get anywhere near the
grains. It is doubtful whether the researcher
s considered this side-ef-
fect when they selected the plants. Nonetheless, they are justifiably
proud, even of this last little touch.
Source: Ebbe Schieler, "Getting the Rice Right," in Good News from Africa
(Washington, D.C.: Internationa
l Food Policy Research Institute, 1998).
Raising the Ceiling
In their efforts to increase agricultural productivity, researchers ex-

amine results at three levels. First, they look at the actual yield on a
w o r k i ng farm i n a specific area—the de facto p r o d u c t i on level. Sec-
o n d, they compare this figure w i th the yield obtained under con-
trolled g r o w i ng conditions at local research stations—the current
m a x i m um possible yield. T h i r d, they project what the yield could
be after further research a nd development. To this simple triad,
they add any properties other than yield that they are seeking. For
the sake of simplicity, here we concentrate on yield.
Researcher
s face several problems in w o r k i ng on these three lev-
els. First, m a i n t a i n i ng a steady yield in the field takes some doing,
given that plants must w i t h s t a nd a constant succession of attacks
f r om different pests. T he insect p o p u l a t i on varies and, insofar as
plants can fend for themselves, they require a continuous updating
of their defense mechanisms. Researcher
s must combat new forms
of attack by enabling plants to develop resistance to pests and dis-
eases t h r o u gh m u t a t i o n. This is routine maintenance research
w o r k. For every crop variety currently in use in farmers' fields, re-
searchers and seed growers must have one or more alternatives on
hand, ready to be propagated i n to seed at short notice.
The second major task is l i m i t i ng the number of factors that pre-
vent the w o r k i ng farmer f r om o b t a i n i ng yields as high as those
achieved by the research stations i n their test fields; researchers
talk of "closing the yield gap." O f course, farmers could not make a
profit i f they invested as heavily i n their fields as do researchers i n
t h e ir test plots. F r om a practical p o i nt of view, the economically ac-

ceptable level is quite a b it below the y i e ld ceiling. But i m p r o v e-
ments i n certain f a r m i ng techniques, such as treatment of the soil,
weed c o n t r o l, sowing times, and fertilizing schedules, are almost
always feasible. This side of agricultural research calls for close col-
laboration between researchers and farmers. I n high-yielding,i n-
dustrialized agriculture, the m a in f u n c t i on of research at this level
m i g ht actually be to m ap o ut where farm w o rk can be reduced w i th
the least possible d r op i n y i e l d, i n order to ease the strain on the
e n v i r o n m e nt and labor requirements
.
The most advanced research w o r k — at the t h i rd level—is d i-
rected t o w a rd raising the actual y i e ld ceiling. W h en all the possi-
bilities for i m p r o v i ng yields t h r o u gh better c u l t i v a t i on have been
exhausted, t h en new plant varieties have to be developed: re-
searchers must undertake a major l o n g - t e rm research project i n-
v o l v i ng the crossing of existing c o m m e r c i al varieties, l a nd races,
and w i ld relatives of cultivated plants. To this end, researchers and
seed growers have access, w i t h in t h e ir o wn institutions or those of
t h e ir n a t i o n al and i n t e r n a t i o n a
l colleagues, to large seed collec-
tions, so-called gene banks (see Box 3).
In the industrialize
d countries of the w o r l d, the gap between the
results—yield p o t e n t i al and other properties of the crops—on
farms and on research stations is n ot that great, so i t does n ot nec-
essarily f o l l ow that the y i e ld gap should be n a r r o w e d; yields are
n o r m a l ly more or less confined to a set p r o p o r t i on of a crop's max-
i m um yield. I n most developing countries, however, the shortfall is
s t i ll considerable
. The gap can, i n some cases, be closed by keeping
farmers better i n f o r m e d, b ut often they have neither the workforce
n or the money to alter the way they farm and so they do n ot get the
m a x i m um y i e ld f r om good p l a nt material. This is by no means an
unusual s i t u a t i on i n many parts of Africa where, for example, the
soil is disastrously l ow i n nutrients b ut farmers cannot afford to
add even the t i ny amounts of fertilizer that c o u ld make all the dif-
ference.
B OX 3
CENE BANKS
Over the past hundred years, seeds collected from every corner of the
w o r ld have been cultivated under stringent test conditions and their
various properties recorded. Scientists have then stored samples of the
cultivated seeds in the deep freezes of gene banks for future use.
Gene banks, private and public, are to be found in almost every
country, and the task of expanding and maintaining the collections is
an enormous one. These seed stores must be continually regenerated
through cultivation, since the seeds w o u ld otherwise lose the ability to
germinate, usually after a few decades. The CGIAR's rice gene bank at
the Internationa
l Rice Research Institute contains approximatel
y
130,000 varieties and w i ld relatives; C I M M YT has over 1 0 0 , 0 00 types
of wheat seed stored at a temperature of -18 degrees Celsius in a con-
crete silo in Mexico. A ll gene banks have fail-safe agreements w i th
other institutions, to ensure there is always at least one set of back-up
copies, and private and public gene banks collaborate extensively on
the exchange of seeds and on salvage operations in the event of seeds
being spoiled.
W i th about six hundred thousand accessions, the CGIAR system's
gene banks are estimated to contain sample seeds of 4 0 percent of all
developing-worl
d crops, both cultivated and w i ld varieties. The
CGIAR has entered into an agreement w i th the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations that designates the gene banks as
common global property. Although the task of handling the plant
material still lies w i th the CGIAR, the current practice of free access
for all to the holdings has now been ratified by an internationa
l agree-
ment under which no special-interes
t groups receive any particular ad-
vantage.
In large areas of the developing w o r ld there is no great difference

between the yields achieved by farmers and those on the research
stations. The steady increase i n yields year after year u n t il 1990
does continue today, b ut the g r o w th rate is l o w er w h i le the popula-
t i on is s t i ll on the increase. Fortunately, t h o u g h, this p o p u l a t i on
t r e nd is less m a r k ed today than i n the 1960s and 1970s. A n d at the
10
research stations the signs indicate that getting m u ch more m i l e-

age out of c o m b i n i ng o p t i m um f a r m i ng techniques w i th the
k n o wn p l a nt material w i ll be difficult. The y i e ld gap is, to all i n-
tents and purposes, fixed.
Obviously, i n such a situation the challenge for researchers and
seed producers is to raise the y i e ld ceiling. A n d although they are
w o r k i ng h a rd to achieve this end, at b o th the n a t i o n al and inter-
national levels, some good w o r k i ng years have already been lost
o w i ng to a lack o f funding.
The Danger of Overconfidence
Here we need to take a l o ok back to the 1950s, w h en the F o rd and

Rockefeller foundations recognized that, w i th p o p u l a t i on g r o w th
o u t s t r i p p i ng g r o w th i n f o od p r o d u c t i o n, something w o u ld have to
be done to t u rn the tide. T h is realization triggered a research p r o-
gram t h at produced a n u m b er of i m p r o v ed varieties. Initially, this
merely served to c o n f i rm the o ld adage t h at success breeds success.
M o st of the a id organization
s and m a ny governments i n the devel-
oping w o r ld recognized the need to p u ll together, and m u ch t i me
and energy were invested i n agricultural research and devel-
opment. I n the early 1980s the all-clear was sounded, signifying a
j ob w e ll done. By then, apart f r om isolated instances related to c i v il
wars, famines no longer made the headlines.
This was the p o i nt at w h i ch the p a t t e rn of investment i n devel-
o p i n g - w o r ld agriculture and foreign a id i n general d id an about-
t u r n. The ostensible success had engendered a certain degree of
indifference
: the p r o b l em of agricultural p r o d u c t i v i ty had been
sorted o u t; n ow there were other, m o re interesting items on the
agenda. As a sign of this d w i n d l i ng interest, development assistance

to agricultural research and development dropped significantly.
The result was a shortfall i n the p r o d u c t i on of research results
that w i ll take some t i me to make up. Maintenance research has just
about managed to h o ld its o wn i n most countries, b ut the real
front-line research aimed at raising the y i e ld ceiling has made no
significant progress. A n d the research agenda has n o t, strictly
speaking, been of m u ch help either. The scant funds h a v e — w i th
good reason—gone t o w a rd developing many other aspects of farm-
i ng techniques and plant varieties, rather t h an concentrating on i n-
creased y i e ld p o t e n t i al alone. Once again Malthus's clash between
p o p u l a t i on g r o w th and food p r o d u c t i on looms threateningly on
the h o r i z o n, particularly i n Africa (see Chapter 3).
M e a n w h i l e, the demand for dynamic food p r o d u c t i on has been
extended to include concern for a n u m b er of other factors, m a i n ly
natural resources and e n v i r o n m e n t a
l p r o t e c t i o n. Faced w i th the
complexity of the p r o b l e m, M a l t h us w o u ld surely have despaired.
The one t h i ng we cannot afford is to become passive members of
his doomsayers' club.
2 • THE EXPANDING BOUNDARIES
OF RESEARCH Risks and Benefits
Singapore has a w o n d e r f ul zoo, w i th many exciting and u n-

usual attractions. For example, visitors can arrange to have break-
fast w i th some amiable orangutans. A tourist w ho happened to
t u rn fifty w h i le v i s i t i ng Singapore had breakfast at the zoo on his
b i r t h d ay and arranged for a photographer to take some shots of the
b i r t h d ay boy w i th a p o r t ly and t h o u g h t f u l - l o o k i gn orangutan on
his lap. He sent the photos to friends and acquaintance
s w i th the
i n s c r i p t i o n, "Celebrated my b i r t h d ay w i th my closest relatives."
There is a l ot m o re t r u th to this joke t h an one m i g ht t h i n k. Re-
cent research n ot o n ly has c o n f i r m ed the strong similarities be-
tween humans and apes (there's n o t h i ng new i n that; every c h i ld
knows that we "descended f r om the apes"), b ut also has f o u nd that
if we delve d o wn to the most m i n u te l e v e l — d o wn to an analysis of
our genetic makeup—we f i nd that up to 99 percent of the gene
p o ol i n h u m an beings is exactly the same as that i n the apes (orang-
utans, gibbons, gorillas, and chimpanzees). M a ny of our genes and
theirs seem to be i d e n t i c a l . So, in m a k i ng comparisons at the gene-
1
p o ol level (the gene p o ol being all the genes of all the individuals of
a species that m i g ht interbreed), i t is n ot the differences—althoug
h
these are crucial—but the similarities t h at are most striking. The
boundaries between the species are n ot necessarily as obvious or as
h a rd and fast as we imagine.
32
E X P A N D I N G B O U N D A R I E S OF R E S E A R C H 33
New Insights
A b r i ef digression is necessary here to l o ok at some of the t e r m i-

nology i n v o l v ed i n this latest biological discovery. The cells of all
l i v i ng things contain a complete set of those units, the genes, that
determine the appearance and f u n c t i on of an organism. There are
many genes i n each cell, and the c o m p l e m e nt of genes varies f r om
species to species. Each h u m an cell contains about 30,000 genes,
p l a nt cells about 26,000, w o rm cells about 18,000, and yeast cells
about 6,000. Groups of genes are l i n k ed together i n l o ng chains
2
called chromosomes, and each gene or chromosome carries out its

functions singly or i n c o n j u n c t i on w i th other genes and c h r o m o-
somes. The collective name for all the genes i n all the c h r o m o-
somes of a species is the genome. ( A t the i n d i v i d u al level, genome
means all the genes i n that particular organism.)
Genes f u n c t i on according to a hierarchy i n w h i ch the heads of
the genetic n e t w o rk are regulator genes. They determine the appear-
ance and c o m p o s i t i on of a species and its c o n t r ol systems; for ex-
ample, where the l i m bs develop on the body d u r i ng embryonic de-
velopment is c o n t r o l l ed by these high-level genes. Genes on the
lower rungs of the hierarchy are. functional genes. For example, the
function of a gene m i g ht be to contribute to the color of a plant's
flowers.
In the past, i t was assumed that for any species, the gene p o ol
was constant t h r o u g h o ut t h at species, b ut w i th slight variations
f r om one i n d i v i d u al to the next. The differences between i n d i v i d-
uals w i t h in a species manifest themselves b o th at the higher (regu-
lator gene) level, i n the appearance of the i n d i v i d u a ,l and at the
lower ( f u n c t i o n al gene) level, for example, i n the p r o d u c t i on of
substances that determine w h e t h er that i n d i v i d u al w i ll be healthy
or not.
Constructing a complex table of the species, broken d o wn i n to
m a in divisions and subdivisions based on appearance and function,
seemed, u n t il recently, a logical way of categorizing l i v i ng organ-
isms. Species were seen as r e m a i n i ng fixed t h r o u gh time, w i th clear
differences between one species and the next. A classificatio

n of
flora, i n w h i ch i n d i v i d u al plants are defined according to leaf shape,
r o ot structure, appearance of the flower, number of stamens, and so
f o r t h, and arranged i n to families, is based on this understanding
.
The criteria for defining fauna led to whales being classified as
mammals, n ot as fish, even though they live under water. For the
higher species this m e t h od of classificatio
n is sound enough. N ew
species have evolved very, very slowly over the ages, t h r o u gh ge-
netic m u t a t i on and natural selection, and, generally, o n ly beneficial
changes that served to strengthen a species have been i n h e r i t ed and
passed o n. That, i n a nutshell, is the D a r w i n i an view of things.
W e n ow know, however, that lower organisms such as bacteria
do n ot have the same genetic stability as larger species b ut are con-
tinually changing i n to new forms. These changes o n ly rarely occur
t h r o u gh m u t a t i o n: most c o m m o n l y, change occurs w h en genes
f r om one bacterium spontaneousl
y transfer to another bacterium
of a different species. Thus the n o t i on of fixed boundaries on
w h i ch the classificatio
n of species is founded has, on closer inspec-
t i o n, proven to be a fallacy.
This process of genetic m i x i ng is also seen w h en bacteria attack
and infect plants. For example, plants can be genetically m o d i f i ed
by invading bacteria to produce "blisters" on t h e ir roots, so that
the bacteria can feed on the host plant. N ew experimental research
on mice suggests that genes f r om a virus that n o r m a l ly attacks bac-
teria can infiltrate the mouse's gene p o o l. Because the virus i n
question is quite foreign to the mouse's organs i t does n ot affect
t h e ir f u n c t i o n i n g, b ut an instance of " n a t u r al gene splicing" has i n
fact occurred. A t the genetic level, mice resemble people, and i t
may w e ll be that similar transference
s are t a k i ng place all the t i me
inside h u m an bodies. I f so, this has never led, as far as we can tell,
to radical changes in h u m a n k i n ds' appearance or function.
Mapping the Genome
The genetic similarities between species arise because all species

are made up of identical " b u i l d i ng blocks," p ut together i n differ-
ent ways. T h is also explains w hy genes can shift—or be shifted—

between individuals of the same species and across those n ot so
h a rd and fast species boundaries.
In practice, scientists already k n ow h ow to b r i ng about change
in a species t h r o u gh t r a d i t i o n al propagation, by crossing male and
female flowers f r om different parents i n a plant family. By crossing
cultivated and w i ld plants, scientists have successfully produced
some w o r t h w h i le hybrids. They have even cut across the estab-
lished species categories to breed, for example, the cereal triticale, a
h y b r id of rye and wheat. W i t h t r a d i t i o n al propagation, clumps of
genes are transferred, and o n ly by observing the next generation of
mature plants can one t e ll whether the desired c o m b i n a t i on has
been achieved, one i n w h i ch the best qualities of each parent have
been passed on to a few of t h e ir offspring. A n d these qualities t h en
must "breed t r u e ": must be passed on to the next and subsequent
h y b r id generations. Propagation by this m e t h od is a time-consum-
i ng process.
A l t h o u gh the n u m b er of genes i n v o l v ed is extremely large, scien-
tists have come a l o ng way i n m a p p i ng the genomes of humans,
other animals, plants, and lower organisms. They have produced
complete maps of the genomes of certain bacteria and have made
great strides i n constructing a complete genetic picture of certain
plants and animals regarded by the researchers as " m o d el species."
A w o r l d w i de project to compile a register of a ll h u m an genes, the
H u m an Genome Project, has n ow produced a draft description of
the h u m an genome, accomplished by t wo groups of researchers
,
one private, one public.
This b o ok is p r e d o m i n a n tyl concerned w i th the potential appli-
cation of genetic m o d i f i c a t i on i n the propagation of farm crops. But
genetic m o d i f i c a t i o n,or genetic engineering, is just one of the tech-
niques collectively k n o wn as m o d e rn biotechnology (see Box 4)
Genetic Engineering in Traditional and Modern Plant Cultivation
Used i n c o n j u n c t i on w i th conventional propagation techniques,

the new discoveries i n genetic engineering provide an excellent
B OX 4
BIOTECHNOLOGY
The term biotechnology covers all the techniques that use living organ-
isms or substances from organisms to produce or alter a product, cause
changes in plants or animals, or develop microorganism
s for specific
purposes. Modern biotechnolog
y encompasse
s a number of tech-
niques and methods. Advances in molecular biology, which underlies all
these discoveries, have over the past sixty years allowed researcher
s to
study the smallest, most basic units w i t h in the workings of the living
cell. This has led to a completely new way of describing living organ-
isms. A far cry from the old "schoolbook" method, based on appear-
ance and function, this technology gets right down to the mapping of
the genome, the complete set of genetic material in an individual or-
ganism. A number of techniques and methods play a key part in mod-
ern biotechnology
.
• Bioinformatics is the name given to the presentatio

n in a usable
form of the data obtained from analysis of a genome, facilitating
further work on these data.
• Diagnostics is the use of molecular characteristic
s in examining
organisms. Diagnostics speeds up the process and improves the
chances of locating pathogens and other foreign organisms,
since there is no need to wait until the organism is fully devel-
oped and obviously infected.
• Gene mapping is the characterizatio
n of the genes, and the order
in which they are linked, in chromosomes
.
• Gene splicing, or transformation, is the transfer of one or more
genes w i th certain prospectivel
y useful qualities to plants, do-
mestic animals, fish, or other organisms.
. Molecular breeding is an improved version of the conventional
propagation of plants and animals. It locates and assesses qual-
ities inherent in organisms, thus providing a more precise and
quicker method—as early as the very first cell division in new
hybrids—of selecting successful specimens for further devel-
opment.
• Tissue culture is a means of growing tissues from single cells, ma-
nipulating them in various ways to produce the desired end
products.
• Vaccine technology uses molecular biology as a means of and a
short cut for developing modern vaccines.
t o ol for developing plants w i th various desirable characteristics

.
Even in the very earliest stages in the life of a new shoot, gene map-
p i ng can show whether the targeted c o m b i n a t i on of genes has been
achieved. The desired new plant types are generated f r om i n d i v i d-
ual cells by means of tissue culture, p r o v i d i ng a large selection of
cells for testing m u ch earlier than w i th t r a d i t i o n al culture m e t h-
ods. Researcher
s can also gain great advantages and save a great
deal of t i me by using gene m a p p i ng to select parent plants most
suitable for t r a d i t i o n al breeding.
This is h ow things stand at the m o m e n t. O ur knowledge about
w h i ch genes carry w h i ch characteristics
, and where these genes are
located in the cell's genome, is g r o w i ng rapidly. For lower-level
genes, w h i ch act singly to p e r f o rm simple functions, this k n o w l-
edge can be applied i n various ways:
• The genes already functioning w i t h in an organism can be al-

tered; the effect of a particular gene can be suppressed or can
be reinforced by increasing the n u m b er of gene copies in the
cell. One example is the effect achieved by " s h u t t i ng o f f a
gene that causes fast r i p e n i ng of a f r u i t, m a k i ng transporta-
t i on of the fruit easier.
• A gene f r om one organism can be transferred to another or-

ganism of the same species. For example, a flavor gene f r om a
w i ld t o m a to can be transferred to a cultivated tomato.
• A gene f r om one organism can be transferred to an organism

of a quite different species. For example, the gene that ena-
bles mangrove trees to tolerate salt water can be transferred
to rice plants. This type of genetic m o d i f i c a t i on is k n o wn as

transgenics because i t cuts across species.
• A c c o r d i ng to one theory, most organisms—all except the very

simplest—contai
n i n t h e ir genes a large n u m b er of biological
attributes that have n ot been activated—that is, n ot all the
genes are exerting their function.? I f the nonactivated, or
"silent," genes c o u ld be encouraged to interact w i th the or-
ganism's other genes, i t m i g ht be possible to add certain de-
sirable functions w i t h o ut having to go beyond species b o u n d-
aries. For example, a potato c o u ld be endowed w i th the
a b i l i ty to w i t h s t a nd frost or w i th better taste or storability
w i t h o ut b r i n g i ng i n genes f r om another species.
The technology b e h i nd the splicing of genes has been developed

by observing and applying the biological processes involved i n na-
ture's o wn gene splicing. The first successfully executed exper-
iment, carried o ut i n 1972 i n the U n i t ed States, entailed c u t t i ng a
gene out of one organism and j o i n i ng i t to a chromosome of
another. D e n m a rk was quick to adopt the process, first i n the phar-
maceutical i n d u s t r y: h u m an i n s u l in for the treatment of diabetes
was prepared f r om genetically m a n i p u l a t ed microorganism
s con-
tained i n closed tanks, rather than being obtained f r om livestock.
In 1994 the first G M plant product appeared on supermarket
shelves i n the U n i t ed States: a slower-ripenin
g t o m a t o. A l t h o u g h,
f r om the manufacturer'
s p o i nt of view, this seemed an excellent
idea, i t was n ot a great moneymaker. Since then, however, other
products have been a runaway success.
One can use various techniques to isolate a gene f r om an organ-
i s m. The gene can be " t i ed t o" the genetic material of a bacterium,
then attached to this pair is a gene that w i ll be easy to spot i n the
later stages of the process—what is k n o wn as a marker gene. This
"gene pack" is then propagated to f o rm numerous identical copies.
The isolated gene n ow has to be transferred to the organism i n
w h i ch i t is intended to f u n c t i o n. To be reproduced by the organ-
i s m — t h at is, to be handed d o wn to the next generation—th
e gene
must f i nd its way i n to the egg or sperm cells. Here, again, there are
a n u m b er of options f r om w h i ch to choose. The gene can be t i ed to
a bacterium of the type that naturally splices itself to the roots of
plants w i t h o ut h a r m i ng the organism. The new gene is t h en trans-
p o r t ed t h r o u gh the cell w a ll and eventually joins the plant's other
genes i n its genome. Or, one can shoot the gene i n to the cell w i th a
gene gun, w h i ch has microscopic bullets i n to w h i ch the gene has
been inserted. These bullets f u n c t i on exactly like a bacterium, bor-
i ng t h r o u gh the cell w a l l.
These techniques do n o t, by any means, w o rk every time, and
splicing new genes i n to an organism w i th the technology currently
in use is a j ob r e q u i r i ng great patience. The marker gene hooked up
to the transferred gene is used to check whether the splicing has
been successful.
Weighing the Risks to Human Health
This brings us to the heart of one of the problems w i th the new

technology. A standard m e t h od of i d e n t i f y i ng a genetically m o d-
i f i ed cell i n the laboratory has been by means of a marker gene that
endows the cell w i th resistance to an antibiotic. I f that a n t i b i o t ic
is added to the gene recipients i n the gene m o d i f i c a t i on exper-
i m e n t, o n ly those organisms containing the marker gene—and
thus the gene the experimente
r w a n t ed to t r a n s f e r — w il survive.
This w o r ks w e ll for experimental purposes. But i f the marker gene
injected w i th the gene pack i n to a plant remains part of that plant,
in the next and subsequent generations, f r om t h en on that p l a nt
w i ll be resistant to antibiotics (as are m a ny bacteria, for example).
W h i le there is no evidence of this causing problems for the people
or animals that eat the plant, the possibility that this resistance w i ll
be passed on cannot be t o t a l ly discounted. The antibiotic-resist
-
ance m a r k er was chosen because i t was easy for researchers to
w o rk w i th i n the laboratory, b ut they have l i v ed to regret t h e ir
choice.
There are a n u m b er of ways to resolve this d i l e m m a, the obvious
one being to develop other types of marker genes. Researcher
s in a
40 SEEDS OF C O N T E N T I O N
n u m b er of countries have succeeded i n developing harmless

markers based on carbohydrate
s that occur naturally i n p l a nt a nd
h u m an cells,4 a nd other research groups are w e ll on t h e ir way to
developing other kinds of markers. A n o t h er way of solving the
p r o b l em w o u ld be to remove the marker once the gene transfer has
taken place, a nd this technique is n ow i n use.
The transfer technique itself is another debatable p o i n t. Genetic
m o d i f i c a t i on is a very precise technique compared w i th conven-
t i o n al propagation, i n w h i ch genes are transferred i n i n d i s c r i m -i
nant clumps. O n this p o i nt scientists generally agree. But its preci-
sion is l i m i t e d, inasmuch as the transferred gene is r a n d o m ly placed
in the chromosome of the recipient organism, w i th no way of
k n o w i ng i n advance exactly h ow it w i ll interact w i th the thousands
of other genes of that organism's genome. One m i g ht say that this
has always been the way w h en crossbreedin
g plants, a nd n ew varie-
ties have always been t r i ed out in laboratorie
s a nd test fields for
l o ng periods before researchers claim w i th certainty that the plants
are functioning as expected. Over several g r o w i ng seasons, the n ew
varieties m u st show they have new, advantageou
s qualities that are
u n i f o rm and consistent f r om one generation to the next.
The safety measures established for G M crops are far m o re exact-
i ng than those for new varieties of plants propagated by t r a d i t i o n al
methods. The first step after m o d i f i c a t i on is to carry out g r o w i ng
trials i n protected greenhouses
, where plants are tested for, among
other things, various constituent substances and allergens, accord-
i ng to stringent standards l a id d o wn by the authorities. I n the case
of countries w i t h in the European U n i o n, these are j o i nt E.U. stand-
ards. In the U n i t ed States, the E n v i r o n m e n t a
l Protection Agency,
the D e p a r t m e nt of Agriculture, and the Food and D r ug A d m i n i s t r a-
t i on are responsible for various components of the standards. Basi-
cally, the test procedures w o rk f r om the i n i t i al premise that the new
plants are just like the o ld familiar ones except i n that one isolated
area where the a im has been to make a change.
I f the isolation trials proceed w i t h o ut a h i t ch a nd the desired re-
sult—and no other result—is achieved, the authorities may give
permission for trials on test plots, i n order to assess the plant's per-
formance and its c o m p a t i b i l i yt w i th the surrounding fields and
countryside. I f these trials also go w e l l, scientists may seek permis-
sion to t ry o ut the plant on farmland. I f permission is granted, the
plant undergoes a t r i al p e r i od of seven years. I n most European
countries companies have n ot yet reached the stage of selling G M
seeds to farmers. W i t h in the European U n i o n, permission has been
granted for the p r o d u c t i on of G M plants i n o n ly a few cases; o n ly
l i m i t ed quantities of such crops are being g r o wn at the m o m e n t.
Permission has also been given to i m p o rt products or raw materi-
als produced w i th the help of G M plants i n to E.U. member coun-
tries. I n the U n i t ed States, permission to commercialize G M seed
has been granted for several commodities and p r o d u c t i on is al-
ready widespread.
It is generally agreed that such strict authorization procedures
are w e ll w o r t h w h i l e, and a n u m b er of mistakes have been p i c k ed
up t h r o u gh this process. The most famous example is the case of
the soybeans t h at were given a gene f r om Brazil nuts i n order to
boost the o il content of the beans. Brazil nuts, however, cause an
allergic reaction i n some people. Fortunately, the researchers were
aware of this possible side effect and performed tests to see w h e t h-
er the allergen was passed on to the soybeans. W h en they f o u nd
that i t was, greenhouse trials were discontinued, even t h o u gh the
soybeans were developed to be used o n ly as a n i m al fodder. To
some, this demonstrates t h at the safety measures w o r k. Others,
however, p o i nt to this as an example of the risks i n v o l v ed i n the ge-
netic m o d i f i c a t i on of crops for h u m an c o n s u m p t i o n.
The safety measures appear to be w e ll warranted, i f o n ly on the
basis of the a m o u nt of concern generated by G M crops. Yet the
a m o u nt of n o r m al v a r i a t i on i n the constituent substances of all
crops has never attracted m u ch a t t e n t i o n. As one researcher p ut i t,
" It m i g ht be quite interesting to carry out comparable analyses of
conventionall
y g r o w n, organically g r o w n, and genetically m o d i f i ed
cultivated plants. A l t h o u gh such studies can be very expensive and
the question is, do we really need such information?"s A n A m e r i-
42 SEEDS OF C O N T E N T I O N
can researcher i n v o l v ed i n the authorization process for G M crops

is even m o re categorical i n his assessment
: "The allergy tests are so
extensive that most of our foodstuffs w o u ld never pass t h e m . " 6
The p o i nt that both researchers are m a k i n g — w h i el i n no way

disagreeing w i th the safety requirement
s placed on G M crops—is
that, as far as they can see, even w i t h o ut advanced screening sys-
tems, conventional and organic f a r m i ng do n ot appear to have
done any noticeable h a rm to people's health.
The Poisoned Rat Debate
The debate s u r r o u n d i ng the health question flared up once again at

the end of 1998 and b u r n ed fiercely t h r o u gh the first h a lf of 1999,
after the results of experiments carried o ut by D r. A r p ad Pusztai, a
researcher at a government-funde
d institute i n Scotland, were
made public. Pusztai t h o u g ht his findings on the effects of G M po-
tatoes on rats represented such conclusive p r o of of the dangers of
genetic m o d i f i c a t i on that, c o n t r a ry to standard scientific practice,
he released his i n t e r im findings to the press.? Over the next few
days, the affair escalated i n to something of a p u b l ic scandal w h en
Pusztai was first c o m p l i m e n t ed on his w o r k, then suspended by his
employer. The institute was w i d e ly accused of a miscarriage of jus-
tice, on the grounds that Pusztai was fired n ot because he released
his findings prematurely b ut because his negative findings on G M
crops could make things a w k w a rd for the government and private
companies. After r e v i e w i ng all the documentation
, the research i n-
stitute where Pusztai was employed issued a statement to the effect
that it f o u nd his conclusions u n s o u nd and p u b l i c a t i on of his i n-
t e r im findings irresponsible
.
In Pusztai's experiments
, a substance f o u nd i n snowdrops t h at
provides this f l o w e r i ng p l a nt w i th defense against insects was inte-
grated i n to potatoes, i n an a t t e m pt to e n d ow t h em w i th a similar
resistance to insects—without
, of course, rendering the potatoes
toxic to animals or people. The resulting G M potatoes were then
fed to laboratory rats. W h en inconsistencie
s were detected i n the
effects on the rats' organs and g r o w t h, w h i ch apparently could n ot
be a t t r i b u t ed solely to the presence of toxins, the conclusion was

that the genetic m o d i f i c a t i on itself had caused the damage.
P r o m p t ed by these d i s t u r b i ng reports, the prestigious B r i t i sh
scientific body, the Royal Society, set up a c o m m i t t ee of i n q u i r y,
w h i ch spent some m o n t hs e x a m i n i ng the research material f r om
all angles. I n the spring of 1999, the committee's findings were
published i n a r e p o rt that criticized the quality of the w o rk and
many of the techniques used. I t f o u nd no f o u n d a t i on for a r r i v i ng at
any conclusions based on that study. Subsequently
, w h en Pusztai's
8
material was published i n a scientific journal,? the journal's scien-

tific advisers protested i n d i g n a n t yl that they d id n ot understand
h ow an article of such p o or quality c o u ld have slipped t h r o u gh the
usual safety net p r o v i d ed by the peer-review process—comment
s
f r om experts i n the field. One B r i t i sh c r i t i q ue also p o i n t ed o ut that
i f a G M p r o d u ct h ad s h o wn the effects suggested i n these a l a r m i ng
reports, i t w o u ld have been weeded o ut i n the course of the screen-
i ng process and w o u ld never have got beyond the laboratory
stage. 10
Weighing the Risks to the Environment
The health aspect is o n ly one side of the debate on the legitimacy

of genetic m o d i f i c a t i on i n agriculture. A n o t h er line of argument
concerns h ow the new plants w i ll f u n c t i on i n the field and h ow
they w i ll f it i n w i th the s u r r o u n d i ng e n v i r o n m e n,t w h e t h er c u l t i-
vated l a nd or w i ld countryside. These are problems one needs to
consider i n m a ny aspects of modern-day p l a nt propagation; they
are n ot unique to G M plants. The problems are f o r m u l a t ed either
as general questions about the end products of the new technology
or as specific queries about the few plants that have so far been de-
veloped and made w i d e ly available i n a n u m b er of countries.
The purpose of propagating G M plants, f r om a scientific p o i nt
of view, is the same as that of propagating plants by existing m e t h-
ods: to create new p l a nt material p r o v i d i ng better quality and
higher yields at l o w er cost. U n t il now, this has m o s t ly been inter-
preted as meaning l o w er costs to farmers. As a result the emphasis
in industrialize
d agriculture has been on t wo positive attributes of
the new plants: simpler weed c o n t r ol and less expenditure on
spraying w i th pesticides. These benefits have, by a nd large, shaped
the debate on the effects on the environment.
Weed Control
Researcher
s have i d e n t i f i ed a n u m b er of w i ld plants endowed w i th
a natural resistance to chemicals that plants cannot n o r m a l ly w i t h-
stand. The resistance gene f r om these species has been transferred
to crops such as maize, soybeans, t u r n i p s, c o t t o n, and rape. W h en
farmers sow the G M plants, they can spray their fields w i th weed-
k i l l i ng chemicals w i t h o ut h a r m i ng the crop.
Several companies have developed new plants of this type—the
same companies that produce the universal weed killers, or herbi-
cides, that the plants are designed to w i t h s t a n d. For example, the
m u l t i n a t i o n al company M o n s a n to manufactures the herbicide
Roundup and also markets herbicide resistant maize, beet, and
rape seeds under the b r a nd name Roundup Ready. The seeds and
chemicals go h a nd i n h a n d: there is l i t t le sense i n one w i t h o ut the
other. W h at is so special about this first generation of G M crops is
that the genes are integrated i n to varieties that the farmers already
k n ow to be reliable, so the G M version is chosen purely because i t
makes the w o rk of farming easier and cheaper.
Roundup and similar herbicides produced by other companies
are chosen for this strategy because they degrade r a p i d ly and there-
fore are often considered a m o ng the most acceptable agricultural
chemicals. A n d indeed, w h en this type of weed killer first appeared
on the market as a standard herbicide, i t was hailed as a step in the
r i g ht d i r e c t i on environmentally—replacing
, as i t d i d, some m u ch
more noxious chemicals. Householder
s w ho w a n t ed to spray t h e ir
driveways w i th weed k i l l er felt they c o u ld n ow do i t w i th a good
conscience, using these new, m i l d er herbicides. M o re recently,
however, the general attitude t o w a rd the long-term effects of using
herbicides i n any shape or f o rm has been more guarded, a feeling
that has r u b b ed off on G M p l a nt technology.
I f we l o ok at the question of t o x i c i ty alone, we can see some ad-

vantages to be gained f r om G M crops as opposed to those g r o wn
by t r a d i t i o n al methods. For t r a d i t i o n al crops, the soil has to be
t h o r o u g h yl prepared before sowing to help prevent weed seeds
f r om germinating. D u r i ng the g r o w i ng season, the plants must be
sprayed w i th several different herbicides, each of w h i ch takes care
of particular kinds of weeds w i t h o ut h a r m i ng the crop. Genetically
m o d i f i ed crops require less intensive soil preparation, and weeds
can be left to germinate a nd grow for a w h i l e, before the farmer
needs to administer a dose of herbicide appropriate to the size of
the weed p r o b l e m. The burgeoning weeds are good for helpful i n-
sects, birds, and small mammals. A n d because the herbicide falls
on a dense cover of weeds rather t h an on newly prepared soil, the
chance of toxins leaching i n to the soil is reduced. A c o n t r o l l ed
study of G M t u r n i ps cultivated i n test fields on farms, carried out
by the D a n i sh N a t i o n al E n v i r o n m e n t al Research Institute, was ac-
tually t i t l ed " G M T u r n i ps Benefit the E n v i r o n m e n t . " The study
11
f o u nd that where farmers let the weeds g r ow somewhat before

spraying the fields, they used 50 percent less herbicide than w i th
t r a d i t i o n al weeding. A n d there was no d r op whatever i n the t u r n ip
yield. These tests c o n f i r m ed w h at had already been seen i n the
greenhouse phase of G M t u r n ip c u l t i v a t i o n.
This aspect of the effect of these herbicides on the e n v i r o n m e nt
does n ot appear to present any great p r o b l e m, and i n any case this
is n ot the m a in area of concern about p o t e n t i al e n v i r o n m e n t a
l
h a r m — a l t h o u gh the latest findings on yields may w e ll have come
as something of a surprise to critics of this type of G M plant. The
m a in p o i nt at issue is the possible dispersal of the plants' geneti-
cally engineered properties to their w i ld cousins. W e r e t u rn to this
topic later i n the chapter.
Resistance to Insects
The bacterium Bacillus thurengiensis (Bt for short), a w i d e ly distrib-

u t ed species w i th many variants, produces a m i ld t o x in that acts on
a small selection of insects h a r m f ul to a n u m b er of crops. This
t o x in presents no k n o wn danger to insects that do n ot pose p r o b-

lems for agriculture or that actually help p r o d u c t i on by p o l l i n a t i ng
cultivated plants.
The virtues o f Bt have been k n o wn for many years. Even organic
farmers spray Bt on their fields w h en insect attacks get o ut of hand.
Because i t is produced naturally, biodegrades rapidly, a nd has no
k n o wn h a r m f ul side effects, i t is recognized as a permissible pesti-
cide for use i n otherwise n o n t o x ic farming. Genetic engineering
enables farmers to apply Bt to crops d i r e c t ly and automatically
, by
integrating the ability to produce the t o x in i n to the plants t h e m-
selves. International seed-producin
g companies have already suc-
cessfully developed several Bt-producing crops, i n c l u d i ng maize,
c o t t o n, and tomatoes.
O n the face of i t, this seems like a m a j or step f o r w a r d. After all,
i f crops have t h e ir o wn specific b u i l t - in resistance to pests, farmers
do n ot need to use the universal pesticides that are the n o rm i n
conventional agriculture. But critics s t i ll f i nd i t h a rd to see the ad-
vantages. There is all the difference i n the w o r l d, they say, between
i n t e r m i t t e nt spraying w i th the Bt t o x in and a constant level of Bt i n
the plants. Spraying w i th Bt reduces the pest p o p u l a t i o n, b ut a p r o-
p o r t i on of i t w i ll survive. For large populations of insects, there is
no great danger that the handful of insects that develop a resist-
ance to Bt w i ll meet, mate, and pass on t h e ir resistance to future
generations
. The inherent effect of constant exposure to Bt, h o w-
ever, w o u ld be a drastic r e d u c t i on i n the insect p o p u l a t i o n, w h i ch
w o u ld increase the chances of s u r v i v i ng individuals breeding and
passing on resistance. T h is natural selection of the best-adapted i n-
dividuals, as we know, forms the basis for D a r w i n 's concept of
"survival of the fittest." Such a development—a h i g h ly likely one,
in the l o ng t e r m — c o u ld mean that at some p o i nt organic f a r m i ng
w o u ld have to manage w i t h o ut the Bt t o x i n. But Bt, as we have
noted, has m a ny variants; farmers c o u ld s w i t ch to a different vari-
ant, i f necessary, as is regularly done for other substances w i th
" w o r n - o u t" properties i n conventional p l a nt p r o d u c t i o n.
The p r o b l em of resistant insects can be m i n i m i z ed by setting up
regulations for h ow f a r m i ng is to be conducted. Such regulations

are already i n force i n the U n i t ed States, where farmers are re-
quired to provide refuges—reserve
d areas—for insects. This may
mean setting aside areas where crop spraying is kept to a m i n i m um
or p l a n t i ng a certain p r o p o r t i on of a crop as n o n - GM varieties.
This w o u ld l i m it toxic concentration
s and reduce the risk of resist-
ance, or at least postpone i t, depending on the size of the areas set
aside as refuges. A t the b e g i n n i ng of 2000, U.S. federal authorities
tightened the rules i n this area, w h i ch far too many farmers were
managing to circumvent one way or another.
The shift to Bt f r om standard chemicals is packed w i th potential.
In China over the past four years, a large share of the t r a d i t i o n al
cotton varieties have been supplanted by Bt varieties. N o statistics
are available on the i m p a ct of this shift at the national level, b ut i n
Hebei Province about one m i l l i on farmers are n ow g r o w i ng Bt cot-
t o n. Given t h at c o t t on g r o wn by conventional methods is ex-
tremely vulnerable to pests, c o t t on growers depend heavily on pes-
ticides. The t r a n s i t i on to the Bt varieties i n China has resulted i n an
80 percent r e d u c t i on i n pesticide use on fields p l a n t ed w i th Bt cot-
t o n. I n a d d i t i o n, conditions for all insect life are so m u ch i m p r o v ed
that the pests that prey on c o t t on are n ow m o re likely to be at-
tacked by t h e ir natural enemies, whose numbers have increased by
25 p e r c e n t .
12
The Endangered Butterfly
A l a r m i ng i n t e r im research findings on Bt crops were made public

in a r e p o rt t h at was expected to deal a decisive b l ow to the future of
the new Bt technology. I n M ay 1999 a team of A m e r i c an research-
ers re por ted t h at w h en they fed m o n a r ch caterpillars w i th p o l l en
f r om Bt maize i n t h e ir laboratories
, the caterpillars were seriously
damaged and many died. Because one supposed advantage of the
Bt technique was t h at i t was n ot h a r m f ul to f r i e n d ly insects, and
because the subject of the experiment was the picturesque m o n-
arch butterfly, a huge o u t c ry ensued, led by an alliance of environ-
mental organization
s and the press. As we n o t ed i n the I n t r o d u c-
t i o n, the matter caused a great furor i n the U n i t ed States. It even

had p o l i t i c al repercussion
s i n Europe, where approval of several
G M plants up for authorization was p ut on h o ld (see Chapter 6).
This affair was treated somewhat differently f r om Pusztai's p o-
tato experiments, because the laboratory experiment had been
handled i n a scientifically sound manner, but—as the researchers
conceded—this laboratory research c o u ld y i e ld o n ly l i m i t ed re-
sults, w h i ch needed to be expanded. This was done over the
summer and a u t u mn t h r o u gh various f i e ld experiments. The con-
clusions—which
, as i t happens, have n ot received m u ch media ex-
posure—allaye
d fears about the well-being of the m o n a r ch b u t-
terfly and other friendly insects.
In the laboratory, feeding conditions for the m o n a r ch caterpil-
lars were unnatural, inasmuch as the caterpillars h ad n o t h i ng to
eat b ut the pollen f r om the Bt maize, for w h i ch they have no partic-
ular preference. I n the w i l d, m o n a r ch caterpillars live almost exclu-
sively on m i l k w e e d. This p l a nt can be f o u nd g r o w i ng near fields of
maize, b ut for the most part, maize p o l l en does n ot travel many
feet away f r om the plant (and a h i gh concentration of p o l l en w o u ld
be needed to reach a level h a r m f ul to the caterpillars), and the
leaves of the m i l k w e ed are so s m o o th that, even i f maize pollen d id
land on t h e m, they w o u ld n ot retain m u ch of i t. Researcher
s also
p o i n t ed out that the weaker caterpillars, w h i ch m i g ht be expected
to be the most likely to succumb to Bt-infected p o l l e n, live on the
underside of the m i l k w e ed leaves, where the pollen does n ot l a n d.
A nd lastly, of all the climate belts i n N o r th America where m o n-
arch butterflies can be f o u n d, i n o n ly a h a n d f ul of areas are the b u t-
terflies at the caterpillar stage at the same t i me that maize is shed-
d i ng its p o l l e n . ' So, i n this instance, neither the m o n a r ch b u t t e r f ly
1
n or any other friendly insects seem to be i n i m m i n e nt danger.

The a t t e n t i on given to this particular case contrasts strangely
w i th the general attitude t o w a rd standard agricultural practices:
conventional pesticides, w h i ch do n ot differentiate between f r i e nd
and foe, k i ll a great many harmless insects. The fierce denunciation
of clearly targeted and contained pest c o n t r ol t h r o u gh Bt plants is
perhaps a l i t t le out of t o u ch w i th reality. I n all probability, more

butterflies survive near Bt fields t h an near those sprayed w i th con-
ventional pesticides.
The Fear of Gene Dispersal
Genetically m o d i f i ed crops have been likened to plants and an-

imals i n t r o d u c ed i n to an area f r om some other part of the w o r l d,
whether by accident or design. The most notorious example of this
was the i n t r o d u c t i on of rabbits i n to Australia, where i n certain re-
gions they became a d o w n r i g ht plague. A n d sometimes the u n w e l-
come i n t r u s i on is m u ch more local. I n Great B r i t a i n, for example,
certain varieties of r h o d o d e n d r on are considered a t h i ng of beauty
in the garden and stubborn weeds on the other side of the garden
fence. O n the benefit side, one c o u ld p o i nt to the i n t r o d u c t i on to
European agriculture of wheat and potatoes and other vegetables
and flowers, brought i n by accident. M o v i ng live organisms f r om
one place to another can cause problems, b ut sometimes there is
m u ch to be gained.
Today, t h o u g h, strict l i m i t a t i o ns a nd quarantine regulations gov-
ern the i m p o r t a t i on of seeds, live animals, and g r o w i ng plants. N o
c o u n t ry or region w o u ld k n o w i n g ly i m p o rt a n ew crop w i t h o ut
careful analysis of its quality, its adaptability to local conditions, its
state of health, and its c o m p a t i b i l i yt w i th other p l a nt and a n i m al
life. N a t i o n al authorities' analysis of G M plants is based on just
these sorts of considerations
, supplemented by new requirements
and backed up by m o d e rn high-tech testing techniques.
The close k i n s h ip between G M crops and existing plants, h o w-
ever, gives rise to another w o r r y: the r i sk of inadvertent m i n g l i ng
of the o ld and the new. T h is fear is founded on an awareness of the
n o r m al way i n w h i ch many agricultural crops (and all f l o w e r i ng
plants) are propagated, t h r o u gh cross-pollination
.
Quite a catalog can be d r a wn up of the possible pitfalls of G M
plants b o th for existing agriculture and the s u r r o u n d i ng country-
side. A n abbreviated list runs like t h i s:
SO S E E D S OF C O N T E N T I O N
• Pollen f r om G M plants could fertilize neighboring, n o n - GM

plants. Organically g r o wn crops and t h e ir seeds w o u ld thus
be " p o l l u t e d ".
• The m o d i f i ed gene c o u ld be dispersed to w i ld relatives, and

these weeds (superweeds, as they are called) w o u ld benefit
f r om the a t t r i b u te added to the G M plant.
• Seeds d r o p p ed by the G M plant m i g ht survive i n the field and

shoot up the f o l l o w i ng season as a troublesome weed.
There is n o t h i ng new about any of these scenarios. They are no dif-

ferent f r om those occurring i n conventional p l a nt propagation,
where the a im is also to i m p r o ve the plants i n one or more p a r t i c u-
lar aspects. These plants also cross-pollinat
e w i th close and n ot so
close relatives, because that is h ow f l o w e r i ng plants reproduce.
W h y has this interplay between cultivated f a r m l a nd and w i ld
countryside, between one field and the next, never before been a
c o m m on concern? The reason is that cultivated varieties are sel-
d om robust enough to survive w i t h o ut help f r om the farmer i n the
f o rm of soil preparation, weed c o n t r o l, fertilization of fields, and
so o n. The specific agricultural properties b r ed i n to cultivated
plants rarely give t h em a competitive edge i n the w i l d, w h i ch ex-
plains w hy there is no sign of superweeds i n the fields. The proper-
ties that G M material can b r i ng to weeds w o u ld be of o n ly l i m i t ed
benefit to these plants. A weed's a b i l i ty to w i t h s t a nd a pesticide i n
the w i ld is clearly of use to the plant o n ly i f the spot where i t grows
is sprayed w i th that pesticide.
Some Positive Attributes of Genetic Modification
Public a t t e n t i on has, w i th good reason, been focused on G M plants

that can w i t h s t a nd herbicides and manage w i t h o ut pesticides. I t is
on these that most research t i me and effort has been invested, and
the results have been staggering.
Farmers i n the U n i t ed States w e l c o m ed the new technologies
w i th open arms, and the three m a in G M crops—maize, soybeans,
and rape—captured between 25 and 50 percent of the seed market
in the last three years of the 1990s. Canada and A r g e n t i na are h a rd

on the U n i t ed States' heels, particularly w i th maize and soybeans,
and M e x i co and South Africa n ow have a measure of G M crop out-
p ut under way. T he b ig u n k n o wn q u a n t i ty is China. T he actual fig-
ures are regarded as state secrets, b ut statistics for certain crops
such as tobacco and c o t t on i n some provinces indicate that China
is investing all its energies i n the s w i t ch to G M crops. The first G M
rice plants w i ll p r o b a b ly soon be appearing i n its farmers' fields.'* 1
The task facing the m a j or seed-producin

g companies has clearly
been to make the farmer's w o rk easier, to reduce p r o d u c t i on costs,
and to recoup the money invested i n research. A n d so far they have
been p r e t ty successful i n this. But p a rt of t h e ir a im has also been to
reduce the level of toxic residue i n agricultural p r o d u c t s — n ot
d o wn to the level achieved by organic f a r m i ng b ut enough to p r o-
duce a genuine i m p r o v e m e nt that w o u ld set consumers' m i n ds at
ease. One great spin-off f r om this easier, cheaper f a r m i ng is that
the pressure has to some extent—and i n certain areas to a great ex-
tent—been taken off the environment.T h is is also an obvious ad-
vantage for consumers. But the more recent G M agricultural p r o d-
ucts already perfected or i n the pipeline appear to offer benefits
quite different f r om those seen i n the first wave of G M products.
One advantage that tends to be overlooked—an
d is of p r i m a ry
interest to us here—is the increase i n yield. M o re w o rk is being
done on this front, either directly, by r e n d e r i ng plants m o re p r o-
ductive so that they y i e ld m o re or larger seeds or f r u i t, or i n d i-
rectly, by l i m i t i ng losses, w h i c h, p a r t i c u l a ryl i n developing coun-
tries, can mean the difference between a p o t e n t i al and an actual
harvest.
T h r o u gh genetic m o d i f i c a t i o n, science n ow has the facility to
combine properties so that plants capable of w i t h s t a n d i ng weed
killers and c o m b a t i ng insects f r om w i t h in w i ll soon be a reality.
One such p l a nt is a p o t a to that repels the Colorado beetle, w h i ch
can completely destroy a p o t a to crop. Scientists have also been able
to produce plants resistant to many agricultural pests and diseases
t h r o u gh conventional propagation, b ut the techniques employed
up to n ow have been of no help i n dealing w i th most v i r al infec-

tions. N or can viruses be combated by spraying. Genetic modifica-
t i on has led to a breakthrough i n this field, p r o d u c i ng the first
plants w i th a b u i l t - in resistance to viruses.
Conventional propagation techniques have also b r o u g ht us a
l o ng way i n i m p r o v i ng the quality of i n d i v i d u al crops and devel-
o p i ng vastly different characteristic
s i n various strains of the same
crop; for example, they have produced wheat varieties that are
better for p r o d u c i ng b a k i ng flour or for m a k i ng pasta. A n d conven-
t i o n al technology has made great strides i n i m p r o v i ng the y i e ld of
plants under difficult f a r m i ng conditions, say w i th l i m i t ed rainfall
or i n soil w i th an adverse chemical makeup.
D r a m a t ic improvements have also been made i n the ability of
plants to get the most o ut of the n u t r i e n ts i n the soil. For example,
the capacity of wheat to extract nutrients f r om the soil has i n-
creased so m u ch that, w i th the best varieties and good f a r m i ng
k n o w - h o w, farmers can n ow apply one-fifth of the t r a d i t i o n al
a m o u nt of n i t r o g en fertilizer w i t h o ut any d r op i n yield. I n the
1950s and early 1960s, tall varieties of wheat required almost 400
kilograms of nitrogen to produce a y i e ld of 5 tons. This has gradu-
ally been reduced to about 75 kilograms of nitrogen for the varieties
developed i n the mid-1980s.« The possibility for reducing the need
for fertilizer is also i m p o r t a nt environmentally
. I n industrialize
d
and some developing countries, excess chemical fertilizer some-
times leaches i n to the groundwater, damaging the water supply.
A nd i n developing countries, the l i m i t ed amounts of organic fertil-
izer available, such as green and a n i m al manure, w o u ld stretch
farther w i th more nutrition-efficien
t crops.
O t h er positive results of genetic m o d i f i c a t i on are improvements
in the characteristic
s of certain varieties of plants. The first varie-
ties of rapeseed w i th an o il content healthier for consumers are al-
ready appearing on the market. Sweeter tomatoes and strawberries
have been perfected, as w e ll as potatoes w i th a higher starch con-
tent. Such products can provide consumers i n the developed w o r ld
w i th some new choices f r om an already abundant range of f r u it
and vegetables—assuming
, of course, that there is a demand for
these goods.
A concentrated effort is also being made to i m p r o ve qualities of
particular interest i n developing countries. The t y p i c al diet of the
p o or i n a developing c o u n t ry is often unbalanced, w i th grains and
r o ot vegetables the m a in ingredients i n t h e ir daily fare. W h en this
diet is o n ly rarely supplemented by green vegetables or meat,
people suffer f r om a lack of vitamins and other m i c r o n u t r i e n t.s
The use of food supplements such as v i t a m in pills to make up the
deficit, as do people i n the West, is n ot a practical s o l u t i on for the
p o or i n the developing countries; such supplements are t oo expen-
sive and often difficult to distribute i n r u r al areas. So researchers i n
public research institutes, national and i n t e r n a t i o n a,lare w o r k i ng
t o w a rd breeding crops w i th a higher content of the nutrients that
are missing.
A fair a m o u nt of progress has been made, using t r a d i t i o n al tech-
niques, t o w a rd increasing the i r on content i n grain crops such as
rice, maize, and wheat, w h i ch are absolutely central to the daily
diet in most developing countries. W o rk is also being carried o ut on
beans and cassava. I n these plants as w e ll as the grains, researchers
are examining ways of i m p r o v i ng t h e ir zinc, v i t a m in A , and i r on
content. T h e ir findings have been p r o m i s i n g, b ut u n t il recently
they have had to l o ok at these nutrients one at a time. Because no
k n o wn variety of rice plant contains a h i gh level of v i t a m in A , for
example, researchers cannot develop v i t a m in A - e n r i c h ed rice
t h r o u gh t r a d i t i o n al methods such as crossbreeding
. I n an exciting
research breakthrough
, using genetic m o d i f i c a t i on techniques
scientists have n ow incorporated beta-carotene (converted i n to v i-
t a m in A i n the h u m an b o d y ), as w e ll as more i r o n, i n to rice i n the
laboratory. But a l ot more w o rk needs to be done on this, because
the type of rice used i n the experiments is easy to w o rk w i th b ut n ot
particularly c o m m o n, and the flavor and appearance of the new
rice leave something to be desired. Nevertheless, this project shows
that ongoing w o rk using genetic m o d i f i c a t i on can produce i m p o r-
tant benefits for b o th farmers and consumers.
O n other fronts, efforts are under way to develop plants that can
survive on less water and on soils w i th a naturally h i gh content of
metals such as a l u m i n u m, as occurs i n large stretches of savannah
in Africa and South America. A breakthrough here c o u ld open up
vast areas of l a nd for grain c u l t i v a t i o n. I n the l o ng r u n, this w o u ld
n ot o n ly increase crop p r o d u c t i on b ut also ease the strain on over-
cultivated slopes and hillsides. As we m e n t i o n ed earlier, another
ongoing project is to develop a rice that can cope w i th saltwater
flooding, by i n s e r t i ng genes f r om salt-tolerant mangrove trees that
g r ow i n coastal regions i n the tropics.
Leguminous plants have the ability to convert, or " f i x ," nitrogen
in the air i n to a m m o n ia and nitrate, b o th of w h i ch are absorbed
and used by plants. This boosts the n u t r i t i o n al content of b o th soil
and crops. I f farmers plant legumes such as peas or beans and leave
the roots i n the soil after harvesting, they need m u ch less chemical
fertilizer or manure for t h e ir next crop. Farmers also capitalize on
this a t t r i b u te by p l a n t i ng other crops—annuals
, shrubs, or trees—
alongside the legumes and by r o t a t i ng the crops on each field f r om
year to year—an ancient f a r m i ng practice. Years of w o rk i n the van-
guard of i n t e r n a t i o n a
l public research have been invested i n at-
t e m p t i ng to transfer the n i t r o g e n - f i x i n
g ability of legumes i n to
grain crops. T h is has been an agricultural researcher's dream,
t h o u gh n ot always easy to believe i n. There are tremendous ben-
efits to be gained, b o th e n v i r o n m e n t a
l a nd economic, f r om any ad-
vances made i n this field. W h i le genetic engineering is u n l i k e ly to
solve this p r o b l em i n the very near future, the n ew techniques do
a l l ow the w o rk to be m u ch m o re focused.
Australian researchers have made great progress i n creating
plants that produce vaccine against the most c o m m on children's
diseases. A measles vaccine produced i n tobacco leaves has suc-
16
cessfully been t r i ed o ut on mice, w h i ch developed i m m u n i ty

w i t h in just a few weeks. Experiments w i th monkeys are n ow being
planned. The next stage w o u ld be to g r ow "vaccine f r u i t" i n the
greenhouse
, thereby m a k i ng vaccination programs cheaper and
m o re effective, especially i n the developing countries, where hy-
giene and the storage of vaccines and syringes can be major p r o b-

lems.
W h en we l o ok at these advances, once considered scientific l o ng
shots, i t no longer seems like pie i n the sky to t h i nk that, at some
p o i nt i n the future, biotechnology c o u ld produce plants that make
more efficient use of solar energy—which is, after all, the d r i v i ng
force b e h i nd plants' conversion of n u t r i e n ts i n to the r aw ingredi-
ents of our diet. The efficiency w i th w h i ch sunlight is used can
vary considerably f r om p l a nt to plant, and there can be a b ig differ-
ence i n the a m o u nt of damage done to various p l a nt species by i n-
adequate sunlight w h en the temperature is low, w h i ch sets the
l i m it for h ow far n o r th or south of the equator a p l a nt can be
g r o w n. Some plants, such as bamboo, spring up so fast you can al-
most hear t h em grow. Seaweeds and other algae that g r ow under
water where sunlight is f i l t e r ed and diffused have the capacity to
make the most of the l i g ht available. I f this capacity c o u ld be trans-
ferred f r om algae to plants, i t w o u ld do a great deal for p r o d u c t i v-
i ty i n b o th industrialize
d a nd developing countries.
Genetic m o d i f i c a t i on can realistically be expected to benefit de-
veloping countries i n at least three ways: first, by increasing p r o-
ductivity, r i g ht d o wn to the smallholder level of agriculture; sec-
o n d, and every b it as i m p o r t a n t, by reducing v u l n e r a b i l iyt to the
w h i ms of nature; and t h i r d, by i m p r o v i ng the n u t r i t i o n al quality of
the food. These three improvements n ot o n ly w i ll be of help to
each farming family, no matter h ow small the farm, b ut also are of
v i t al importance to the entire r u r al village society, keeping i n m i nd
that 70 percent of the p o or i n developing countries live i n r u r al
areas. Granted, a large steady supply of food makes for l o w er
prices, b ut since the farmer's cost per u n it w i ll also drop, this
means larger overall profits and a better l i v i ng b o th for those grow-
i ng solely for their o wn needs and for those w i th something to take
to market.
Some of these futuristic possibilitie
s depend on scientists being
able to locate w h o le groups of genes—not just a single gene—that
govern a particular quality, and complex tasks of this sort w i ll ob-
viously take t i m e. But the most remarkable t h i ng i n genetic engi-

neering, as i n other recent advances i n science and technology such
as i n f o r m a t i on technology, is probably the speed at w h i ch new dis-
coveries and t h e ir practical application have happened—much
faster t h an the fathers of the science, and even its most avid enthu-
siasts, c o u ld have expected.
3 • WHAT IS WRONG WITH MORE
OF THE SAME?
It is the end of the nineteenth century. I n a p o or Danish

farm family, everyone s h o u ld have been i n bed l o ng ago, b ut no one
can sleep on this November n i g h t. The atmosphere is tense, and no
one has m u ch to say. The mother, whose eyes are wet, is being
comforted by a neighbor's wife. The c h i l d r en huddle together fear-
fully on the benches l i n i ng the walls of the l i v i ng r o o m. Father is
over i n the b a r n, t e n d i ng the a i l i ng p i g, w h i ch they b o u g ht i n the
spring to fatten up. I t is the family's o n ly resource. T h r o u gh the
summer and fall, the p ig has been tended carefully and fed better
t h an anyone i n the f a m i l y: its slaughter is the family's guarantee of
getting t h r o u gh the w i n t er w i th at least a l i t t le meat on t h e ir bones.
Desperate prayers for mercy are sent up, b ut the p ig does n ot make
it t h r o u gh the n i g h t. The o u t l o ok for the l i t t le family is bleak.
This tragedy is recounted i n the short story " D e a t h b l o w", by the
Danish w r i t er H e n r ik P o n t o p p i d a n . Over a h u n d r ed years later,
1
this story can s t i ll make a Dane's b l o od r un cold. Few people out-

side D e n m a rk k n ow Pontoppidan's name. A n d even i n his native
l a nd it is d o u b t f ul whether m a ny s t i ll read the stories i n w h i ch he
depicted the lives of p o or farming families w i th such poignancy
that the p u b l ic i n d i g n a t i on he aroused helped trigger major social
reforms.
57
Stories like Pontoppidan's seldom attract m u ch a t t e n t i on i n the

industrialize
d w o r ld today, b ut the need for t h em is just as great.
M i l l i o ns of families i n developing countries are every b it as vulner-
able today as was Pontoppidan's smallholder family, and they are
struck by similar, staggering deathblows. The situation for these
people is dire, and yet this massive tragedy does n ot give rise to
m u ch c o m m e nt or any widespread concern i n the industrialize
d
countries. After all, things are going just fine—aren't they?
Keeping Disaster More or Less at Bay
There are many ways of depicting the reality of the developing

countries. The media usually o pt to r e p o rt on the rare sensational
occurrences—disastrou
s crop failures, floods, earthquakes
, famine
relief, airlifts—event
s t h at are s t r a i g h t f o r w ad
r and clear-cut, no
matter h ow o v e r w h e l m i ng they may be to those on the spot. These,
though, are out-of-the-ordinar
y situations, and newspaper readers
and television viewers i n Europe and N o r th America m i g ht assume
that before and after these crises, everyday life is well-ordered and
reasonably okay.
Relief organization
s make their appeals on the same terms:
things have gone t e r r i b ly w r o ng somewhere i n the w o r ld and
something must be done, fast, to restore the status quo. I t may take
t i m e, and m u ch r e b u i l d i ng may have to be done, b ut we are given
the feeling t h at once things are back to the way they were before
the disaster occurred, the end w i ll have been achieved.
The disaster reports we receive f r om developing countries are
not the w h o le picture. Some private groups and official develop-
m e nt organizations—an
d to some extent the media—do a sterling
j ob of tirelessly r e p o r t i ng on day-to-day life, the problems faced,
and successes achieved i n the poor countries of the w o r l d. But,
t h o u gh readily available, this i n f o r m a t i on never seems to make a
great impact on the general public. I n any case, one gets the i m-
pression t h at w h i le the people may be poor, as l o ng as there are no
c i v il wars or floods or other natural disasters, life w i ll f o l l ow its
simple quiet course i n the villages of the developing w o r l d. W e are
WHAT IS W R O N G WITH MORE OF THE SAME? 59
n ot seeing the appalling famines i n such heavily populated coun-

tries as Bangladesh, China, and I n d ia t h at were considered inevita-
ble twenty-five to t h i r ty years ago. A n d for certain countries and
regions where the situation seemed worse t h an hopeless, some i n-
ternational debaters cynically suggested t h at we stop s u p p o r t i ng
these regions, since there were so m a ny other tasks to be addressed
where success was m o re likely. Nature should just be allowed to
take its course. But this j u d g m e nt was t oo harsh to be adopted as
p o l i cy and, as we saw i n Chapter 2, efforts to i m p r o ve food produc-
t i on i n the developing countries produced some excellent results.
The threat o f disaster faded, and since then any serious p r o b-
lems w i th the food supply i n developing countries seemed to be
merely a m o m e n t a ry hiccup. T h o u gh these countries may be poor,
things seem to be going reasonably w e ll for t h em on the food front.
The Silent Hunger
I f a P o n t o p p i d an of our o wn day was l o o k i ng for an equally dire

real-life story to tell, he w o u ld have no difficulty i n f i n d i ng f a r m i ng
families on the b r i nk of tragedy. He w o u ld o n ly have to travel to Af-
rica or South Asia, where the largest numbers of the w o r l d 's h u n-
gry people live. These people go to bed h u n g ry and wake up to so
l i t t le daily food t h at t h e ir stomachs never feel f u l l. T h e ir numbers
are so large t h at we cannot grasp t h e m: 820 m i l l i on people—sev-
eral times the p o p u l a t i on of the U n i t ed States—have too l i t t le to
eat every day. 2
W e can illustrate this situation w i th c o l d, clear statistics. In sub-

Saharan Africa, the average food intake is roughly 2,100 calories
per person per day, far t oo l ow an average by anyone's calculations.
In South Asia, w h i ch includes the m a ny m i l l i o ns of inhabitants i n
the heavily populated countries of Bangladesh, I n d i a, and Pakistan,
the average is about 2,400 calories per p e r s o n — w h i ch w o u ld be all
r i g ht i f everybody got i t, b ut as an average i t is t oo low. Those w ho
live i n the industrialize
d countries eat very w e l l — an average of
about 3,250 calories a day. The difference between t h at and the
average i n the developing w o r ld is grotesque.3
Too few calories does n ot s i m p ly mean that people are t h i n. I n

the l o ng r u n, n ot having enough to eat has a h a r m f ul effect on c h i l-
dren's g r o w th and intellectual development and on the i m m u ne
system. A deficit of calories h i ts c h i l d r en particularly h a rd because
they are d o u b ly vulnerable: n ot o n ly do they have too l i t t le to eat
every day d u r i ng c h i l d h o o d, b ut i f t h e ir mothers were undernour-
ished d u r i ng pregnancy, the c h i l d r en were probably u n d e r w e i g ht
at b i r t h. O n e - t h i rd of all c h i l d r en under five i n the developing
countries are below the size of well-nourishe
d c h i l d r en of that age
group. The i m p l i c a t i o ns for their future are severe. A n d again, Af-
rica and South Asia are heavily overrepresente
d i n these statistics/
U n d e r n o u r i s h m e tn and m a l n o u r i s h m e n
t result i n adults w ho do
n ot have the energy to do t h e ir day-to-day w o rk and c h i l d r en w ho
are less active and less open to learning. M a l n o u r i s h ed people are
more susceptible to diseases. I t does n ot take m u ch for an under-
nourished c h i ld to succumb to w h at w o u ld be a t r i v i al illness i n a
well-fed c h i l d. The dire situation i n Pontoppidan's D a n i sh small-
h o l d i ng may be repeated, even more desperately, i n m a ny a m u d-
walled home i n I n d i a, where the family's prayers are n ot for an ail-
i ng p ig b ut for the recovery of a sickly, coughing c h i ld or for r a in
before the crop is lost. As Pontoppidan points o ut i n his story, i n
his heart of hearts the D a n i sh smallholder finds i t h a rd to believe
that G od w o u ld go so far as to take the family p i g: "Better t h e n — if
i ll luck should befall—that he t o ok one of the c h i l d r e n. For w h at
w o u ld they do i f the p ig were to die?" Such terrible dilemmas are
still faced by desperate souls on smallholding
s i n some parts of the
w o r ld every day.
"Hidden Hunger"
As shocking as these figures are, another tragedy lurks b e h i nd

t h e m — o ne of the w o r l d 's better-kept secrets. The effects of m a l n u-
t r i t i on are clearly visible w h en we are b r o u g ht face to face w i th
emaciated r o ad workers i n I n d ia or hollow-cheeked
, apathetic ba-
bies i n M a l a w i. W h at is n ot so apparent is that all these m i l l i o ns of
underfed people, and many m o re besides, also suffer f r om another
WHAT IS W R O N G WITH MORE OF THE SAME? 6l
f o rm of m a l n u t r i t i o n, w h i ch is w hy researchers talk of " h i d d en

hunger."
The p r o b l em is lack of an adequate supply of m i c r o n u t r i e n t—
s
minerals and v i t a m i n s — in the daily diet. M a ny p o or people i n de-
veloping countries eat a very unbalanced diet, consisting m a i n ly of
b o i l ed rice or maize p o r r i d g e — g o od foods, as far as they go, and
filling. But unless they are supplemente
d by fruits, vegetables, and
fish or meat, the body w i ll develop a deficiency of the v i t al n u-
trients necessary to make i t strong and keep i t healthy.
One cannot go w i t h o ut the most essential m i c r o n u t r i e nst (for
example, i r o n, zinc, iodine, and v i t a m in A ) for any length of t i me
w i t h o ut serious i ll effects. I r on is v i t al for ensuring an adequate
supply of b l o od cells ( b l o od count) and, consequently
, the circula-
t i on of oxygen a r o u nd the body. W i t h a balanced diet, or one
backed up by v i t a m in and m i n e r al supplements
, the body's b l o od
count generally remains stable. For those of us w ho live i n the r i ch
parts of the w o r l d, i f someone loses b l o od or the i r on content of
the b l o od declines for some reason, i t can soon be b u i lt up again
w i th i r on supplementation
, so we rarely give this a second thought.
W e take i t for granted that the i r on content i n our b l o od w i ll be
" n o r m a l " — t h at is, appropriate to the body's need for i r o n. But i f
one looks at the b l o od i r on content of people a r o u nd the w o r l d, i t
seems that we are the ones w ho are a b n o r m a .l O f the six b i l l i on
people i n the w o r l d, five b i l l i on are iron-deficient
, t wo b i l l i on to
such a degree that they suffer f r om anemia. W o m en and children
are particularly prone to i r on deficiency. W o m en f i nd i t difficult to
replace the b l o od lost i n m e n s t r u a t i on and c h i l d b i r t h. I n regions
such as Southeast Asia, three-quarter
s of the w o m en and t w o-
thirds of the children are anemic? A serious lack of i r on has just as
debilitating an effect on the i m m u ne system as does u n d e r n u t r -i
t i on and often leads to r e t a r d a t i on i n children and reduced w o r k-
i ng capacity i n adults.
V i t a m in A deficiency reduces the body's resistance to infectious
diseases. Recent research shows a strong l i nk between v i t a m in A
deficiency and the severity of HIV/AIDS. Studies show that an ad-
equate supply of v i t a m in A , largely f o u nd i n fruits, vegetables, and

meat, c o u ld reduce the c h i ld m o r t a l i ty rate by as m u ch as 20 per-
cent i n the developing countries where the deficiency is most prev-
alent. A r o u nd the w o r l d, 125 m i l l i on c h i l d r en show symptoms of
v i t a m in A deficiency, and as a result 14 m i l l i on have seriously i m-
paired v i s i on or blindness. As l o ng as the deficiency is n ot p r o-
nounced, i t remains h i d d en and can be detected o n ly by b l o od
tests. 6
O t h er forms of dietary deficiency also can cause illness and

physical i m p a i r m e n ,t m a k i ng life g r im a nd often short for many
inhabitants of developing countries. A c c o r d i ng to recent estimates,
every day f o r ty thousand people die of illnesses related to t h e ir
p o or diet.?
Where Do We Go from Here ?
Enough calories are produced by the w o r l d 's agriculture to cover

the energy requirements of every person i n the w o r ld today. Statis-
tics show that every single one of us on this earth c o u ld be receiv-
i ng our quota of 2,750 calories per day. As we have seen, t h o u g h,
this is o n ly a theoretical average: m a ny m i l l i o ns of people sur-
v i v e — if they d o — on m u ch less. Statistical averages w o n 't f i ll t h e ir
bellies. Essential foods need to be available close to where people
live, and they need to be affordable.
The r e q u i r ed a m o u nt of daily calories forms the basis for esti-
m a t i ng h ow m u ch food is needed to feed the w o r ld n ow a nd i n the
future. Such estimates help answer the question of w h at needs to
be done i f the situation is to i m p r o ve by the t i me c h i l d r en b o rn t o-
day reach a d u l t h o o d. The I n t e r n a t i o n alFood Policy Research I n s t i-
tute has developed an analytical m o d el and carried out a series of
studies that project w h at the w o r ld f o od situation w i ll l o ok like up
to the year 2020. These analyses, along w i th proposals for a goal-
8
oriented local and global effort to eliminate poverty and hunger,

have been incorporated i n to a p r o g r am k n o wn as the 2020 V i s i on
for Food, Agriculture, a nd the E n v i r o n m e n .t
The 2020 V i s i on scenarios are based on IFPRI's o wn research
WHAT IS W R O N G WITH MORE OF T H E SAME? 63
and on data supplied by a string of i n t e r n a t i o n al organizations

w o r k i ng i n such areas as n u t r i t i o n, p o p u l a t i on g r o w t h, agricultural
p r o d u c t i o n, market conditions, prices of major export crops, and
various aspects of policy. O t h er organizations
, such as the Food
and A g r i c u l t u re Organization of the U n i t ed Nations (FAO) and the
W o r ld Bank, have developed similar models based on somewhat
shorter or longer t i me frames and w i th prognoses s h o w i ng slightly
different figures. But the general trends r e m a in the same f r om one
m o d el to the next.
The 2020 V i s i on p r o g r am looks at the various dynamic factors
that w i ll affect w o r l d w i de demand and supply of food, and h ow
these factors are likely to interact, i n order to develop a n u m b er of
alternative scenarios. Key variables taken i n to account i n these
models include global p o p u l a t i on g r o w th and, f o l l o w i ng f r om that,
the t o t al calories required, an estimate of dietary factors, and the
p o t e n t i al for agricultural p r o d u c t i on based on the c o n d i t i on of the
soil and other resources and on the p r o d u c t i v i ty of plants and live-
stock. The figures given b e l ow are derived f r om conservative esti-
mates. I n other words, this is n ot an alarmist picture of the global
situation b ut a probable prognosis i f the w o r ld sustains today's
trends.
The most likely scenario, based on a n u m b er of more or less
given factors, reveals that progress is generally being made and
that by 2020 the o u t l o ok w i ll have i m p r o v e d. But today's situation
is not all that good. A n d, again, there is always the risk that ad-
vances w i ll b l i nd us to the reality: the starting p o i nt for so many
people is so far b e h i nd w h at is r e q u i r ed for basic n u t r i t i o n. I m-
provements can be reinforced i f a wholehearted effort is made to
ensure that things become n ot just better b ut really good.
Supposedly More Calories, But...
T w e n ty years f r om now, as today, the w o r ld should, theoretically

,
be p r o d u c i ng sufficient food for everyone to have enough to eat
every day of the year. The average intake of calories w i ll have i n-
creased to 2,902 per capita w o r l d w i d e. Those w ho live i n the indus-
trialized parts of the w o r ld w i ll by t h en have an average of 3,328

calories to w o rk w i t h, whereas people i n the developing countries
w i ll have to make do w i th 2,806—but this a m o u nt is s t i ll adequate.
Africa and South Asia, however, w i ll s t i ll be plagued by shortages,
Africa w i th an average of 2,276 calories per person per day and
South Asia w i th 2,633—still t oo low. The n u m b er of people going
h u n g ry w i ll have d r o p p ed o n ly slightly, to an estimated 675 m i l l i o n,
again w i th most of the undernourishe
d concentrated i n sub-Sa-
haran Africa and South and Southeast Asia.
For c h i l d r en the overall picture w i ll also be somewhat i m p r o v ed
in 2020, w i th the n u m b er of undernourishe
d c h i l d r en w o r l d w i de
falling f r om the current 160 m i l l i on to 135 million.? But this masks
the fact that the n u m b er of undernourishe
d c h i l d r en i n sub-Sa-
haran Africa w i ll increase d u r i ng the same period. A n d i n Africa
the n u m b er of c h i l d r en whose g r o w th is stunted ( w ho are shorter
t h an they should be, w h i ch indicates p r o l o n g ed d e p r i v a t i o n) w i ll
increase over the next five years: f r om 45 m i l l i on to almost 50 m i l-
l i o n. I n Asia, this n u m b er is expected to d r op f r om about 125 m i l-
l i on to 110 m i l l i o n. This is definitely a step i n the r i g ht d i r e c t i on for
Asia, b ut a modern-day Pontoppidan w o u ld still f i nd material for
m a ny a tragic tale.
It is difficult to say whether the availability of m i c r o n u t r i e nst i n
the diet is l i k e ly to i m p r o ve i n the years to come, b ut i f the figures
continue to f o l l ow today's trends, t h en the situation w i ll still be
disastrous for a very large n u m b er of people.
ButAren't We Enjoying a Global Boom ?
In a t t e m p t i ng to envisage the w o r ld i n 2020 we need models to

refer t o, for most of the factors i n v o l v ed are impossible to visualize.
The U n i t ed Nations estimated that the p o p u l a t i on of the w o r ld
passed the six b i l l i on m a rk i n November 1999. W o r k i ng f r om that
figure, we can estimate that the n u m b er of people on earth w i ll i n-
crease by about 70 m i l l i on every year for the next t w e n ty years.
This w o u ld give a global p o p u l a t i on i n 2020 of approximatel
y 7.5
b i l l i o n, and even a slightly sharper upsurge i n such major killers as
WHAT IS W R O N G WITH MORE OF T H E S A M E ? 65
malaria, p u l m o n a ry diseases, and A I DS is n ot likely to change this

global figure by m u c h, although i n sub-Saharan Africa A I DS w i ll
temper p o p u l a t i on g r o w th considerably
. Nevertheless, the m o st
reliable forecasts make i t undeniably clear that, even i n the most
disease-ridde
n regions, populations w i ll continue to g r ow i n the
developing countries.
The p o p u l a t i on i n the industrialize
d countries is expected to i n-
crease by j u st under 4 percent f r om 1995 to 2020, reaching u p w a rd
of 1.2 b i l l i o n. The p o p u l a t i on of Africa is expected to reach approx-
imately the same figure, an increase of 50 percent for the same pe-
r i o d. I n d ia can expect a 36 percent increase and the developing
countries as a whole, 40 percent. The pace of p o p u l a t i on g r o w th is
one of the decisive factors i n calculating h ow m u ch f o od w i ll be
needed i n the various regions of the w o r ld t w e n ty years f r om now.
The p r e d i c t i on is t h at we w i ll be considerably better off by
t h e n — on average. The average annual income per person i n the i n-
dustrialized countries is expected to rise f r om 17,390 dollars (U.S.
dollars) i n 1995 to 28,256 dollars i n 2020, calculating at 1995 price
levels. The average annual income i n developing countries w i ll i n-
crease f r om 1,080 dollars i n 1995 to 2,217 dollars t wo decades later,
w i th the L a t in A m e r i c an figure three times greater t h an the aver-
age. I n Africa, the average annual income w i ll still be as l ow as 359
dollars—just under a dollar a day—but even that is an increase over
the 280 dollars a year on w h i ch Africans live today. The prospects
for South Asia l o ok somewhat brighter, w i th an increase i n annual
average income f r om 350 to 830 d o l l a r s . 10
Food under Pressure on Many Fronts
The g r o w i ng n u m b er of people w i l l, i n itself, lead to a need for i n-

creased p r o d u c t i on of crops, livestock, a nd fish. As poor people ac-
quire greater b u y i ng power, their m a in demand w i ll be for m o re
food so t h at they can have enough to eat every day. Since the w e l l-
to-do are already eating as m u ch as they w a n t, the pressure on food
p r o d u c t i on i n industrialize
d countries w i ll n ot increase by m u c h.
The eating habits of the poor, such as the m i l l i o ns of people i n
the large countries of Asia, w i ll undergo a change as they become

better off: meals w i ll become more varied, w i th less emphasis on
staples such as rice. W i t h more money i n t h e ir pockets people t e nd
to eat more meat and fish. The economic u p t u rn w i ll have a p r o-
f o u nd effect on food c o n s u m p t i o n. I n the years leading up to 2020
a great many people w i ll move f r om the countryside to the t o w ns
a nd cities of the developing countries, and this, too, w i ll b r i ng
about a change i n eating habits.
However, m a ny calories are lost f r om the global f o od supply
w h en people consume meat instead of f o od produced directly f r om
plants, because farmers must first feed a great m a ny calories to
livestock i n order to produce the meat. The "livestock r e v o l u t i o n",
n ow w e ll under way, w i ll markedly increase the d e m a nd for crops
suitable for use as fodder, especially maize and wheat. Fortunately,
p o u l t ry is the meat p r o d u ct t h at people w a nt the most (an increase
in demand of 85 percent is predicted)—fortunat
e because p o u l t ry
convert p l a nt calories to meat calories w i th a smaller energy loss
t h an do cattle or pigs. Nevertheless, the demand for beef is ex-
pected to increase by 50 percent and that for p o rk products by 40
percent. This g r o w i ng taste for meat w i ll manifest itself p r i m a r i ly
in the developing countries, where the c o n s u m p t i on of meat w i ll
almost double. Even so, this means an increase of o n ly 40 percent
per person—to levels still o n ly o n e - t h i rd of the a m o u nt of meat
eaten by the average person i n the industrialize
d w o r l d.
A l l i n all, i t is predicted that the w o r l d 's farmers w i ll need to har-
vest 40 percent more grain per year i n 2020 t h an i n 1995. A g r i c u l-
ture w i ll also be under pressure to produce more r o ot crops and
other foods essential to developing countries. I t looks like quite a
job.
Hemmed in on All Sides
Historically, farmers i n b o th the industrialize

d a nd the developing
countries have been able to produce m o re food by applying better
f a r m i ng techniques, using i m p r o v ed p l a nt varieties and livestock,
and a p p r o p r i a t i ng new l a n d. T h is last p l oy w i ll n ot be of m u ch help
WHAT IS W R O N G WITH MORE OF T H E S A M E ? 67
in the decades to come, however, unless we are w i l l i ng to cause

great damage to natural resources. M a ny places have no suitable
u n t i l l ed l a nd left. I n some regions the a m o u nt of farmland is re-
stricted by the g r o w th of towns, by r o ad b u i l d i n g, and by the i n-
crease i n areas for recreational activities. Elsewhere farmers are be-
i ng urged to plant forests and leave farmland fallow i n order to
provide more space for w i l d l i f e. A n d for many developing coun-
tries, l i m i ts on h ow m u ch l a nd may be cultivated are needed to pre-
vent out-and-out e n v i r o n m e n t a
l disasters. But regulations have l i t-
tle effect w h en desperate farmers can see no other way to earn a
l i v i ng and feed their families b ut to p l ow up more l a n d. I f we really
w a nt to protect the natural w o r ld and preserve the biodiversity of
plant a nd a n i m al life, we w i ll have to coax better yields f r om exist-
i ng fields. Sub-Saharan Africa and to some extent L a t in America,
w i th large areas of sparsely populated l a n d, s t i ll have scope for
p l o w i ng more l a n d. But i n other regions n ew f a r m l a nd can be ex-
pected to make o n ly a modest c o n t r i b u t i on t o w a rd the needed i n-
crease i n p r o d u c t i v i t y.
There is no getting a r o u nd i t: future demand for food calls for
greater agricultural p r o d u c t i o n. The figures calculated for 2020
presuppose that most of the increased volume of agricultural p r o-
d u c t i on w i ll be p r o v i d ed by higher yields f r om fields i n use today.
For grain p r o d u c t i o n, Africa c o u ld increase its o u t p ut by 2.9 per-
cent per year i n the p e r i od leading up to 2020, w i th 1.2 percent of
this d e r i v i ng f r om the a p p r o p r i a t i on of new land. I n the other re-
gions, g r o w th w i ll be considerably l o w e r — in the heavily populated
countries of Asia, 1.5 percent, w i th the c o n t r i b u t i on f r om new l a nd
a m o u n t i ng to about 0.2 percent.
The predicted increase i n the grain y i e ld is n ot a foregone con-
clusion. I n Africa, the gap between actual crop yields and the po-
tential results of using m o re efficient techniques and more produc-
tive plant material is so great that any progress—any move t o w a rd
p r o v i d i ng m o re i n f o r m a t i on and a d o p t i ng better agricultural and
economic policies—is b o u nd to b r i ng i m p r o v e m e n.t I n Africa,
where farmers cannot afford to invest i n pesticides, herbicides, and
fertilizers, the need for m o re productive plants, capable of w i t h-

standing the onslaught of pests and diseases and coping better
w i th periods of d r o u g h t, is o v e r w h e l m i n g. Such varieties have n ot
yet been perfected, b ut research is under way and these crops w i ll
be developed, as l o ng as research f u n d i ng continues and all the
available approaches can be applied. T h is research investment is
expected to provide healthy economic returns—as m u ch as 40 per-
cent per year. But the predicted g r o w th begins f r om a very l ow
starting p o i n t, an average y i e ld of 1 t on per hectare. South Asia p r o-
duces double this a m o u nt and by 2020 is expected to produce 2.5
tons per hectare. East Asia, however, shows yields of quite a differ-
ent order: 4 tons per hectare currently, w i th a predicted increase to
5.5 tons i n 2020.
In the m o re productive regions of the developing w o r l d, grain
yields are n ot increasing at the same rate as before. I n the early
years of the Green Revolution, 1967-82, grain yields i n the devel-
o p i ng countries increased by almost 3 percent annually. D u r i ng the
p e r i od 1982-94 the annual rate of g r o w th fell below 2 percent, and
for the twenty-five years f r om 1995 to 2020 is expected to reach 1.5
percent. The hope of an u p t u rn i n global grain p r o d u c t i o n, then, is
based on the premise t h at investment i n agricultural development
and research does n ot decline and that reasonable price and mar-
ket conditions prevail for farmers i n the developing countries,
w h i ch is where the m a in increase i n grain yields m u st occur i n the
years to come. Sensible agricultural policies and a decent invest-
m e nt i n agriculture cannot be taken for granted, i f the situation i n
m a ny developing countries over the last few years is a n y t h i ng to go
by. So forecasts of an u p t u rn may be t oo o p t i m i s t i c.
W h e re projections have been made for local areas, the situation
in districts w i th a p a r t i c u l a ryl pressing p o p u l a t i on p r o b l em is
daunting. Because the groundwater level is falling, the chances of
being able to use i r r i g a t i on to the same extent i n the years ahead
are slim. The salting of plains f r om overwatering l i m i ts f a r m i ng i n
certain areas, and the erosion of f a r m l a nd causes a d r op i n yields or
puts a stop to c u l t i v a t i o n, particularly i n very h i l ly country. A n o t h-
er serious p r o b l em is the depletion of soil nutrients i n m a ny areas,

especially i n Africa, where each farmer has so l i t t le l a nd and so few
resources that the soil is constantly under c u l t i v a t i o n, w i th l i t t le
fertilizer added to replace lost nutrients. Scientists call this " m i n-
i ng the s o i l ." M o re of the v i t al n u t r i e n t s — n i t r o g e,nphosphorus,
and potash—are depleted each year. A n d the farmer's fields y i e ld
less each year because plants are sapped of strength and fall prey to
disease and insect attacks. I t is a vicious circle, w h i ch can be
broken o n ly by better f a r m i ng methods, i m p r o v ed p l a nt material,
and fertilizer.
Increased Production, but Uneven Distribution
Overall, the w o r l d 's food supply seems to be h o l d i ng up reasonably

w e ll r i g ht now. But regional differences require the transport of
huge quantities of food f r om one place to another. M a ny countries
b o th i m p o rt and export grains i n order to arrive at the r i g ht com-
b i n a t i on of grain for h u m an c o n s u m p t i on and for a n i m al fodder.
Typically, however, the developing countries must rely on increas-
i ng i m p o r ts to cover the daily calorie requirements of t h e ir people,
because they s i m p ly do n ot produce enough for everyone.
In order to meet the greater needs of developing countries i n
2020, grain exports f r om the countries w i th a surplus w i ll have to
double. This sharp increase w i ll have to be met by the U n i t ed
States, Australia, and the countries of the European U n i on and East
Europe. Again, Africa, w i th its l i m i t ed purchasing power, w i ll have
to take a back seat. Its i m p o r ts are expected to increase f r om 10
m i l l i on tons of grain a year i n 1995 to almost 14 m i l l i on i n 2020, an
increase of approximatel
y 40 percent. I n East Asia i m p o r ts are ex-
pected to rise f r om 31 m i l l i on to 71 m i l l i on tons.
To meet the projected demand for m o re meat i n the daily diet,
meat i m p o r ts to the developing countries w i ll have to increase
eightfold by 2020. This sounds like a l o t, and such a m o u n t a in of
food is h a rd to imagine, b ut i t is still o n ly a small share of the agri-
cultural products that are being shuttled back and f o r th across na-
t i o n al boundaries today. The w o r l d 's t o t al grain p r o d u c t i on n ow
amounts to about 1.8 b i l l i on tons, and the models estimate that i t

w i ll swell to approximatel
y 2.5 b i l l i on tons by 2020. The grain t h at
w i ll have to be transferred to the developing countries to meet the
d e m a nd i n 2020 is estimated at 192 m i l l i on tons, or m o re t h an 7.5
percent of the total global grain p r o d u c t i o n —a j u mp of t wo per-
centage points over the current 5.5 percent.
The expected future movements of food between countries are
obviously costly i n terms of energy and foreign currency. Even t o-
day this transfer represents a massive supply operation. The m a in
point—equally v a l id n ow and i n the future—is t h at a m a j or share
of the food should be produced locally so t h at people w i th l ow pur-
chasing power, most of w h om live i n r u r al areas, can earn m o re
f r om agriculturalp r o d u c t i o n. W e cannot rely solely on f o od being
m o v ed f r om region to region to make the global averages cor-
respond to w h at w i ll actually be needed for every single person i n
every corner of the globe.
Also, we must n ot overlook the crucial role of food p r o d u c t i on i n
r u r al districts as the m a in source of income n ot o n ly for the farm-
ers themselves b ut also for those w ho live i n the s u r r o u n d i ng com-
munities. For this reason i t is v i t al t h at agriculturalp r o d u c t i v i ty i n
the poorer countries be increased; we cannot be content w i th
simply r e d i s t r i b u t i n
g food and feed between r i ch and p o or coun-
tries.
Things Are Not All That Great
A concerted effort to meet food needs i n 2020 w i ll require a

m a r k ed i m p r o v e m e nt i n agricultural p r o d u c t i on and a costly redis-
t r i b u t i on between countries w i th a surplus and those w i th a defi-
cit. But the t e r r i b ly disheartenin
g aspect of w h at is, after all, an op-
t i m i s t ic forecast is t h at our efforts w i ll serve o n ly to b r i ng the
numbers of the u n d e r n o u r i s h d
e a nd malnourishe
d d o wn a l i t t l e.
H u m an suffering and w a nt w i ll still be a fact of life for m i l l i o ns of
p o or people. A n d the risk is always there t h at t h e ir daily lives w i ll
be rendered quite hopeless—thei
r lives shattered by a d e a t h b l o w—
by rains t h at fail to come or insects t h at infest t h e ir maize crop.
This fear w i ll continue to haunt countless farm families i n Africa,

Asia, and L a t in America unless they are empowered to f i nd appro-
priate solutions.
W e have a m o r al o b l i g a t i on to m o u nt a significantly more con-
certed effort that goes a good deal farther t h an the prospects pre-
sented by the statistical forecasts. To make the future decisively
better for the p o or of the developing countries, the only reasonable
course is to take an objective look at all the options open to t h em
and us. Those w ho live i n the industrialize
d w o r ld have p ut b e h i nd
t h em a desperate h a n d - t o - m o u h
t existence simply because it was a
life too intolerable to lead or to contemplate. Shouldn't the poor of
the developing w o r ld have the best possible chance to do the
same?
4 • THE ALTERNATIVES
Global agriculture is frustratingly complex. Vast quantities

of food are produced i n h i g h - y i e l d i ng areas of the w o r l d. Surpluses
pile up, and one could be forgiven for t h i n k i ng there is more t h an
enough food to go around. For many years, a n u m b er of industrial-
ized countries have had record harvests; many developing coun-
tries, meanwhile, w i th d e c l i n i ng yields or p o or and erratic har-
vests, have had to supplement their food p r o d u c t i on w i th i m p o r ts
of grain and often w i th shipments of relief supplies. I n some coun-
tries, crop p r o d u c t i on consumes a great m a ny resources, t h r o u gh
excessive use of manure and fertilizer and all too frequent spray-
ings w i th herbicides and insecticides. I n others, i r r i g a t i on systems
are inefficient, drainage inadequate, and fertilizers unavailable.
A nd i n many areas new l a nd is f o u nd for agriculture by appropriat-
i ng woodlands and recultivating fallow land, thus destroying p l a nt
cover, w i l d l i f e, and biodiversity. W h e re farmers' plots are very
small, the earth is often overcultivated to the p o i nt where the t o p-
soil is eroded.
These are just some of the problems w i th global agriculture. I n
the industrialize
d countries, a consistent level of crop p r o d u c t i on
is taken for granted. People w ho give any t h o u g ht at all to agricul-
ture are more concerned w i th health and environmenta
l problems
than w i th global food security.
72
THE A L T E R N A T I V E S 73
A l t h o u gh the circumstances may be complex, the debate on the

c o n d i t i on of the w o r ld is often one-sided, w i th isolated facts pre-
sented as "cure-alls" capable of addressing w h at the debaters see as
the crux of the p r o b l e m. I n the debate on genetically m o d i f i ed
foods certain arguments crop up again and again, decrying the
need for any further development of genetic engineering.
Why Not Move the Grain Around?
For some people, one aspect of the global food situation has com-
pletely overshadowed all other arguments p ut together: enough
food is n ow produced i n the w o r ld to feed everyone. A n d, i f the
forecasts o u t l i n ed i n Chapter 3 are to be believed, everyone should
be able, on average, to eat his or her f i ll every day. So w hy all the
w o r ry over p r o d u c t i on figures? Given t h at i t is all just a matter of
d i s t r i b u t i o n, w hy n ot concentrate our efforts on d o i ng something
about that?
W h at is the l i k e l i h o od t h at a massive r e d i s t r i b u t i o
n exercise w i ll
do away w i th this particular aspect of the w o r l d 's inequalities
?
There seems to be no great w i ll to effect changes i n global d i s t r i b u-
t i on i n any f o r m. Support for i n t e r n a t i o n a
l development, for ex-
ample, has i n recent years constituted a d w i n d l i ng slice of the gross
national p r o d u ct ( G N P) i n most industrialize
d countries. Signs
indicate t h at some of the public debt o w ed by the poorest coun-
tries to the richer countries w i ll be w r i t t en off, b ut i t has taken a
l o ng t i me just to get t h at far. A n d g o o d w i ll is n ot exactly i n ev-
idence i n the f o rm of i n i t i a t i ng l o n g - t e rm plans to help developing
countries, along the lines of a food r e d i s t r i b u t i on p r o g r a m, for ex-
ample. I n 1998 and 1999, d o n or c o n t r i b u t i o ns f r om the nations of
the O r g a n i z a t i on for Economic Cooperation and Development
( O E C D) to the developing countries were slashed, because a great
deal of m o n ey was needed to cope w i th the pressing problems i n
Kosovo. I n effect, instead of the industrialize
d countries very
slightly reducing their standard of l i v i ng i n order to increase t h e ir
c o n t r i b u t i o n,s the well-deserved help to Kosovo was p a id for by
the p o or countries.
Let's suppose, t h o u g h, that a massive and p r o l o n g ed effort was

made to move food f r om areas w i th a surplus to areas w i th a defi-
cit. Several problems i m m e d i a t eyl become evident. First, this re-
d i s t r i b u t i on c o u ld be accomplished o n ly at the expense of long-
t e rm support programs aimed at fostering greater agricultural
p r o d u c t i v i ty i n the developing countries. I t w o u ld have to be
funded t h r o u gh these programs because the people w ho need the
food do n ot have the purchasing p o w er to buy i t. Second, the
global surplus actually available is nowhere near large enough to
make any real difference—unless
, of course, we all become vegetar-
ians. As we have seen, a fair a m o u nt of f o od is already being m o v ed
f r om one c o u n t ry to another. A n d t h i r d, i n order to move massive
quantities of food and feed f r om c o n t i n e nt to c o n t i n e nt and w i t h in
each country, a vast t r a n s p o r t a t i o
n n e t w o rk w o u ld have to be de-
signed and b u i l t, eating up many years' w o r th of investment dol-
lars, n ot to m e n t i on the energy requirement
s and the damage to
the environment.
Given these problems we cannot help feeling t h at the redistrib-
u t i on s o l u t i o n — t h at "the m a in p r o b l em . . . is n ot a question of
productivity, b ut of d i s t r i b u t i o n, r i g h t ? " — is s i m p ly t oo superfi-
1
cial. A n d, as we noted i n the I n t r o d u c t i o n, developing countries

certainly do not call this an answer. The d i s t r i b u t i on t h e o ry com-
pletely overlooks an i m p o r t a nt p o i n t: i n almost all developing
countries, even those where p r o d u c t i on is low, agriculture is the
p r e d o m i n a nt i n d u s t ry and the most i m p o r t a nt source of income
for the p o or bar none. A large slice of the G NP is derived f r om ag-
riculture, w h e t h er t h r o u gh p r o d u c t i on or processing, since agro-
i n d u s t ry is often one of the few reasonably w e ll established indus-
tries i n p o or countries. By far the largest share of jobs are related to
agriculture. Seventy percent of the developing w o r l d 's p o p u l a t i on
lives i n r u r al districts, and i n m a ny developing countries m o re than
50 percent of the people earn their l i v i ng f r om farming. A g r i c u l t u re
is the t r u mp card i n the stakes for dynamic economic development
in the developing w o r l d. I t is n ot just the farmers and f a rm laborers
w ho do w e ll w h en agriculture is t h r i v i n g. Local tradespeople and
cottage industries also prosper, thanks to a m u l t i p l i er effect t h at

puts m o re m o n ey i n to circulation, i n m a ny places d o u b l i ng the i n-
come made directly f r om farming.
V i r t u a l ly every c o u n t ry t h at has managed to leave its l o w - i n-
come status b e h i nd has based its development on consolidated ag-
riculture as the d r i v i ng force b e h i nd the national economy. Coun-
tries such as South Korea, Taiwan, and T h a i l a n d, all of w h i ch are
experiencing strong economic g r o w t h, are good examples, and
China's successful economic development d u r i ng the last t w e n ty
years also has its roots i n a productive agricultural sector. There
seems to be l i t t le chance t h at any c o u n t ry i n the l o w - i n c o me
bracket can skip this stage of development. I n other w o r d s, we can
f i nd many good reasons w hy m o re food should be produced and
w hy i t should p r i m a r i ly be produced on small farms i n l o w - i n c o me
Let's Go Organic
In the course of using n a t u r al resources, agriculture can overuse or

misuse t h e m; resources can become w o rn out and perhaps per-
manently damaged. I t is a w o r r y i ng state of affairs, and many i n d i-
viduals and organization
s a r o u nd the w o r ld have focused t h e ir at-
t e n t i on on solving these problems. They urge the a d o p t i on of
alternatives to standard agricultural techniques i n an a t t e m pt to
reduce the wear and tear on the e n v i r o n m e nt and redress the p o i-
soning of soil and groundwater. This tremendousl
y w o r t h w h i le en-
deavor has understandabl
y w on widespread backing, and agricul-
t u r al research and development is s t r i v i ng to develop p r o d u c t i on
techniques t h at w i ll n ot h a rm the environment.
Consider the use of chemicals, for example. By the 1970s, the
rapidly increasing and often excessive use of toxins i n agriculture
in b o th the developed a nd the developing countries p r o v i d ed some
early w a r n i ng signs of e n v i r o n m e n t a
l damage. One result was a
move t o w a rd p r o d u c t i on methods t h at forswore the use of chemi-
cals of any k i n d, reverting to some extent to the f a r m i ng methods
of a bygone age, t h o u gh s t i ll e m p l o y i ng i m p r o v ed breeds of live-
stock and p l a nt varieties and m o d e rn machinery. These methods

are referred to as nonchemical or organic farming, because no chem-
ical pesticides or inorganic fertilizer are used, o n ly a n i m al manure
in r aw or processed f o rm or "green m a n u r e" f r om plants. Organic
f a r m i ng should n ot be confused w i th the so-called agroecologica
l
approaches, w h i ch focus on the use of available organic fertilizers
and better c u l t i v a t i on methods b ut w i t h o ut the exclusion of chem-
ical pesticides and fertilizers. Genetic m o d i f i c a t i on can also be
compatible w i th these approaches.
A farmer is required to adhere to a specific set of standards and
methods i n order to qualify as an accredited producer of organic
foods, although the standards may vary among countries. Gener-
ally speaking, organic agriculture regards itself as the " n a t u r a l"
way, and G M crops have been deemed to have no place i n the or-
ganic farmer's t o ol k i t. A l l techniques, seed, and other inputs must
meet the prevailing d e f i n i t i on of " n a t u r a l ." A p p r o v ed crop varie-
ties developed by agricultural research other t h an genetic engi-
neering, i n c l u d i ng tissue culture, marker-assiste
d breeding, and
other m o d e rn biotechnology methods, qualify as natural.
For a n u m b er of reasons, though, organic f a r m i ng does n ot nec-
essarily result i n n o n t o x ic crops. If, for example, a p l a nt is n ot p r o-
tected f r om a disease or pest by spraying, the plant itself may com-
pensate by p r o d u c i ng its o wn protective substances, w h i ch w i ll
r e m a in i n the f i n al p r o d u ct t h at goes to market. A n d n ot all natural
p l a nt substances are completely harmless, although usually we i n-
gest t h em i n such small amounts t h at they do n ot reach dangerous
levels. W h en pest infestations become too virulent, organic farm-
2
ers have recourse to a " n a t u r a l" weapon: spraying w i th a toxigenic

bacterium, Bt (see Chapter 2). But w h i le Bt may be a natural sub-
stance, i t is s t i ll a t o x i n. Furthermore, some researchers have ex-
pressed concern about the effects of bacterial spores and o f fungi-
cides t h at can be used on organic produce.'
Organically g r o wn produce may meet a need of consumers con-
cerned about t h e ir health or the e n v i r o n m e nt i n a part of the w o r ld
where people can afford to pay for w h at are necessarily more ex-
THE ALTERNATIVES 77
pensive foods. A p r o b l em arises, however, w h en the organic con-

cept is p r o p o u n d ed as a s o l u t i on to the food p r o b l em i n developing
countries. Farmers cannot achieve anywhere near the same levels
of p r o d u c t i v i ty w i th purely organic methods as w i th m o d e rn farm-
i ng methods, i f all the l a nd needed for green manure and livestock
manure is taken i n to account. O p i n i o ns vary on h ow great the d r op
in p r o d u c t i v i ty w o u ld be i n industrialize
d countries i f organic
farming methods were to become the n o r m. Pessimists say that
yields c o u ld fall by as m u ch as half. 4 Initially, t h o u g h, i n certain
l o w - y i e l d i ng regions of the developing w o r l d, this more intensive
and environmentall
y friendly farming w o u ld lead to a demonstra-
ble rise i n p r o d u c t i o n, although less so t h an i f fertilizer and m o d-
ern technology were used.
One strongly c o m m i t t ed advocate of organic f a r m i ng i n devel-
o p i ng countries cites a study of organic p o t a t o - g r o w i ng i n Bolivia.?
The y i e ld on the t r a d i t i o n al farms was 9.2 tons of potatoes per hec-
tare; w i th the use of more labor-intensiv
e organic methods this
was increased to 11.4 tons. M o d e rn industrialize
d farms i n the
same region produced 17.6 tons. The conclusion of the experiment
was that the economic gain per t on of potatoes—afte
r the cost of
such items as fertilizer was deducted—was slightly higher for the
organic farmer t h an for the large-scale m o d e rn farmer and m u ch
higher t h an for the conventional smallholder.
So organic f a r m i ng looks p r e t ty good, i f one sees the environ-
m e nt as the cardinal issue. But for anyone w ho finds the devel-
o p i ng w o r l d 's food deficit—today's and t o m o r r o w ' s — j u ts as m u ch
of a w o r r y, the switch to organic f a r m i ng is at best only part of the
answer, and only for specific areas. A n d we m u st note that the
comparison of the Bolivian potato yields i n itself is n ot entirely
reasonable
. I f i n d u s t r i al fertilizer is replaced by organic material,
l a nd w i ll have to be set aside either for g r o w i ng supplementar
y
plants to be used as green m a n u r e — in the Bolivian experiment l u-
pines were used—or as acreage for livestock to produce manure.
T h is restricts the area available for g r o w i ng potatoes, w h i ch i n t u rn
makes for a smaller crop. W h en the cost of the a d d i t i o n al l a nd is
factored i n to the study, the figures for y i e ld per hectare do n ot l o ok

so good. I f we set aside the ecological risks of b r i n g i ng more l a nd
under c u l t i v a t i o n, organic f a r m i ng may be a perfectly acceptable
solution i n regions w i th unused l a nd that can be cultivated w i t h o ut
damaging the e n v i r o n m e n.t Such regions are becoming scarce.
Ethiopia has almost as m a ny cattle as people. The countryside
6
attests to this fact; the vegetation on far t oo many stretches of l a nd

is chewed d o wn to jagged stubble. Government authorities and re-
searchers are t r y i ng to persuade farmers of the advantages of
smaller herds of cattle. " I f we seriously w a nt to produce the v o l-
u me [ of manure] required to provide f o od for the w h o le w o r l d,
global cattle p r o d u c t i on w i ll have to be increased to between 5 and
6 b i l l i on head."'' I n other words, to produce enough manure to
raise the same q u a n t i ty of crops g r o wn by m o d e rn methods, we
w o u ld risk t u r n i ng m a ny countries i n to areas l o o k i ng somewhat
like parts of Ethiopia, w i th o v e r c r o w d i ng and gnawed stubble on
all sides.
As we have seen, green manure also requires space. I n the Boliv-
ian p o t a t o - g r o w i ng example, 1.5 tons of lupines per hectare were
used. I n a Kenyan study, for every hectare of l a nd used i n maize
p r o d u c t i o n, 4 tons of weeds had to be lugged f r om hedgerows and
roadsides to redress the loss of phosphorus and n i t r o g e n . This is
8
considered women's w o r k.
The organic v i e w p o i nt on nonorganic fertilizer is t oo restrictive
to be generally applicable i n developing countries. The organic ap-
proach may be ideal for restricting the spread of i n d u s t r i al fertil-
izer on overfertilize
d f a r m l a nd i n countries such as Japan, w h i ch
consumes 200 kilograms of m i n e r al fertilizer per hectare. I n the
Netherlands, on the other h a n d, i t is n ot chemical fertilizers b ut
the volume of cattle and p ig manure that causes the leaching of n i-
trate i n to groundwater. But i n Africa, the average a m o u nt of i n o r-
ganic fertilizer used is o n ly 12 kilograms per hectare.? A n d i n m a ny
places on the African continent, the e n v i r o n m e n t a
l challenge is, i n
fact, to achieve a balance i n soil nutrients by a d m i n i s t e r i n
g a hefty
dose of nitrogen-potash-phosphoru
s as often as the budget w i ll al-
low, i n order to prevent t o t al exhaustion of the soil. W h i le this may

n ot c o m p ly w i th the o r t h o d ox organic approach, i t has to be done.
It is untenable to t h i nk that the loss of nutrients f r om farmland can
be remedied i n any other way i n these regions.
W h en the a m o u nt of fertilizer applied is small, the nutrients are
completely absorbed by the plants; n o t h i ng is left over to pollute
the groundwater. I n developing countries, smallholder
s t e nd to
sprinkle the fertilizer precisely around the base of each i n d i v i d u al
plant, w h i ch ensures that i t is absorbed; they s i m p ly do n ot have
enough money to be extravagant w i th fertilizer. The finished p r o d-
uct—the crop plant—is the same no m a t t er whether green manure,
cattle manure, or i n d u s t r i al fertilizer is applied.
Some proponents of organic f a r m i ng assume that the labor-in-
tensive nature of the f a r m i ng is itself a good t h i n g. A n d i n some
parts of the world—large areas of Africa, for example—this is a
v a l id assumption. I n other regions, i n c l u d i ng other parts of Africa,
there are n ot enough hands to p e r f o rm chores such as weeding
even moderately w e l l, w h i ch causes a bottleneck i n the p r o d u c t i on
process. As H I V / A I DS reduces the labor force, more and more
areas of Africa w i ll face labor shortages i n agriculture. I n Asia,
where massive m i g r a t i on to the t o w ns has raised concerns about
the future of agriculture, farmers cannot be expected to w o rk m o re
hours to harvest each t on of grain. A s k i ng people to spend even
more t i me t o i l i ng i n the fields is n ot the object of the exercise, par-
ticularly i f they earn very l i t t le extra by d o i ng so.
So the organic approach, w h i le certainly a w o r t h w h i le o p t i on i n
regions w i th the space, the labor, and the consumer purchasing
power to do things t h at way, is n ot a cure-all. Advice to developing
countries to f o l l ow an organic m o d el does n ot answer the p r o b l em
of food security. A n d the assumption that the entire theoretical
basis for m o d e rn organic farming as advanced i n the industrialize
d
w o r l d — i n c l u d i ng a rejection of the possibilitie
s presented by
chemical fertilizers and genetic m o d i f i c a t i o n — c n
a meet the needs
of developing countries and their realities borders on the paternal-
istic.
What's Wrong with the Status Quo?
For those w ho do n ot insist t h at the p r o b l em can be solved t h r o u gh

redistributio
n or organic f a r m i ng alone, b ut w ho w o u ld still rather
steer clear of G M crops, the standard response is often a v a r i a t i on
on the "business as usual" theme.
One of the "grand o ld m e n" of t r a d i t i o n al plant breeding is the
N o b el prize w i n n er N o r m an Borlaug, n ow eighty-six years o ld and
s t i ll actively involved i n research. Borlaug was the chief architect of
the high-yielding varieties of wheat, w h i ch broke the hunger bar-
rier i n the 1970s, a m an w ho w o u ld have every reason i n the w o r ld
for sitting back, resting on his laurels, and consolidating a rep-
u t a t i on founded on good, old-fashioned science. But Borlaug rec-
ognizes the l i m i t a t i o ns of his o wn findings: "There has been no
great increase i n the y i e ld capacity o f wheat and rice since the
d w a rf varieties sparked off the Green Revolution of the 1960s and
1970s. I n order to meet m a n k i n ds' r a p i d ly escalating need for food,
we need to come up w i th new and appropriate technological m e t h-
ods for increasing the y i e ld capacity of g r a i n s . " A n d the statistics
10
bear h im out. As we saw i n Chapter 3, the rate of g r o w th of agricul-

t u r al p r o d u c t i on has been declining over the past t w e n ty years, and
all the projections indicate t h at i f we stick to the standard m e t h-
ods, this fall-off i n g r o w th rates w i ll continue.
Perhaps so many people insist on m a i n t a i n i ng the status quo, re-
fusing to see any positive gains f r om genetic engineering, because
the t r i ed and t r ue methods are familiar and seem perfectly natural.
This is, of course, a somewhat dubious assumption w h en one con-
siders t h at t r a d i t i o n al p l a nt breeding over the years has resorted to
low-level r a d i a t i on and chemical m a n i p u l a t i on of plants i n order
to induce mutations, as w e ll as various biotechnologie
s such as
cloning, w i th the a im of developing better plant material.
Select any t i me p o i nt i n the h i s t o ry of agriculture—say
, agricul-
ture and agricultural research i n 1990—and we cannot really say
that before this p o i nt things were s t i ll done i n a natural way. Go
back another ten or t w e n ty years, and we s t i ll c o u ld n ot m a i n t a in
THE ALTERNATIVES 81
that up to that p o i n t, p l a nt breeders were doing no more than na-

ture itself could have managed. W h y, i n the debate on natural ver-
sus unnatural, should we draw the line r i g ht here, r i g ht now, at the
p o i nt where genetic engineering has entered the scene?
L o ng before humans intervened, nature overstepped its o wn
species boundaries. W h e at researchers p o i nt to the crossing of
grasses i n the w i l d, w h i ch led, thousands of years ago, to the emer-
gence of the first varieties of wheat: d u r um wheat can be traced
back 5,500 years to the agricultural civilizations of the M i d d le East.
Later, this development was taken a step further, w h en this wheat
crossed w i th another variety of grass to produce the first bread
wheat—"Nature's o wn genetically m o d i f i ed f o o d ," as N o r m an Bor-
laug describes i t. A n d he reinforces his o wn assessmen
t of the line
between nature and h u m an endeavor by stating that "the edible va-
rieties of wheat w h i ch account for 98 percent of today's wheat vari-
eties are genetically m o d i f i ed [by n a t u r e ] . " This was the raw
11
material he i m p r o v ed u p on by crossbreedin
g wheat varieties held
in gene banks, using t r a d i t i o n al methods.
Why Not Just More of the Same ?
The hefty increase i n agricultural p r o d u c t i on over the past decade

was p a r t ly due to the a p p r o p r i a t i on of new land. As we have al-
ready noted, possibilities for e x p l o i t i ng this o p t i on i n the future
are l i m i t e d, and could be achieved only w i th negative con-
sequences for the environment. Generally speaking, we cannot go
m u ch farther i n that d i r e c t i o n. I n 1961, there were 0.44 hectares of
farmland for every person i n the w o r l d. Today the figure stands at
0.26, and the projections indicate that by 2050 i t w i ll fall to 0.15
hectares. 12
A n o t h er v i t al factor for agricultural development i n b o th indus-

trialized and developing countries has been access to i r r i g a t i o n. As
a rule of t h u m b, the y i e ld on irrigated l a nd is 2.5 times greater t h an
on n o n i r r i g a t ed land. I r r i g a t i on systems have g r o wn out of all pro-
p o r t i o n, w i th water flooded over fields—often quite i n d i s c r i m -i
nately—in every corner of the globe. I n some areas this has caused
massive damage to the e n v i r o n m e n;t i n Pakistan, for example,

m u ch of the former farmland is n ow saline.
Just as for l a nd use, there is a l i m it to h ow m u ch farther we can
go w i th i r r i g a t i o n, given the increasing scarcity of fresh water, the
c o m p e t i t i on for water f r om other industries, and a burgeoning ur-
ban society w i th a p a t t e rn of water c o n s u m p t i on very different
f r om that of r u r al villages. W e can expect a greater insistence on
saving water, as many d r i n k i ng wells r un d ry outside the rainy sea-
s o n ." For example, the groundwater i n countries such as Bangla-
desh has fallen drastically since the 1960s, i n line w i th expansion of
the i r r i g a t i on systems. Africa, however, has a greater p o t e n t i al ( b ut
perhaps n ot the finances) for expanding its i r r i g a t i o n, since only
about 5 percent of farmland is n ow irrigated. I n Asia the figure is
about 35 percent of the agricultural land. '* Quite a b it can be done
1
to make i r r i g a t i on more efficient. Smaller amounts of water, close-

ly geared to the plants' g r o w i ng periods, can be applied. A n d i r r i-
gation systems should be better m a i n t a i n ed to m i n i m i ze leakage.
But, again, i r r i g a t i on cannot be expanded indefinitely.
The c o n s u m p t i on of fertilizer and agrochemical
s as an integral
part of h i g h - y i e ld agriculture has increased dramatically. One rea-
son for the success of the Green Revolution was t h at i t was a pack-
age deal. Fertilizer enabled high-yielding plants to more fully ex-
p l o it their y i e ld potential, and agrochemical
s restricted losses due
to weeds, pests, and diseases. But i n m a ny places—again w i th Af-
rica and parts of Asia as notable exceptions—the c o n s u m p t i on of
agricultural inputs has reached dangerously h i gh levels. There is a
logical l i m it to h ow m u ch extra expenditure can be justified i n re-
t u rn for only marginal gains i n yield—quite apart f r om the strain
on the environment.
As we have seen, t r a d i t i o n a,l efficient breeding of agricultural
crops has w o r k ed very w e ll i n the battle against poverty and m a l-
n u t r i t i o n, b ut the chances of m a k i ng any dramatic progress i n i n-
creasing yields are slim. W i t h 80 percent of farmland i n developing
countries already planted w i th high-yielding varieties having some
resistance to disease and pests, some concerns arise about the pos-
sibility of c o n t i n u ed y i e ld increases.' O n the other hand, the hope

1
is that t r a d i t i o n al breeding, backed up by and i n c o m b i n a t i on w i th

genetic m o d i f i c a t i o n,c o u ld break t h r o u gh the p r o d u c t i on barrier.
Careful, Progressive Change
W e have n ot addressed here all the arguments for alternatives to

G M crops, and we deal w i th a n u m b er of other arguments, p ro and
con, i n the f o l l o w i ng chapters. But i f one takes a l o ng h a rd l o ok at
the future f o od situation i n the p o or developing countries, i t is
h a rd to see h ow single, easy solutions alone—no matter h ow allur-
i ng each may seem—can f i ll the b i l l.
As global solutions, the alternatives discussed i n this chapter—
as w e ll as genetic engineering—hav
e t h e ir l i m i t a t i o n s. None can be
applied to all parts of the w o r l d, a nd some are s i m p ly unrealistic:
they do n ot travel w e l l, are n ot readily adaptable to the needs of
certain c o m m u n i t i e ,s and do n ot meet the needs of more t h an a
l i m i t ed p r o p o r t i on of the w o r l d 's poor.
I f we were to conclude, t h o u g h, that the solution must lie i n
more of the same, we w o u ld be overlooking environmentalists
'
solid arguments against pursuing our current line and the k n o w l-
edge that, for any n u m b er of reasons, the o ld familiar technology
cannot be expected to cope w i th the increase i n p r o d u c t i on where
it is most needed.
Advocates of the "carry on as we are" solution make the assump-
t i on that current products and methods of p r o d u c t i on are perfectly
all r i g h t; they need no i m p r o v e m e n.t Sticking to w h at we know,
just because i t is familiar, does not show m u ch initiative. I n almost
any gathering of i n t e r n a t i o n a
l agricultural researchers
, they all
have tales to t e ll of improvements
, small and large, on w h i ch they
are w o r k i n g. Some of t h e ir discoveries c o u ld play a key role i n
m a k i ng today's agricultural p r o d u c t i on better and more secure for
consumers and farmers alike—for example, by banishing allergens
f r om our everyday foods or rendering plants resistant to v i r al at-
tacks. Some researchers e m p l oy genetic engineering because no
other appropriate technology is available to t h e m. I f they are pre-
vented f r om using these methods, they w i ll also be prevented f r om

a r r i v i ng at solutions to the problems inherent i n standard agricul-
t u r al methods and i n the foods we eat today. Unless we acknowl-
edge that the situation is less t h an perfect, we w i ll inevitably per-
petuate a w h o le string of problems and r i sk pursuing the w r o ng
course.
Drawing That Line Again
W e are n o t, after all, strangers to genetic engineering. For a n u m b-

er of years n ow many of our medicines—includin
g i n s u l i n, of enor-
mous benefit to humankind—hav
e been developed t h r o u gh the ge-
netic engineering of bacteria and other microorganisms
. A n d the
food sector is n ot w i t h o ut its share of thus far uncontroversia
l GM
products. Fermenting agents used i n the manufacture of beer and
cheese, for instance, were developed w i th the a id of genetic m o d-
ification. These techniques often have advantages over t r a d i t i o n al
methods apart f r om financial considerations
. For one t h i n g, they
avoid having to use natural a n i m al products that may n ot be as
p u re as we m i g ht like—such as the rennet taken f r om calves' stom-
achs for m a k i ng cheese (just as i n s u l in was once obtainable o n ly
f r om animals).
A nd few people d o u bt the value of the advances i n pharmaceuti-
cals or ask t h e ir doctors whether the medicines prescribed for
t h em have been produced w i th or w i t h o ut genetic m o d i f i c a t i o n.
W e are, for the most part, happy to be given the best treatment the
l i n d u s t ry can provide. W e see no p o w e r f ul grass-
pharmaceutica
roots m o v e m e nt advocating a r e t u rn to the pharmaceutica
l prepa-
rations of a bygone day. W h i le many are concerned about the at-
tempts by certain private corporations to extract exorbitant prices
for pharmaceuticals
, most people favor the research, development,
and d i s t r i b u t i on of medicines needed to solve our health problems,
even i f they are developed by genetic engineering.
Before d r a w i ng the line between genetic m o d i f i c a t i on for med-
icines and genetic m o d i f i c a t i on for agricultural purposes, we
should give careful t h o u g ht to the beneficial aspects. I n the indus-
trialized w o r l d, the crucial issue is good health i n to o ld age; i n

other parts of the w o r ld i t is adequate n u t r i t i on n ow and i n the fu-
ture. Ask a farmer i n western Uganda whether she w o u ld prefer
" n a t u r a l" cassava or a G M variety that can combat leaf mosaic, a
v i r u l e nt p l a nt disease. W e can guess w h at her preference w o u ld be.
But no one asks her. A n d some w e l l - i n t e n t i o n d
e people i n the i n-
dustrialized w o r ld are i n c l i n ed to believe she should n ot be asked.
W e argue that she should be given a real choice.
5 • CAN THE POOR BENEFIT FROM
GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS?
Let's l o ok at three short stories t h at illustrate the difference

between the picture of genetic engineering t h at has been p a i n t ed i n
the industrialize
d w o r ld and w h at researchers are actually doing.
• A t o p - r a n k i ng athlete is tested for performance-enhancin

g
drugs after yet another victory, and the result is positive. The
media m i lk this piece of news for a ll it's w o r t h. Some weeks
later, after a series of cross-checks and double-checks
, it
turns o ut a mistake was made. The athlete is completely ex-
onerated, a fact t h at receives l i t t le a t t e n t i on i n the press.
W e l l, that's the way the cookie crumbles, some w o u ld say.
But the athlete finds i t h a rd to get his career back on track af-
ter being r un t h r o u gh the media wringer.
• Great-grandmother'
s antique crystal glasses have been
b r o u g ht out for a family celebration. W h i le washing the dish-
es, D ad almost drops one of the glasses on the floor. There
are o n ly eleven left as i t is, so r i g ht t h en and there he is made
to swear t h at he w i ll never, ever break one of those precious
glasses.
• It's a risky business being an electrician i n Europe, where

every w i re carries a j o lt of 220 volts. European electricians
are t r a i n ed i n h ow to administer heart massage and m o u t h-
86
CAN THE POOR B E N E F I T FROM CM FOODS? 87
t o - m o u th resuscitation just i n case a w o r k er accidentally

comes i n contact w i th a live w i r e. I n the U n i t ed States, where
110 volts is the n o r m, the risks are n ot quite so great, b ut the
voltage is adequate to provide l i g ht and r un most appliances.
Doesn't i t seem a b it bizarre for Europe to have o p t ed for
such a dangerous voltage?
W e have here three rather silly anecdotes. Yet they serve to h i g h-

l i g ht some of the elements t h at G M crops are up against i n the pub-
lic debate. Here are a few examples t h at parallel these stories.
Several t i r ed o ld chestnuts concerning the dangers of G M plants
crop up again and again i n the debate about genetic engineering.
W e have heard t h at a diet of G M potatoes k i l l ed rats i n a laboratory
in Scotland; t h at G M crops could k i ll harmless insects, even the
beautiful m o n a r ch b u t t e r f l y; and that G M soybeans c a r r y i ng a
gene f r om Brazil nuts contained a substance t h at c o u ld cause se-
vere allergic reactions i n consumers. As we have n o t ed i n earlier
chapters, for all these stories either the results have been disproved
by extensive research or the p o t e n t i al p r o b l em d i ed a natural death
d u r i ng r o u t i ne checking procedures. But one doesn't have to read
too many letters to the editor or too many home pages on the W eb
to f i nd t h at these stories are still doggedly m a k i ng the r o u n d s . As 1
the athlete i n our first anecdote f o u nd out, retractions never have

quite the same i m p a ct as h ot news.
M a ny of our actions involve an element of risk, and n ot m a ny
things come w i th a l i f e t i me guarantee—the only way a family can
guarantee t h at no h a rm w i ll come to its h e i r l o om crystal is never
to use i t. M o st forms of progress necessarily carry some risk. O f
course, we w e i gh the risks and benefits and do everything we can
to reduce the risks. A n d this is the understandin
g w i th w h i ch re-
search on genetic m o d i f i c a t i on is carried out, whether designed to
solve medical, agricultural,or other problems. Refusing to embark
on a n y t h i ng new u n t il an official guarantee can be given t h at all the
risks have been e l i m i n a t e d, as some parties w o u ld have i t for G M
p l a n t s , is t a n t a m o u nt to b r i n g i ng progress to a g r i n d i ng halt. Such
1
insistence on an i r o n c l ad lifetime guarantee ("our tests have con-

f i r m ed t h at genetic m o d i f i c a t i on w i ll never, i n any way, involve any
element of r i sk whatsoever") runs counter to a simple, basic rule of
science (and for that matter of life i t s e l f ): i t is impossible to prove
a negative thesis. This assumes, of course, t h at we all agree that the
debate s u r r o u n d i ng a scientific subject s h o u ld be conducted using
arguments w i th a solid scientific f o u n d a t i o n.
The system for supplying electricity i n Europe treads the line be-
tween efficiency and risk. M a k i ng electric power completely safe is
impossible, and attempts to do so w o u ld be hugely expensive, re-
q u i r i ng massive r e s t r u c t u r i ng of the n a t i o n al grids and a radical
redesign of machinery and appliances. The resulting electricity
bills w o u ld p ut a serious strain on the household budget. A n d po-
tentially dangerous high-tension p o w er lines w o u ld s t i ll be needed
to distribute electricity to consumers. I n the o n g o i ng debate on
G M plants, no evidence has been produced of any h a rm done. But
m a ny people do n ot even w a nt the current switched o n, no matter
h ow many layers of i n s u l a t i on are w r a p p ed around the cables.'
Better to do w i t h o u t, they say.
Wanted: Some Dynamic Thinking at All Levels
W h y is the debate on G M foods, p ro and con, so heated? A m a j or

reason is t h at things seemed to happen so fast: G M plants entered
the market so q u i c kly and are already an irrefutable fact of life.
( A n o t h er reason, a general distrust of new technology and of the
competence and i n t e g r i ty of b o th government authorities and p r i-
vate companies, is discussed i n Chapters 6 and 7.) W h i le G M
plants are having an enormous i m p a ct on certain crops and on the
agricultural supply i n some countries, i n others they are seen as a
threat. Genetically m o d i f i ed soybeans are the chief G M crop, ac-
c o u n t i ng for 90 percent of all the soybeans sown i n Argentina and
50 percent i n the U n i t ed States i n 1999. Soybeans accounted for 54
percent of all G M crops under c u l t i v a t i on i n the w o r ld i n 1999,
maize 28 percent, and rape and c o t t on 9 percent each.4
A n d w hy have G M crops become so widespread i n such a short
time? These crops have fulfilled t h e ir promise. They provide r o-

bust yields w i th less w o rk for the farmer a nd require smaller sup-
plements of insecticides and pesticides t h at are friendlier to the en-
v i r o n m e nt than those used i n t r a d i t i o n al farming. A l l parties
except the insecticide producers have p r o f i t e d: farmers, for w h om
the new crops mean l o w er costs or higher yields; consumer, be-
cause of less concern about pesticide residues; and manufacturer
s
of seeds and herbicides, t h r o u gh larger sales and greater profits.
L o o k i ng at the specific qualities targeted i n the first wave of G M
plants, one m i g ht ask w i th good reason w h e t h er the new features
made enough of a difference to the consumer to m e r it all the t i me
and effort p ut i n to developing t h e m. But t h en one c o u ld easily have
asked the same question w h en the first b a l l p o i nt pens appeared on
the market i n the late 1940s. They were appallingly ugly, made of
plastic i n m o t t l ed tones of dishwater gray; they left i nk stains on
the pockets of men's w h i te shirts; a nd they cost about one-and-a-
half week's wages for, say, a delivery boy. As we k n o w, t h o u g h, b o th
ballpoints and plastic were here to stay, i m p r o v i ng i n quality and
d r o p p i ng i n price. O r t h i nk of people's first attempts to fly: w e i rd
contraptions were t r i ed o ut w i th v a r y i ng degrees of success on
available patches of flat g r o u nd everywhere f r om the clover fields
of D e n m a rk to the prairies of N o r th America. Sheer lunacy, re-
spectable citizens were quick to agree. I n comparison w i th these
trial-and-erro
r efforts, G M plants emerged as clear w i n n e rs r i g ht
f r om the start. The G M products already marketed have presented
few problems, and those farmers w ho are l o o k i ng for just w h at
these plants have to offer get value for t h e ir money. Product devel-
o p m e nt does n ot stop here, of course. O t h er crops, w i th fresh at-
tributes and other c o m b i n ed benefits, w i ll be f o r t h c o m i ng as
quickly as laboratory experiments can be carried out, findings
checked, and trials completed.
A nd herein lies the m a in obstacle to a constructive discussion of
G M crops. M u ch creative, dynamic t h o u g ht goes i n to discussion of
the risks entailed i n the new plant varieties. Granted, no i ll effects
have been proven, b ut i t is n ot inconceivable that problems c o u ld
arise. O r to p ut i t another way, w h i ch reflects the arguments one

hears so often, "Things may be going p r e t ty w e ll at the m o m e n t,
b ut i n the l o ng r u n . . . ." A l l too rarely does the same dynamic come
i n to play w h en l o o k i ng at the beneficial effects: "There may n ot be
m u ch to shout about at the m o m e n t, b ut i n the l o ng r un . . . " w o u ld
be a reasonable parallel line of argument.
Having seen such a h i gh degree of success w i th relatively new
techniques i n such a short t i m e, we can fully expect a steady f l ow
of results f r om this young branch of science as i t develops i n the
c o m i ng years. This is p a r t i c u l a ryl i m p o r t a nt for p o or farmers and
consumers i n developing countries, w ho stand to gain very l i t t le
f r om currently available genetic engineering technology. As the
technology is developed, even more safeguards against i ll effects
w i ll be i n c o r p o r a t e d — p r o m p t e,dof course, by a healthy self-inter-
est, since any evidence of serious errors or major problems w o u ld
prove b o th expensive and disastrous for private and p u b l ic invest-
ors i n genetic m o d i f i c a t i o n.W h en the private c o r p o r a t i on Aventis
sold to farmers G M maize seed approved for livestock feed only,
they failed to foresee that the G M maize (called StarLink) m i g ht
end up i n h u m an food, for w h i ch i t was n ot approved. A c c o r d i ng to
i n f o r m al sources, the cost to Aventis of this miscalculation
, as of
M a r ch 2001, has been i n excess of a b i l l i on U.S. dollars, and the
bills are s t i ll c o m i ng i n.
Apparent Agreement on Many Points
A t a conference on biotechnology and biosafety h e ld by the W o r ld

Bank i n 1997 and attended by representative
s of a n u m b er of U . N.
organizations
, research institutes, foreign a id systems, a nd devel-
o p i ng countries, a short list was d r a wn up of some of the things
that need to be done to make f a r m i ng i n the developing countries
more productive. M o st people w o u ld probably agree t h at this list
goes at least some way t o w a rd covering the necessary agenda.
• A p p ly intensive f a r m i ng techniques over a w i d er area, i n c l u d-

ing, i n some areas, increased fertilizer use.
CAN THE POOR B E N E F I T FROM GM F O O D S ? 91
• Conserve soil and water, w i th special p r i o r i ty to c o m b a t i ng

erosion.
• M a i n t a in biodiversity.
• I m p r o ve pest c o n t r o l.
• Expand i r r i g a t i on and make i t m o re efficient.
• I m p r o ve livestock management.
• Develop new crop strains that are higher yielding, pest resist-
ant, and d r o u g ht tolerant.
• Reduce dependency on pesticides and herbicides.
The authors of this agenda, w h i ch w on general endorsement at the

conference, stated t h at genetic engineering seemed like a good
means for f u l f i l l i ng some of these goals: " A t their best, the bioengi-
neering techniques are h i g h ly compatible w i th the goals o f sustain-
able agriculture, because they offer surgical precision i n c o m b a t i ng
specific problems w i t h o ut d i s r u p t i ng other functional components
in the agricultural system."?
There are no promises t h at genetic engineering w i ll solve all ills,
of course. F r om the days of the W i l d West comes the m y th of the
cowboy hero's magical silver bullet, w h i ch never missed its m a rk
and w i p ed o ut all the b ad guys. I n the debate s u r r o u n d i ng genetic
m o d i f i c a t i o n, few promise t h at this technology is a silver bullet. I n
fact, the disavowal of any such claims has become almost r o u t i n e . 6
But n ot u n c o m m o n l y, critics assume t h at such e m p ty promises are

being made.? Clearly, the debate is n ot w e ll served by one side as-
c r i b i ng to its opponent patently unreasonabl
e arguments to w h i ch
all r i g h t - t h i n k i ng individuals w o u ld take exception.
One of genetic modification's t r u ly interested parties, a repre-
sentative of one of the m u l t i n a t i o n asl involved i n seed p r o d u c t i o n,
w ho has a vested interest i n p r o f i t i ng f r om this business, takes a
sober v i ew of w h at can be achieved. O n the basis of the predicted
p o p u l a t i on and its calorie requirement
s i n 2025 and using figures
p r o v i d ed by the FAO, he estimates t h at t r a d i t i o n al plant breeding,
increased use of fertilizer, and better i r r i g a t i on systems could do 70
percent of the j o b; the other 30 percent w i ll have to be fulfilled by
various forms of biotechnology

, i n c l u d i ng a good h e l p i ng of ge-
netic m o d i f i c a t i o n .T h i r ty percent may n ot sound all that drastic,
8
but i t represents the extra calories that, for m i l l i o ns of families i n

the developing w o r l d, mean the difference between regularly going
h u n g ry and having enough to eat every day. A n d after 2025, agri-
cultural p r o d u c t i on i n the developing countries w i ll have to go
on increasing i n order to cover the expected increases i n the p o p u-
l a t i o n.
Different Priorities
Even such a conservative goal as securing 30 percent of the g r o w th

in food supply over a twenty-five-year p e r i od t h r o u gh biotechnol-
ogy may w e ll prove difficult to attain. The private companies that
are the major players i n this field have n ot geared t h e ir research t o-
w a rd y i e ld increases i n developing countries b ut t o w a rd solving
the problems of farmers i n the wealthy countries. The explanation
is very simple: this is where the m o n ey lies. So p u b l ic research
must do all i t can to exploit the research p o t e n t i al of biotechnology
to solve some of the h i g h - p r i o r i yt problems i n the developing
w o r l d. T h o u gh the agendas of private a nd public research i n s t i-
tutes differ, this does n ot mean that findings produced on one side
cannot be absorbed or adapted by those w o r k i ng on the other. The
substantial l i m i t a t i o ns and pitfalls of a constructive and close col-
laboration between private and public research are discussed i n
Chapter 6.
Research w o rk can be classified i n m a ny different ways, depend-
i ng on the interests involved: private versus public, industrialize
d
w o r ld versus developing w o r l d, farmers versus consumers. These
are n ot necessarily c o n f l i c t i ng categories; a fair a m o u nt of overlap
in p o t e n t i al benefits is possible for all those involved. But for s i m-
plicity's sake, we are considering here the research findings f r om a
i n d u s t r i a l i z e d - w o rdl versus developing-worl
d perspective, keeping
in m i nd that to a large extent b o th sides have a c o m m on interest i n
f u r t h e r i ng the development of robust h i g h - q u a l i ty agricultural
plant material.
Big Hits in the Industrialized World
The first p r i o r i ty for agricultural biotechnology research i n the i n-

dustrialized w o r ld was to f i nd a way to render crops resistant to
the m i l d er forms of weed-killer chemicals, so farmers c o u ld spray
the weeds w i t h o ut damaging the crops. T h is accomplishmen
t was
environmentall
y sound because the m i l d er forms of pesticides d id
l i t t le or no damage to the e n v i r o n m e n.t T h is was a success w i th
farmers, however, p r i m a r i ly because i t e l i m i n a t ed tedious and
time-consumin
g weeding close to plants and helped increase p r o f it
by c u t t i ng back on labor costs. I t was also a smart way of t u r n i ng a
p r o f it for the agro-industria
l companies t h at sold the p l a nt seeds,
especially i f they also happened to o wn the factories t h at manufac-
t u r ed the weed-killer chemicals. The breakthrough i n this p a r t i c u-
lar piece of research came about largely because the w h o le opera-
t i on was technically feasible—the capacity for herbicide resistance
being governed by a single gene.
The development of plants w i th a b u i l t - in pesticide (Bt; see
Chapter 2) was another h i gh research p r i o r i ty that p r o v ed achieva-
ble. I t is popular w i th farmers i n the industrialize
d countries be-
cause i t cuts back on the costs of i n d u s t r i al pesticide and the labor
for spraying i t. I t benefits consumers by reducing pesticide resi-
dues i n food. By reducing frequent, copious spraying, i t also ben-
efits the environment. A n d i t is as beneficial financially for the
seed growers. The next logical research step, n ow under way, is to
combine these t wo qualities i n the same p l a n t: resistance to pests
and to weed killers.
A n o t h er f r o nt on w h i ch some progress has been made involves
" s h u t t i ng off" genes i n crops—in f r u i t, for example, so that i t
ripens later and stands up better to t r a n s p o r t a t i o
n and storage,
thus c u t t i ng back on waste. T h is c o u ld benefit farmers and whole-
salers i n the developing and industrialize
d countries.
M o re i m p o r t a nt f r om the consumers' p o i nt of v i ew is the possi-
b i l i ty of e l i m i n a t i ng f r om crops b o th natural toxins and a predis-
p o s i t i on to fungal infection, w h i ch w o u ld make the produce safer
to eat. Research is also being carried o ut to reduce the allergenic ef-

fects of certain plants, such as wheat, peanuts, and soybeans. The
allergenic tendencies of these plants cannot be effectively con-
t r o l l ed t h r o u gh organic f a r m i ng or b r ed o ut using conventional
propagation methods.
The really b ig news i n p l a nt breeding today is the offensive n ow
being m o u n t ed to i m p r o ve the health-giving properties of plants.
Vegetable oils c o n t a i n i ng a greater p r o p o r t i on of unsaturated fatty
acids—better for h u m an health—are i n the offing. W h at better ar-
gument c o u ld there be for accepting G M foods t h an a vegetable o il
marketed w i th the slogan, "Reduce y o ur cholesterol w i th this o i l ."
T h is type of advance is just around the corner. A n o t h er example is
potatoes w i th a higher starch content—a real step f o r w a rd n u t r i-
tionally i f they also happened to absorb less fat d u r i ng cooking, so
that people w o u ld be eating lower-fat French fries. Fruits could be
developed to have a better aroma and greater sweetness, and no
d o u bt more color could be added to the paler varieties—not d i-
rectly health-giving properties, b ut perhaps encouraging consum-
ers to eat m o re f r u i t.
Farmers are pleased to hear that i n a few years seed producers
w i ll be able to offer t h em i m p r o v ed feed grains. W o rk is progres-
sing nicely on development of a maize w i th kernels c o n t a i n i ng
double the o il content of current varieties, increasing the o il f r om 3
or 4 percent to more t h an 6 percent. T h is means t h at farmers can
give cattle, pigs, and p o u l t ry less feed concentrate, m a k i ng t h em
easier and cheaper to raise. A n d this w i ll m i n i m i ze the need to i m-
p o rt feed grains, some of w h i ch come f r om the developing coun-
tries. This represents b o th a plus and a m i n us for the developing
countries, of course: f a r m l a nd n ow used to g r ow feed grains w i ll be
freed for g r o w i ng h u m an food, b ut e x p o r t i ng countries w i ll lose
revenue. U n t il recently, all attempts to increase the o il content of
maize resulted i n a d r op i n y i e l d. Thanks to breeding w o rk based
on the m a p p i ng of the maize genes—not genetic m o d i f i c a t i on as
such, b ut a valuable spin-off f r om investment i n new technology—
this i m p r o v e m e nt can n ow be made w i t h o ut any loss i n yield.
O t h er properties i n grains w i ll also be i m p r o v e d, a m o ng t h em i n-

creases i n a m i no acids ( g i v i ng us m o re and better p r o t e in i n bread
grain, for example) and micronutrients.
9
Consumers and farmers are already reaping the benefits of the
shift t o w a rd m o re environmentall
y f r i e n d ly herbicides, and w o rk
is progressing on the development of plants capable of w i t h s t a n d-
i ng c o m m on p l a nt diseases and insect attacks. T h is w i ll lead to less
use of pesticides and thus lower concentration
s of agrochemical
residue. Advances i n this area c o u ld be of great help to farmers i n
L o o k i ng o n ly at w h at private companies have i n the pipeline,
one w o u ld be h a rd p ut to see h ow current research provides any
solution to the w o r l d 's food supply problems. N o significant effort
has been made to raise the y i e ld ceiling of the major crops, s i m p ly
because the m a in objective of private i n d u s t ry is to w i n a share of
the market i n the industrialize
d w o r l d, where food is p l e n t i f ul and
relatively inexpensive
. The failure of the real heavyweights i n the
field to invest resources i n t r y i ng to break d o wn the biological bar-
riers to greatly increased yields is disappointing
. T h is state of af-
fairs has come under fire, and r i g h t ly so. Critics p o i nt out t h at
promises made at the t i me of the first biotechnologica
l break-
t h r o u gh i n the early 1980s have gone by the board i n favor of lucra-
tive—and easy—solution
s to the p r o f i t - m a k i ng agricultural con-
cerns of the industrialize
d w o r l d. The first generation of results
has left very few people convinced t h at the G M plants currently
available are the solution to w o r ld food p r o b l e m s . 10
Product Substitution: A Brief Interlude
W h en the inherent possibilitie

s of genetic m o d i f i c a t i on began to
reach the public consciousnes
s i n the mid-1980s, one of the most
t r o u b l i ng issues was p r o d u ct s u b s t i t u t i o n: pictures of various plant
products being replaced by factory-made flavorings concocted
f r om w ho k n ew w h at m i c r o o r g a n i s m s . A n obvious parallel was
11
the ongoing t r a n s i t i on f r om sugar to chemical sweeteners ( n ot i n-

v o l v i ng genetic m o d i f i c a t i o n.)
Posing a risk for developing-countr

y exports, a n u m b er of possi-
bilities l o o m ed on the h o r i z on for replacing crops t y p i c a l ly g r o wn
in developing countries, such as vanilla and cocoa, w i th manufac-
t u r ed substitutes, assisted by genetic m o d i f i c a t i o n. The massive
p r o d u c t i on of starch, such as the r o ot crop tapioca g r o wn i n T h a i-
land, w o u ld be supplanted by efficient domestic p r o d u c t i on i n
countries that n o r m a l ly i m p o r t ed starch products. O r synthetic
versions m i g ht be i n t r o d u c e d, as has l o ng been the case w i th
rubber. But one could n ot be completely pessimistic about the
prospect of replacing these products. The reliance of m a ny devel-
o p i ng countries on the sale of such c o m m o d i t i e ,s w i th vast
stretches of f a r m l a nd devoted to plantations for export crops, was
one of the m a in criticisms leveled at development policies. Critics
insisted that developing countries should s w i t ch to domestic p r o-
d u c t i on of food to provide for their populations.
By the t i me genetic m o d i f i c a t i on came along, the move t o w a rd
substituting artificial flavorings for natural ones was already w e ll
under way; at the very most, genetic m o d i f i c a t i on w o u ld speed up
the process. N or is this a s t r a i g h t f o r w adr developing-worl
d versus
developed-worl
d issue; i t is more a case of agriculture versus i n-
dustry. The taste of citric acid i n today's foods rarely stems f r om
the lemons of southern Europe, and there are very few aromas that
are n ot enhanced by ingredients produced i n the laboratory. Sugar
g r o w i ng also suffers w h en substances such as " c o rn syrup" take
over the j ob of sweetening our sodas and candy. W e o n ly need to
l o ok at food packaging to see h ow m u ch things have changed. But a
counteroffensiv
e is n ow being m o u n t ed against substitute p r o d-
ucts: a g r o w i ng demand f r om consumers i n the wealthy countries
for quality, flavor, and clear, comprehensibl
e consumer i n f o r m a-
t i o n. So the m a r k et w i ll most likely dictate the balance i n this area,
too.
The role of genetic m o d i f i c a t i on i n the development of substi-
tute products has n ot been a decisive one. This is n ot an area i n
w h i ch the major biotechnology companies have invested a great
CAN THE POOR B E N E F I T FROM GM FOODS? 97
deal, and we w o u ld have to go back to the early 1990s to f i nd a t i me

w h en the p r o d u c t i on of substitutes was a key issue i n the debate on
genetic m o d i f i c a t i o n.
The Priorities for Developing Countries
W e can see the p o t e n t i al of genetic m o d i f i c a t i on i n quite a different

l i g ht w h en we consider w h at is in the pipeline for developing coun-
tries. The list of G M crops for agriculture i n the industrialize
d
countries bears little resemblance to the range of plants cultivated
in the developing w o r l d. W i t h in the CGIAR group of research i n-
stitutes (see Chapter 1), a small a m o u nt of biotechnology research
( w h i ch involves m u ch more t h an just genetic m o d i f i c a t i o n) is be-
i ng carried out on maize, cassava, beans, rice, wheat, potatoes,
sweet potatoes, barley, lentils, m i l l e t, sorghum, various fruits, and
various m u l t i p u r p o e
s trees useful i n agroforestry. W i t h the ex-
12
ception of maize, this list of crops is radically different f r om that of

the private seed companies.
The list is d o m i n a t ed by the so-called o r p h an crops, those w i th
very l i m i t ed commercial appeal because they are g r o wn m a i n ly for
personal c o n s u m p t i on by p o or smallholders
. These farmers have
very l i t t le m o n ey to spend on i m p r o v ed plant material, and cer-
tainly n ot every y e a r — w h i ch is w hy the private sector has invested
so l i t t le i n research a nd development on these crops. Now, for-
tunately, n a t i o n al and i n t e r n a t i o n alp u b l ic research i n s t i t u t i o ns are
w o r k i ng on these plants.
A look at the research projects under way to i m p r o ve rice, one of
the m a in crops i n developing countries and the w o r l d 's most i m-
p o r t a nt grain, shows that the agenda of public sector research is
squarely focused on the problems of small-scale farmers and p o or
consumers. The projects include w o rk to develop resistance to v i-
ruses and other diseases, the a b i l i ty to w a rd off attacks by pests,
and the a b i l i ty to tolerate f l o o d i n g; and on the n u t r i t i on front,
w o rk to increase the i r on content and add beta-carotene
, w h i ch the
h u m an body converts to v i t a m in A . ' 1
Researcher
s are h a rd at w o rk m a p p i ng rice genes i n order to
come up w i th beneficial properties i n a n u m b er of areas. I m p r o v-
i ng the plants' ability to w i t h s t a nd several plant diseases, especially
various types of fungi, and to combat insects is h i gh on the list of
priorities. The possibility of earlier f l o w e r i ng and hence a shorter
g r o w i ng season is also being explored, and w o rk is being done to
i m p r o ve the capacity of rice plants to tolerate d r o u g ht and cold. A
considerable slice of the research on rice is funded by the Rocke-
feller Foundation. Since the late 1980s, the Rockefeller F o u n d a t i on
has invested about a h u n d r ed m i l l i on U.S. dollars i n research col-
laborations a nd the t r a i n i ng of researchers i n developing countries.
It has also donated smaller amounts for research i n the t wo leading
countries w i th special knowledge of rice, Japan and South Korea.* l
A n o t h er p r o m i s i ng genetic m o d i f i c a t i on project involves re-

search to make crops more tolerant to salt, so they can be watered
w i th brackish water, survive m i n or f l o o d i ng i n coastal regions,
and, perhaps most i m p o r t a n t, g r ow on soil that has a higher t h an
n o r m al salt content f o l l o w i ng years of i r r i g a t i o n. T h is w o u ld a l l ow
a r e t u rn to f a r m i ng on large areas such as the plains of Pakistan
that have been rendered infertile by salt deposits left by years of i n-
discriminate i r r i g a t i on d u r i ng the overzealous early stages of the
Green Revolution. There are some signs that success i n this area
w o u ld also lead to plants that make more efficient use of water and
could therefore be g r o wn m o re successfully i n areas w i th l ow or
unreliable rainfall, as i n large parts of southern Africa, N o r th Af-
rica, and the M i d d le East.? 1
As m e n t i o n ed earlier, great strides have been made t h r o u gh tra-

d i t i o n al p l a nt breeding to endow grains and other crops w i th
higher v i t a m in and m i n e r al contents, b ut adding v i t a m in A to rice
became possible o n ly w i th the advent of genetic m o d i f i c a t i o n. Fur-
ther development of these techniques c o u ld also help concentrate
m i c r o n u t r i e nst i n those parts of the plant typically eaten by h u m an
beings—the kernel or the r o o t, say—and make possible the neutral-
ization of plants' so-called i n h i b i t o r s, w h i ch l i m it the a b i l i ty of h u-
mans to absorb nutrients. W i t h the n e w ly developed rice plants, 30
to 50 percent of an adult's daily i r on requirement c o u ld be covered

by a b o w l f ul of r i c e .
16
Food e n r i c h m e nt of this k i nd is clearly a b o on to p o or consum-

ers, b ut this very factor may define its l i m i t a t i o n s. I n a market t h at
lacks the money to pay more for better quality, farmers w o u ld have
no great incentive to abandon their t r a d i t i o n al varieties for this
reason alone. The higher content of m i c r o n u t r i e n t,s however, may
also boost p l a nt g r o w t h. I f the plants are more vigorous and better
equipped to w a rd off disease, t h en i t is i n farmers' interest to
switch to the new varieties. Again, this seems to be a w i n - w in situ-
a t i o n: better for farmers and better for consumers. This research to
i m p r o ve the m i c r o n u t r i e nt content of crops was i n i t i a t ed i n the
mid-1990s. W h i le the aims of the research were p r o m i s i n g, the
means of a t t a i n i ng t h em were unclear. Since t h en we have seen the
development of the new "golden rice," funded t h r o u gh the Rocke-
feller p r o g r am and using genetic engineering techniques.? (The 1
rice is golden because beta-carotene lends the plant a carroty-

orange tinge.) T he t e m po of w o rk and the confidence i n the i m m i-
nent practical application of the golden rice are b u i l d i ng up fast,
i n s p i r i ng renewed d e t e r m i n a t i o
n to f i nd more ways to increase the
m i c r o n u t r i e nt contents of staple foods.
In Kenya, p r o l o n g ed efforts to render sweet potatoes resistant to
v i r al attacks yielded no useful results u n t il the advent of genetic en-
gineering. A simple technique performed d u r i ng propagation, a tis-
sue culture t h at some farmers can carry out themselves, ensures
healthy cuttings f r om the new, viral-resistan
t variety, w h i ch is ex-
pected to reach the m a r k et by 2002. Further w o rk is also being
done to make the new variety resistant to a particular beetle,
another of its enemies. This d o u b ly strong variety should be ready
by 2004. I n a really bad year, v i r al attacks alone can reduce the
sweet potato crop by as m u ch as 80 percent, and losses are seldom
less t h an 20 percent w h en the virus is rife i n the f i e l d s . 18
Organically m i n d ed rice farmers i n Asia w i ll be happy to hear

that Japanese researchers have made good progress w i th the devel-
o p m e nt of G M varieties that boost the effect of a natural m e t h od of
pest c o n t r o l, a biopesticide k n o wn as NPV. Spraying can be re-

duced considerably because the leaves of this new variety require
o n ly 3 percent of the n o r m al dosage of N PV to resist pests, w
O t h er examples of the application of genetic m o d i f i c a t i on have
been m e n t i o n ed i n earlier chapters, i n c l u d i ng w o rk on developing
grains that can capture n i t r o g en f r om the air, thus d o i ng away w i th
or reducing the need to add nitrogen fertilizer. A n d we c o u ld go on
cataloguing the b r i g ht prospects i n the researchers
' w o rk plans,
among t h em such t r u ly grand visions as i m p r o v ed e x p l o i t a t i on of
sunlight d u r i ng the g r o w i ng process or the p o t e n t i al for G M grains
to t h r i ve i n tracts of l a nd c o n t a i n i ng h i gh natural levels of a l u m i-
n u m — b a r r en plains or stretches of savannah that cannot other-
wise be farmed.
China has made a massive investment i n G M c o t t on and a
n u m b er of G M food crops i n c l u d i ng rice, potatoes, tomatoes, and
maize. The a im is to ease the strain p ut on the e n v i r o n m e nt by i r r i-
gation and agrochemical toxins and to achieve a badly needed i n-
crease i n p l a nt yields. A l t h o u gh the Chinese are n ot saying m u ch
about i t, they have obviously channeled m u ch of t h e ir research ca-
pacity i n to genetic m o d i f i c a t i on programs. The spiraling double
helix of the D N A molecule appears i n sculptural f o rm i n squares
and marketplaces and is carried h i gh i n the parades on national
h o l i d a y s . The w h o le u n d e r t a k i ng has been p u b l i c ly financed, ap-
20
parently r i d i ng on a wave of official enthusiasm. China was one of

the countries i n v i t ed to take part i n an extensive p u b l i c ly funded
project to m ap the h u m an genome. I n v o l v e m e nt i n such an under-
t a k i ng calls for greatness i n every sense of the w o r d. I n other coun-
tries, the debate on G M crops may continue to go r o u nd i n circles
or things may eventually g r i nd to a halt, b ut China appears to be
m o v i ng full-steam ahead.
Who Reaps the Benefits of All This Potential?
A l t h o u gh focusing genetic engineering on developing-countr

y
crops offers m a ny possibilitie
s for boosting agriculture, the ben-
efits w i ll n ot necessarily be reaped by the poor, whether farmers or
consumers. To target the benefits to these groups, a concerted ef-

fort w i ll have to be made. I m p r o v i ng crops that are g r o wn p r e d o m-
i n a n t ly by smallholder
s for their o wn c o n s u m p t i on or are bought
by the very p o or is a good place to start. A n u m b er of the crops al-
ready m e n t i o n ed f it i n to this category. W e discuss here the cultiva-
t i on of sweet potatoes i n Kenya and potatoes i n M e x i c o.
In Kenya, a careful analysis was made of the l i k e ly i m p a ct of the
i m p r o v ed varieties of sweet potatoes. These tubers are typically a
21
p o or person's fare, m o re often t h an n ot g r o wn by w o m e n. M o st are

eaten by the smallholder families themselves and the rest sold at
the local market or i n the poorest quarter of the t o w n. The G M va-
r i e ty w i th a c o m b i n ed resistance to b o th virus and beetles is ex-
pected to increase y i e ld by 43 percent, reducing the g r o w i ng costs
per hectare by 36 percent. Because Africa's farmers never p ut all
t h e ir eggs i n one basket, biodiversity i n agriculture is h i g h; the new
plants w i ll replace o n ly some varieties, possibly o n ly 50 percent. I n
order to c o m p ly w i th farmers' and consumers' desire for variety,
researcher
s are w o r k i ng on the genetic m o d i f i c a t i on of five differ-
ent types of sweet potato. A c c o r d i ng to the calculations, however,
even this l i m i t ed shift t o w a rd the n ew varieties w i ll result i n an an-
nual gain of more t h an twelve m i l l i on U.S. dollars—and sweet po-
tatoes are g r o wn on o n ly 2 percent of the farmland i n Kenya.
Economists can n ow produce all sorts of i n f o r m a t i on f r om t h e ir
models, so we can calculate that three-quarter
s of the gain f r om
G M sweet potatoes w i ll go to farmers, the remainder to consumers
in the f o rm of lower prices. The calculation is a relatively simple
one, for several reasons: sweet potatoes are neither i m p o r t ed n or
exported, researchers are close to perfecting the finished product,
and they k n ow the farmers' feelings about the new varieties f r om
trials i n the test fields. Some of the technology used i n the research
has been donated by the U.S. company M o n s a n t o, w h i ch has en-
tered i n to various collaborative agreements w i th public research
organizations
. M o n s a n to has agreed to give free access to a l i m i t ed
a m o u nt of technology to countries where i t cannot make money
f r om its research. Even a l l o w i ng for a certain n u m b er of h i d d en
costs i n the supposedly free element of the operation, investing i n

i m p r o v ed plants makes good business sense for a c o u n t ry like Ke-
nya, since the annual r e t u rn is estimated at 60 percent of the re-
search a nd development costs invested. This figure, however,
masks Kenya's costs i n defraying a fair a m o u nt of the general i n i t i al
expenditure on the new technology, sweet potatoes being the first
G M crop to be test-grown i n the country.
A n o t h er example, f r om M e x i c o, is slightly more complicated,
inasmuch as i t deals w i th potatoes g r o wn by b o th small- and large-
scale farmers and sold to people at all income levels. Moreover, 22
i n d u s t ry and various consumer groups favor different potato varie-

ties, m a k i ng any predictions of the i m p a ct of this G M crop on
different categories of farmers and consumers somewhat more dif-
ficult.
In M e x i c o, the cost of p r o d u c i ng a t on of potatoes is almost the
same for farms of all sizes, b ut yields can vary widely, f r om 11 to 31
tons per hectare. The b ig farms produce 64 percent of the potato
harvest, the medium-sized farms 24 percent, and the small farms
just 12 percent. W h at these figures do n ot t e ll us is that, although
the cost may be the same for all, the small-scale farmer has an out-
lay per hectare of approximatel
y fourteen h u n d r ed U.S. dollars,
w h i le the b ig growers are investing almost three times as m u ch be-
cause they spray liberally w i th agrochemical
s and purchase new,
healthy seed potatoes at regular intervals. The small-scale farmers
rarely use agrochemicals—onl
y w h en things really get out of h a nd
— a nd instead of b u y i ng seed potatoes, they set aside potatoes for
seed or swap w i th their neighbors, thus saddling t h e ir crops w i th
i n b r ed diseases t h at are perpetuated i n the seed potatoes. They lose
up to 35 percent of their crop to v i r al diseases, w h i le the m e d i u m-
sized farms lose 25 percent and large farms 15 percent to these
diseases.
M e x i c an potatoes are prone to three serious types of v i r al infec-
t i o n. M o n s a n to has granted M e x i co some free use of technology to
p r o m o te virus resistance, w i th public i n t e r n a t i o n a
l i n s t i t u t i o ns
acting as intermediaries
. But there is a t w i st to this tale. The small-
and medium-scale farmers favor a reddish-skinne

d p o t a to that has
a reasonable level of resistance b ut is bought o n ly by the poor.
Large farms produce w h i te potatoes for sale to w e l l - t o - do consum-
ers and to industry, b ut these are also g r o wn and sold i n the U n i t ed
States, Monsanto's home market. I n just a few years' time, w h en
the N o r th A m e r i c an Free Trade Agreement ( N A F T A) comes i n to
f u ll play, the larger M e x i c an farmers w i ll have a good chance of
c o m p e t i ng w i th U.S. farmers. Herein lies the t w i s t: the technology
agreement w i th M o n s a n to p e r m i ts t wo of the a n t i v i r al genes to be
i n t r o d u c ed i n to all varieties, b ut the t h i rd antiviral gene w i ll be
used—free of charge—to i m p r o ve o n ly the red varieties favored by
p o or consumers and small farmers. For small farms this w o u ld
seem to be a good deal. They can produce many m o re potatoes per
hectare and cut costs considerably
. W i t h the new varieties they get
approximatel
y three times more o ut of each hectare than do the
large farms, i n terms of i m p r o v ed y i e ld or reduced expenditure.
Once again, the middle-sized farms fall somewhere i n between.
Small-scale farmers stand to gain the most because they no longer
suffer the heavy losses caused by the virus. The large farmers ben-
efit o n ly slightly, since they are already p r o t e c t i ng themselves
against the virus the costly way, by spraying. A n d they still have to
expend a certain a m o u nt on spraying against the t h i rd and most
dangerous virus that infects the w h i te potatoes—eithe
r that, or buy
the fully i m p r o v ed varieties, w h i ch are sure to become available
commercially.
These b r i g ht prospects may n ot be fully realized, however. The
small-scale farmers are n ot i n the h a b it of b u y i ng new seed pota-
toes. A n analysis of the probable state of affairs should farmers
simply carry on as they are indicates that b o th the m e d i u m- and
large-scale farmers w o u ld r a p i d ly s w i t ch to the new varieties, b ut
small farmers w o u ld p r o b a b ly be slow to do so, and then o n ly to a
l i m i t ed extent, say 30 percent of the farmers.
A campaign to distribute the new potatoes t h r o u gh a publicly
funded p r o g r am exchanging " o ld potatoes for new," as has been
done w i th other crops i n a n u m b er of developing countries, w o u ld
undoubtedly see small farmers l i n i ng up to get t h e ir hands on the

i m p r o v ed varieties. W i t h in a few years they w o u ld go over to t h em
completely. A n d f r om t h en on they c o u ld set aside a l i t t le of t h e ir
o wn harvest for seed. T h is is an i l l u s t r a t i on of the importance of
policies to help ensure t h at m o d e rn technology is benefiting the
poor.
It Could Not Be Simpler
A t their most pessimistic, agricultural researchers are filled w i th

misgivings for the future, especially for Africa, where farmers are
w o r k i ng w i th technology and f a r m i ng methods t h at produce very
l ow yields. W h en feeling m o re o p t i m i s t i c, researchers take pleas-
ure i n the many ways i n w h i ch successful, simple, and suitably tai-
l o r ed research findings have i m p r o v ed the daily lives of small
farmers i n m a ny parts of the w o r l d — i n c l u d i ng Africa.
Genetic m o d i f i c a t i on of agricultural crops deserves to be viewed
in an o p t i m i s t ic light, and the examples cited i n this chapter illus-
trate w hy this is so: a single element, a new plant, is i n t r o d u c ed
i n to existing agricultural p r o d u c t i on w i th a m i n i m um of fuss and
m a x i m um i m p a c t, and w i t h o ut other changes i n the p r o d u c t i on
system. Researcher
s and government authorities may have f o u nd i t
h a rd going to get this far, b ut to the farmers i t seems w o n d e r f u l yl
simple.
"It's All in the Seed!"—That's the Good News
W h en there is good news to tell, no agricultural consultant w o r th

his or her salt w o u ld miss o ut on the o p p o r t u n i ty to give away a
couple of trade secrets. The "miracles" produced by the new varie-
ties of plants b r ed by t r a d i t i o n al methods resulted as m u ch f r om
the greater degree of care the plants received as f r om their h i g h-
y i e ld pedigrees—car
e such as t h o r o u gh weeding, the use of c o m-
post to i m p r o ve the soil, and special efforts to combat wastage and
loss after harvesting.
A ll the data we have quoted on the benefits to be gained f r om the
n e w ly developed G M crops are based solely on w h at the i m p r o v ed
plant material itself is capable of yielding. The reality c o u ld be very

different: either worse, because people t h i nk the new plants can do
it all themselves, or ( m o re likely, based on past experience) better,
because people t h i nk a l i t t le extra w o rk at the start of a new enter-
prise is w o r th the trouble, especially an enterprise that promises
t h em greater profits and m o re food security.
6 • WHO SETS THE AGENDA?
In this chapter we l o ok at the various parties that influence

decisions on w h e t h er genetic engineering i n agriculture is allowed
to develop and under w h at conditions. Consumers, companies,
lobbyists, advocacy groups, politicians, the news media, and farm-
ers—all are p a rt of the debate. A first question, of particular i m-
portance to this book, is w ho sets the agenda for p o or people and
p o or countries? N e xt is the k n o t ty p r o b l em of ethics: are we ven-
t u r i ng i n to forbidden t e r r i t o r y, and w h at is the p o t e n t i al for h a rm
or good? A n d finally, w ho owns the technology, and is there a
move t o w a rd monopoly?
Positions for or against the use of genetic engineering i n food
and agriculture i n the industrialize
d countries are frequently ex-
trapolated directly to the developing countries. I f Europe, N o r th
America, and Japan do n ot w a nt this technology, w o u l d n 't i t be
inappropriat
e to p r o m o te i t for developing countries? N ot nec-
essarily. Food and agricultural problems differ w i d e ly between
p o or and r i ch countries, so the most appropriate solutions m i g ht
also differ. W e m e n t i on here just a few reasons w hy a p o s i t i on
against the use of genetic m o d i f i c a t i on i n food and agriculture i n
industrialize
d countries m i g ht be perfectly compatible w i th its
p r o m o t i on i n developing countries.
Poor people i n the developing countries spend 50 to 80 percent
106
WHO SETS THE A G E N D A ? 107
of t h e ir incomes on food, compared w i th the 10 to 15 percent spent

by people i n the European U n i on and N o r th America. Technologi-
cal advances i n agriculture that c o u ld result i n l o w er p r o d u c t i on
costs and cheaper food w o u ld be extremely beneficial to l o w - i n-
come consumers. P r o d u c t i v i y
t gains i n i n d u s t r i a l i z e d - w o rdl agri-
culture are m u ch less l i k e ly to result i n consumer gains, for three
reasons. First, price changes for items that c o m m a nd o n ly a small
share of the family budget are of little concern to consumers. Sec-
o n d, o n ly a small part of w h at consumers pay for at the grocery
store i n industrialize
d countries comes f r om the f a r m; packaging,
transportation
, storage, and advertising are a b ig p a rt of the price.
N ot so for l o w - i n c o me consumers i n developing countries. A n d
t h i r d, existing agricultural policies i n the European U n i on and
N o r th America t e nd to reduce the extent to w h i ch p r o d u c t i v i ty
gains i n f a r m i ng are passed on to consumers.
W i t h 50 to 80 percent of the p o p u l a t i on l i v i ng i n r u r al areas,
p o or countries are m u ch more l i k e ly to be interested i n p r o d u c t i v-
i ty increases i n agriculture t h an are r i ch countries, where o n ly 2 to
5 percent of the p o p u l a t i on depends on agriculture for its income.
M a ny l o w - i n c o me countries are c u r r e n t ly at a stage of devel-
o p m e nt where agriculture is the o n ly viable lead sector for broad-
based economic g r o w t h. They are clearly m u ch m o re interested
t h an are r i ch countries i n ways of increasing p r o d u c t i v i ty i n agri-
culture.
I f each c o u n t ry were to make its o wn decision on the use of ge-
netic engineering technology based on its perceived benefits and
risks, there w o u ld be no p r o b l e m. But r i ch countries and groups of
well-fed individuals sometimes t ry to impose their views on devel-
o p i ng countries and p o or people w ho are constantly f i g h t i ng for
t h e ir daily bread. This interference is n ot w e l c o m ed by those re-
sponsible for food and agriculture i n the developing countries.
Consider some recent comments f r om spokesperson
s for the de-
veloping countries.
In a recent article i n the Washington Post, the N i g e r i an M i n i s t er
of Agriculture, M r. Hassan A d a m u, stated, " W e do n ot w a nt to be
denied this technology [agricultural biotechnology

] because of a
misguided n o t i on that we do n ot understand the dangers or the fu-
ture consequences
. W e understand . . . W e w i ll proceed carefully
and thoughtfully, but we w a nt to have the o p p o r t u n i ty to save the
lives of m i l l i o ns of people and change the course of h i s t o ry i n
m a ny nations. T h at is our r i g h t, and we should n ot be denied by
those w i th the mistaken idea that they k n ow best h ow everyone
should live or that they have the r i g ht to impose t h e ir values on us.
The harsh reality is that, w i t h o ut the help of agricultural biotech-
nology, many w i ll n ot l i v e . " W e m i g ht expect a similar statement
1
f r om a European or A m e r i c an m i n i s t er of health i f groups f r om Af-

rican countries were instigating o p p o s i t i on i n Europe or the
U n i t ed States to the use of m o d e rn biotechnology to develop a cure
for cancer.
Professor Jennifer T h o m s on of the University of Cape T o w n,
South Africa, puts i t this way: "Rich countries may engage i n
lengthy disputes about real or imagined risks. W e suggest that is
largely a l u x u ry debate. F r om the perspectives of m a ny developing
and n e w ly industrialize
d countries, agricultural biotechnology'
s
benefits are very real and urgently needed today and indispensabl
e
t o m o r r o w. The developing w o r ld cannot afford to let Europe's
homemade problems negatively i m p a ct the future g r o w th i n our
countries." The African Biotechnolog
2
y Stakeholders
' F o r um also
expresses concern about " m o u n t i ng attempts to curb the evolution
and development of biotechnology i n A f r i c a" and " t h at those i n the
industrialize
d countries continue to assume they k n ow w h at is best
for Kenya and the rest of Africa."?
P. Chengal Reddy, president of the Federation of Farmers' Asso-
ciations i n A n d h ra Pradesh, India, expresses great concern about
the failure of "certain w e l l - k n o wn activist organizations i n devel-
oped countries" to take i n to account the o p p o r t u n i t i es that m o d-
ern agricultural technology offers to i m p r o ve the well-being of the
p o or i n Asia. He suggests that we should "leave the choice of select-
i ng m o d e rn agricultural technologies to the w i s d om of I n d i an
farmers. "4
A n o t h er reason w hy the perspectives on m o d e rn biotechnolog

y
may differ between r i ch and poor countries is the difference i n the
relative i m p o r t a n ce of various health problems. Cancers, diabetes,
heart diseases, and obesity are the o v e r r i d i ng health problems i n
many industrialize
d countries, w h i le c h i ld m a l n u t r i t i on and lack of
access to enough food may be the most critical health problems
facing p o or people i n developing countries. Clearly, the most ap-
propriate solutions vary w i th the problems t h at need to be ad-
dressed. The willingness to take risks is likely to differ between
those w ho are w e ll fed and those w ho are f i g h t i ng for t h e ir subsis-
tence. Poor and r i ch should each make t h e ir o wn benefit-cost cal-
culations. I m p o s i ng the views of the r i ch on the p o or may result i n
misguided policies and action.
The agenda should be set by those w ho have to live w i th the con-
sequences of the resulting action, n ot by some m i s g u i d ed belief
that people i n r i ch countries k n ow w h at is best for the p o or coun-
tries and p o or people of the developing w o r l d.
The Battle for Souls
Anyone w ho tries to keep abreast of reports on G M crops issued by

various e n v i r o n m e n t a
l organization
s a r o u nd the w o r ld w i ll soon
get the impression that genetic m o d i f i c a t i on is a d i r ty and danger-
ous business, and that one should avoid i t like the plague w h i le at
the same t i me actively opposing i t.
A m o ng all the invective against G M foods, one t e rm i n p a r t i c u-
lar—"Frankenfood"—ha
s stuck. Plenty of well-organized p h o to
opportunitie
s are arranged for the press, featuring demonstrator
s
clad i n protective c l o t h i ng m a k i ng c o m m a n do raids on test fields,
p r i m a r i ly i n the U n i t ed K i n g d om ( w h e t h er p l a n t ed w i th G M crops
or n o t ). O n Greenpeace Denmark's Web site, i n the section on ge-
netic m o d i f i c a t i o n, a h a l f - g r o wn h u m an e m b r yo floats inside the
a m n i o t ic sac of a transparent red t o m a t o. "Does this p i c t u re scare
you?" the text asks. T h en i t goes on to allay our fears slightly:
" D o n 't w o r r y! It's n ot a reality—yet."5 Further d o wn the page one
has the o p t i on to click on i n f o r m a t i on on genetic m o d i f i c a t i o n^
although this m i g ht n ot be the best place to look for any balanced,

unbiased i n f o r m a t i on on the subject. Altogether, by any reasonable
standard, this is an outrageous piece of newsmongering
.
Nevertheless
, this k i nd o f message has the desired effect, and,
consciously or n o t, the mainstream press tends to reinforce i t. I n
January 2000 a leading D a n i sh newspaper, Politiken, presented a
fairly low-key r e p o r t — w h i ch nonetheless t o ok up seven columns
on the f r o nt page of its Sunday e d i t i o n — on "the h u nt for G M
f o o d , " r e p o r t i ng demands by retailers that their suppliers be u p-
6
front w i th t h em about G M products. Buried somewhere i n the

m i d d le of the r e p o rt are these words of w i s d om on the G M ingre-
dients ( in this case maize and soybeans) of foods: "scientists say
that they are neither m o re n or less healthy t h an t r a d i t i o n al maize
and soya products." Less t h an a week later, one of Politiken's busi-
ness journalists dissociated h i m s e lf f r om this o p i n i o n, under the
headline: "Healthy Pigs C o u ld Prove Costly."? The gist of his article
was that D a n i sh p o rk producers were just beginning to realize the
expense of p r o d u c i ng a p ig for export to B r i t a in that they c o u ld
guarantee had at no t i me been fed G M fodder. T h at a diet free of
G M fodder w o u ld render a p ig especially healthy is n ot backed up
by any evidence, b ut biotechnology m i g ht n ot be this particular
journalist's forte. O n three occasions i n eighteen lines he refers to
these pigs as "gene-free . . . f r om the first l i nk i n the chain to the
last." A very l i g h t w e i g ht p i g, one c o u ld say. Setting aside these
rather h u m o r o us claims, is i t too m u ch to expect the press to inves-
tigate w hy the words "neither more n or less healthy" d o n 't h it
home, even a m o ng their o wn ranks? The headline (and the gist) of
the business journalist's story c o u ld just as easily have been,
" W o u ld You Believe It? Britons W a nt to Pay M o re to Get the
Same!" But i n cases like this, the press knows w h at makes news.
In a leading article i n January 2001, the B r i t i sh newspaper The In-
dependent presented a different perspective: " M o n s a n to has done
more to damage public confidence i n biotechnology t h an even the
most alarmist press r e p o r t i ng of the 'Frankenstein foods.' B r i t i sh
confidence i n biotechnology—onc
e seen as the next ' w h i te h o t'
hope of the technological r e v o l u t i o n — c an be restored, b ut i t w i ll

require a conscious effort by the scientific c o m m u n i ty a nd by gov-
ernments to r e t u rn to the idealistic ambitions w h i ch guided the
early phases of research." 8
The Customer Is Always Right
According to some of these a n t i - GM food tirades, i t seems to be an

established fact that G M foods constitute some sort of t i me b o m b.
Consumers—tha
t is to say, voters, the people w ho read the news-
papers or w a t ch television news—obviousl
y take exception to all
the sinister goings-on i n biotechnology
. W h i le the m a j o r i ty of
news r e p o r t i ng is objective, some parts of the news media have hel-
ped demonize genetic m o d i f i c a t i o n, often leading the o p p o s i t i on
to G M foods more or less uncritically. O t h er parts of the media,
notably many of the larger U.S. newspapers and p u b l ic radio and
television, are t r y i ng to provide more factual i n f o r m a t i on to en-
lighten the p u b l ic debate. I n an editorial i n February 2001, the Wall
Street Journal makes a plea t h at probably reflects the views of m a ny
U.S. newspapers: " W i l l someone please explain to us just w h a t, ex-
actly, is w r o ng w i th genetically m o d i f i ed foods?"?
One p r o b l em i n the discussion about genetic m o d i f i c a t i on
seems to be a lack of understanding—
a p o or grasp of biology. O n ly
45 percent of Americans questioned i n a trans-Atlantic survey
could give the correct answer to the f o l l o w i ng question: " Do o r d i-
nary tomatoes contain genes, or is i t o n ly genetically m o d i f i ed t o-
matoes that do s o ? " A n d the Americans are n ot alone. O n ly 20
10
percent of Greek and 50 percent of D u t ch subjects answered cor-

rectly. Seniors m i g ht be excused for n ot k n o w i ng that every l i v i ng
t h i ng is made up of genes, because genes weren't discussed m u ch
w h en they were i n school. The steady f l ow of m i s i n f o r m a t i o
n dis-
pensed by the press has n ot done m u ch to redress that situation.
Again, is i t t oo m u ch to expect the media to act as a source of relia-
ble i n f o r m a t i o n, to help t h e ir readers understand the matters
under debate?
This is the starting p o i nt for some of the p r o b l e m. Ignorance of
the basic facts provides the perfect climate for i n f l u e n c i ng public

o p i n i o n — if necessary t h r o u gh m i s i n f o r m a t i o n
, fear-mongering
,
and i l l - f o u n d ed conclusions. A d d ed to this, sadly, are the all t oo
frequent t r ue h o r r or stories of unhealthy products and p o or hy-
giene i n the food i n d u s t ry unrelated to biotechnology
.
In many countries, skeptical consumers are i n the majority. A
survey carried out i n 1995 f o u nd that i n Sweden, 65 percent of the
p o p u l a t i on believed G M foods could involve serious health risks.
In the U n i t ed K i n g d o m, the figure was 39 percent. I n the U n i t ed
States, however, i t was o n ly 21 p e r c e n t . (This substantial differ-
11
ence between Europe and the U n i t ed States is a story i n itself.) N ot

many of those w ho decry genetic m o d i f i c a t i on can cite i n f o r m ed
scientific sources on the subject, because "neither m o re nor less
healthy" reflects the general t h i n k i ng i n scientific circles. A n d, as
we saw i n Chapter 2, some scientists m a i n t a in that the safety meas-
ures governing G M foods are tighter and m o re likely to f i nd poten-
t i al problems t h an those for conventional foods.
As the manufacturer
s and supermarket chains k n o w, the cus-
t o m e r — t he consumer p u s h i ng the shopping cart—is always r i g h t.
As soon as the first ripples of panic struck the retail trade, everyone
f r om Nestle's baby foods to B r i t i sh and continental European su-
permarkets, i n c l u d i ng the full gamut of B r i t i sh food giants, w a r n ed
against foods c o n t a i n i ng G M ingredients. Consumer organization
s
spoke o u t: either consumers should completely avoid such p r o d-
ucts or, m o re reasonably, they should demand to be i n f o r m ed
about exactly w h at their foods contain—becaus
e manufacturer
s
m i g ht t ry to avoid full disclosure. Japanese breweries, for exam-
12
ple, have guaranteed t h at t h e ir beer is n ot made f r om G M grain. I t

is doubtful, however, whether they w i ll see f it to i n f o rm beer
drinkers t h at the beer probably derives its taste f r om G M brewer's
yeast.
The latest t r i u m ph for the a n t i - GM food groups has come w i th
the swift about-face i n the p r o d u c t i on of dog food by the French gi-
ant Royal C a n i n . ' Since the close of 1999, the company has de-
1
clared its three European factories off-limits to any and all G M i n-

gredients, and a phase-out is already under way i n Argentina, Bra-

z i l, and the U n i t ed States. So n ow Fido can rest easy—no bioengi-
neers are t a m p e r i ng w i th his food.
Greenpeace has a p p o i n t ed itself to speak for the cause, for "the
[E.U.] peoples' demand for a strong line on G M Os [genetically
m o d i f i ed organisms]."'!
1
Politicians Jump on the Bandwagon
The power of the a n t i - GM food lobby is p a r t ly the fault of govern-

ments. I n democratic politics today, the first t h i ng one learns is
h ow to count the n u m b er of seats i n parliament or congress and
calculate w h at is needed for a majority. N e xt comes the ability to
i n t e r p r et o p i n i on polls, and to respond i n such a way as to i m p r o ve
one's standing i n these polls.
It wasn't always this way. I n the 1980s a b r o ad p o l i t i c al consen-
sus was reached i n m a ny European countries on the i n t r o d u c t i on
of excellent and far-sighted legislation to prepare Europe for the
advent of biotechnology
, w h i ch was soon to make substantial i n-
roads i n to people's daily lives. This d id have some adverse reper-
cussions, especially over the new prospects for medical treatment,
b ut c o m m on sense prevailed and the s i t u a t i on was defused by sen-
sible legislation, grounded i n a clear awareness of the obvious ben-
efits to be derived f r om using the most advanced technology avail-
able to safeguard the health of citizens. The matter gave rise to a
lively and heated p u b l ic debate and the p a i n t i ng of some apocalyp-
tic scenarios, b ut there was no w i t c h - h u n t. Inevitably, the most
heated arguments concerned the d e f i n i t i on of life, fetal diagnos-
tics, organ transplantation
, and other such difficult matters. These
questions were dealt w i th i n b o th personal and p o l i t i c al terms
t h r o u gh f r u i t f ul and often b o ld dialogue. B o th the lack of bias and
the scientific ballast d id wonders for the c r e d i b i l i ty of the debate.
W h en G M foods appeared on the scene, all hell broke loose.
Things started quietly enough w i th laws passed i n various coun-
tries, additions to the j o i nt E.U. legislation, and rules for dealing
w i th the new technology and its products. Security measures, au-
t h o r i z a t i on procedures, a nd the establishmen

t of decision-makin
g
bodies were all w o r k ed out. Ideally, public research had to keep up
more or less w i th the pace set by the private laboratories
, so na-
t i o n al bodies were set up to evaluate and deliberate on the numer-
ous questions that arose. The w h o le idea was to have a well-or-
dered p r o g r am governed by r a t i o n al arguments.
The issue never had m u ch p o l i t i c al cachet, however; p o l i t i c a l yl
speaking, the matter was more or less left o ut i n the c o l d. European
i n d u s t ry and agriculture were gearing up to enjoy the benefits of
the new technological breakthrough
. Some i n t r i g u i ng alliances
were f o r m ed i n order to operate i n specific areas. Because i t takes
t i me to arrive at a crop t h at is ready to be t r i ed out i n test fields, n ot
m u ch was yet heard f r om the laboratories and greenhouses
. A nd
n ot the slightest response was heard f r om the media. T h en some
environmenta
l organizations began to take notice, and they appar-
ently came to the conclusion that G M plants were the next poten-
t i al ecological and social disaster.
In the U n i t ed States p l a nt biotechnology had progressed quite a
b it farther. By the mid-1990s, the n ew G M varieties o f soybeans
were due to arrive i n Europe. A n d this was entirely legal, according
to the rules and procedures l a id d o wn under the European system.
In 1997, a cargo of a n i m al fodder was scheduled for arrival i n a
Danish p o r t. As before and since i n a n u m b er of other European
harbors, the i m p o r t er f o u nd h i m s e lf i n the m i d d le of a maelstrom.
Before he c o u ld b r i ng the cargo ashore, a media b l i tz was ensured:
protesters, banners, cordoned-off areas, a large police presence.
This particular cargo of grain just happened to be selected for an
act of c i v il disobedience
, as its advocates called i t, a symbolic
event; the feeling that someone should do something about the
G M food question was fairly widespread. Later that same year
there was another outcry i n D e n m a r k. R u m or had i t t h at another
boatload of G M fodder was headed for a Danish p o r t: G M maize,
w h i ch had begun to sprout w h i le i n transit, w h i ch for some reason
seemed to add to the sense of i m p e n d i ng disaster. A cry w e nt up
for the authorities—assume
d to be failing i n t h e ir d u ty as watch-
dogs—to n ip the perceived scandal i n the b ud w i t h o ut delay. The

press f o l l o w ed every move. As things t u r n ed out, the c o n t r ol sys-
tems functioned p r o p e r ly and everything was done by the book.
T h is d id n ot make headlines i n quite the same way as a p o t e n t i al
scandal, of course.
W i t h the c o n t i n u i ng advances i n technology, an u p d a t i ng of the
European rules for the testing and c u l t i v a t i on of G M plants was
called for. By 1999 this h ad become a rather touchy issue. The ma-
j or e x p o r t i ng countries w i th lots of G M seed to sell—the U n i t ed
States i n particular (the European U n i on being a vast agricultural
market for A m e r i c an farmers)—were pressuring Europe to make a
decision. But the European politicians were n ot to be h u r r i e d, even
t h o u gh the outlines of an updated compromise document to re-
place the 1990 directive were gradually beginning to take shape.
T h e n, i n the summer of 1999, the results of the first m o n a r ch but-
terfly experiment i n the U n i t ed States (see Chapter 2) h it the head-
lines, and European ministers for the e n v i r o n m e nt p r o m p t ly
backed off. This was n ow an unpopular case to legislate. The but-
terflies became the surprise e x h i b i t, p r o v i ng that t oo l i t t le was
k n o wn about the possible effects of genetic m o d i f i c a t i o n. A l l fif-
teen countries of the European U n i on t e m p o r a r iyl stopped issuing
permits for the c u l t i v a t i on of new G M crops; talks on a new direc-
tive were p ut on the back burner. By late fall, further experiments
w i th the m o n a r ch caterpillars had proven the entire matter was a
false alarm, b ut n ot one European m i n i s t er for the e n v i r o n m e nt
t o ok the o p p o r t u n i ty to get the ball r o l l i ng again. I n other words,
the politicians allowed themselves to be d r i v en i n to a corner, and i t
is u n l i k e ly that any i n i t i a t i ve w i ll be f o r t h c o m i ng f r om that direc-
t i o n. W i t h some i m p o r t a nt exceptions, notably the U n i t ed K i n g-
d o m, the European p o l i t i c al establishmen
t seems to be f i r m ly i n
the a n t i - GM f o od camp.
In the U n i t ed States the situation is very different. The U.S.
government is f i r m ly i n support of the development and commer-
cialization of G M seed and food, subject, of course, to w h at the
government agencies—the E n v i r o n m e n t al Protection Agency, the
11 6 S E E D S OF CONTENTION
Food and D r ug A d m i n i s t r a t i o n
, and the D e p a r t m e nt of A g r i c u l-
ture—consider appropriate testing and approval. W h e re rules are
violated, the government response is swift and decisive, as s h o wn
by the StarLink case discussed i n Chapter 5. But such incidents are
dealt w i th on the perceived m e r it of the case rather t h an as a gen-
eral o p p o s i t i on to G M food, such as is f o u nd i n some European
governments.
Big Business Pulls Back
W h en the b ig seed-producin
g companies started to p o ol all avail-
able research to produce effective G M seeds for the farmers of the
industrialize
d w o r l d, they appeared to be sitting on a goldmine.
Granted, major capital investment and a great deal of expertise
w o u ld be called for to arrive at high-quality products: the devel-
o p m e nt phase was long, the technology expensive, and the author-
ization procedures rigorous. But this looked like such a good busi-
ness p r o p o s i t i on that i n the 1980s and 1990s, the chemical i n d u s t ry
giants began to buy up the b ig seed producers i n a series of inter-
national deals. The buyers saw this as a way of getting i n on the
new developments
. By t a i l o r i ng t h e ir weed killers to the needs of a
particular seed, they w o u ld have an automatic m a r k et every t i me
that seed was sold.
Mergers and buyouts were already the order of the day i n every
business. For G M crops, however, the i n t e r v e n t i on of the b ig com-
panies was unusual i n that i t b r o u g ht together i n to m u l t i n a t i o n asl
parties that n o r m a l ly had l i t t le to do w i th one another: pharma-
ceuticals (as b ig b r o t h e r ), chemicals (smaller), and seeds (small-
est). The first wave of mergers, w h i ch c o n t i n u ed i n to 1998, resulted
in six giant concerns—Monsant
o and Novartis being the best
k n o w n. B o th of these corporations have since merged w i th other
companies. So far, b o th sales figures and p r o d u ct development
have been extremely positive: 1999 was an exceptionall
y good year
for p r o d u ct sales, and figures for 2000 also l o ok good. But the
shareholder
s are starting to get cold feet.
The climate for investment i n G M foods is n ot favorable. A dis-
passionate r e p o rt on one major concern, D u P o n t, and on the G M

food business i n general, issued by Deutsche Bank i n the summer
of 1999, counseled caution i n dealing i n this k i nd of share.^ The
subtitle of the r e p o rt echoes the usual response f r om Deutsche
Bank's o wn shareholders
: "Thanks, But N o Thanks." The research
institute responsible for the r e p o rt recommended selling off shares
in certain companies, h o l d i ng on to stock i n others, and, as a gen-
eral w o rd of advice, b i d i ng one's t i me and keeping a close eye on
the market. This advice was n ot based on any reason to believe
there was a n y t h i ng w r o ng w i th the products: " A l t h o u gh we are
w i l l i ng to believe that genetically m o d i f i ed organisms are safe and
may provide a benefit for the e n v i r o n m e n,t the perception wars are
being lost by industry."
The m u l t i n a t i o n a l'sfiercest critics m a i n t a in that i f stock values
fall, these corporations are getting o n ly w h at they deserve. They
p ut their m o n ey i n to products of no relevance to consumers i n
t h e ir o wn wealthy markets, they rejected o ut of h a nd any idea of
discussing the risks, and they actively resisted calls to provide
better i n f o r m a t i on to help consumers make up t h e ir m i n ds on
w h e t h er to o pt for the new products or n o t. Indeed, the companies'
overhasty, a l l - o r - n o t h i ng approach has i n v i t ed such c r i t i c i s m.
M o re constructive t h i n k i ng on the p a rt of blase m u l t i n a t i o n al chief
executive officers is l o ng overdue, b ut even n ow they do n ot seem
to be m u ch wiser. " N o b o dy W i l l Help M o n s a n t o" r an one headline.
N e i t h er retailers n or e n v i r o n m e n t a
l organizations were w i l l i ng to
attend talks that w o u l d, according to the i n v i t a t i o n, be b e h i nd
closed doors a nd c o n f i d e n t i a l .
16
The tide t u r n ed against the G M food business w i th a vengeance

in 1999. Offloading the new products on the w o r ld m a r k et became
so difficult that n o n - GM crops became the better c o m m o d i ty i n-
vestment, offering a better price for farmers. I n the U n i t ed States,
where Bt maize has been such a huge success, the E n v i r o n m e n t al
Protection Agency has f o u nd i t necessary to underscore the i m p o r-
tance of farmers' obeying the rules governing c u l t i v a t i on (such as
p r o v i d i ng refuges; see Chapter 2) to prevent a r a p id escalation i n
11 8 S E E D S OF CONTENTION
pest resistance.? Also i n the U n i t ed States, projected mergers have

1
been p ut on h o l d, and plans are n ow afoot to split up the i n d u s t r i al

giants once again i n to t h e ir separate divisions, i n p a rt to ensure the
pharmaceutica
l i n d u s t ry w i ll n ot be made to suffer for its l i n ks
w i th the conglomerates
' controversial activities on the f o od front.
As the D u P o nt r e p o rt wisely p o i n t ed out, getting consumers to ac-
cept biotechnology i n the agricultural sector is going to take longer
than expected. 18
The situation is clearly paradoxical. Farmers i n the U n i t ed States

feel let d o wn because they are n ot getting the prices they had
hoped for, although they have benefited f r om the n ew crops that
y i e ld more for less outlay. I n Brazil, there is a brisk traffic i n G M
soybean seeds, smuggled across the border f r om Argentina where
G M varieties reign supreme. Farmers enjoy big savings w h en crops
need to be sprayed w i th just one herbicide.? 1
This t r i c ky situation is being exploited i n a massive and lengthy

lawsuit i n the U n i t ed States, i n w h i ch farmers are seeking compen-
sation f r om the seed producers for having been t r i c k ed i n to b u y i ng
a p r o d u ct that has n ow been b r o u g ht i n to disrepute. The suit is of-
ficially being b r o u g ht on behalf of farmers i n the U n i t ed States and
abroad w ho feel i n t i m i d a t ed by the dominance of the b ig compa-
nies and by the contracts that have to be entered i n to i n order to
obtain the seed. But the instigators of this case and its financial
backers—and l i t i g a t i on is an enormously costly business i n the
U n i t ed States—appea
r to be private organizations opposed to ge-
netic m o d i f i c a t i on and w i th a solid t r a d i t i on of raising money for
various causes. 20
It is o p p o s i t i on to the m u l t i n a t i o n asland the huge concentration

of capital invested i n G M organisms—rathe
r t h a n, as one m i g ht
have predicted, p o t e n t i al e n v i r o n m e n t a
l risks—that is an i m p o r-
tant driver of the lawsuit. N o one w i th any legal acumen believes
that damages w i ll be awarded i n this case. But i t creates a great deal
of trouble and expense for the accused company and provides a
p l a t f o rm for organizations to voice t h e ir o p p o s i t i on to the m u l t i-
nationals—a surefire way of attracting money for the plaintiff's
WHO SETS THE A G E N D A ? 11 9
cause, n ot to m e n t i on p l e n ty of media a t t e n t i o n. Thus one m i g ht

observe t h at certain groups are d o i ng everything they can to u n-
dermine the c r e d i b i l i ty of the companies involved i n G M p l a nt
technology and then, having by and large succeeded, are accusing
t h em of n ot i n s p i r i ng confidence.
The Ethical Angle
The questions s u r r o u n d i ng the phasing i n of G M plants deserve to

be treated i n a more serious manner t h an has so far been the case.
A large n u m b er of initiatives on the Internet, articles i n scientific
journals and the popular press, reports f r om scientific committees
in Europe and the U n i t ed States, and public hearings instigated by
the U.S. and European governments have helped b r i ng about an i n-
f o r m ed and penetrating discussion of the matter.
A n u m b er of i n t e r n a t i o n al sources have focused on the question
of choice. W h at should we choose? W h at should we reject? W h at
w i ll be the consequence
s of our choices? A n d w h at processes
should we adopt to ensure the best possible basis for reaching a de-
cision? Central to these deliberation
s is the need to enter i n to the
discussion sincerely—a requirement of the dialogue ethic—and to
give b o th professional arguments and personal opinions a fair
hearing. Equally i m p o r t a n t, we must recognize that decisions need
to be taken actively, since passivity is also a choice, and that certain
v i e w p o i n ts and decisions may n ot meet the demands and expecta-
tions of a l l.
The process of choice can f u n c t i on on several levels, f r om the
basic question of w h e t h er genetic engineering should be counte-
nanced at all to decisions on i n d i v i d u al issues: are we prepared to
accept a given plant w i th specific properties being tested i n our
part of the w o r l d?
A t a general level, one absolutely crucial question for m a ny
people is w h e t h er we are i n t e r f e r i ng t oo m u ch i n fundamental b i-
ological processes: "Are we playing G o d ?" As m e n t i o n ed earlier
(see Chapter 2), the boundaries between w h at nature and w h at h u-
m an i n t e r v e n t i on can accomplish appear to be more f l u id t h an
m o st of us w o u ld ever have t h o u g h t. I n response to the "playing

G o d" argument, the p o i nt is made that i f we assume h u m an i n t e l l i-
gence a nd creativity are God-given, t h en they are gifts that, like the
talents i n the N ew Testament parable, should be p ut to use i n the
service of h u m a n k i n d. I f one does n ot consider genetic modifica-
t i on ( of plants, since that is w h at we are t a l k i ng about here) a good
t h i n g, however, we are back where we started.
In discussing this t r u ly fundamental question, r o o t ed i n the re-
ligious convictions of a great many people, i t is interesting to note
that the Catholic Church, k n o wn for its conservatism
, has accepted
the genetic m o d i f i c a t i on of plants. I n the a u t u mn of 1999, after t wo
years of discussion and analytical studies, the Papal Academy for
Life announced ( w i th a "cautious yes") that genetic engineering
processes on plants and animals lay w i t h in the bounds of accepta-
ble h u m an activity, b ut the cloning o f h u m an beings c o u ld n ot be
endorsed. Earlier i n the year, i n its capacity as one of the m a in
21
Protestant denominations
, the Church of England issued a state-
m e nt based on the technical and theological aspects of the matter.
Couched i n m u ch the same terms as the Vatican's recommenda-
tions, i t states that " w i s d om is u n l i k e ly to lie either i n an u n l i m i t ed
exploitation or i n total p r o h i b i t i o n, b ut i n a careful consideratio
n
of i n d i v i d u al proposals. I n this respect, genetic engineering does
n ot seem very different f r om other types of scientific advance." 22
T h e n, later i n 1999, the Church of England's W o r k i ng Party for E t h-

ical Investment issued a r e c o m m e n d a t i o
n that the church should
not rent out fields f r om its sizable lands i n England for the t r i al cul-
t i v a t i on of G M plants. The argument here, however, was entirely
practical: the fear that, i n the l o ng r u n, the value of the l a nd m i g ht
d r op i f i t were planted w i th the new crops, especially i f vandals got
in on the act, generating bad p u b l i c i t y .' Also taken i n to considera-
2
t i on was the church's w i sh to be a good neighbor and n ot to be-

come e m b r o i l ed i n any possible e n v i r o n m e n t a
l wrangles.
O n the one hand, t h e n, the i n d i v i d u al w i ll n ot necessarily re-
ceive m u ch guidance on these questions—pro or c o n — f r om the ec-
clesiastical side. O n the other hand, no pronounced fear of en-
croaching on divine t e r r i t o ry has been expressed i n theological cir-

cles. A n d this is n ot a topic on w h i ch one w o u ld expect many
c h u r ch leaders to voice an o p i n i o n, for or against.
A n o t h er general aspect o f the ethical question is the i n t e g r i ty
ethic: i t considers issues related to the sanctity of life and the i n-
tegrity of nature and the i n d i v i d u a .l Such a debate obviously can-
n ot deal i n absolute points of view, since for thousands of years h u-
mans have altered and exploited the natural w o r ld for their o wn
purposes, w i th greater or lesser degrees of brutality. I n m u ch of Eu-
rope, for example, these inroads have been so extensive that the
landscape has become almost completely b u i l t - u p, w i th o n ly a ves-
tige of natural countryside, i n the o r i g i n al meaning of the t e r m, re-
m a i n i n g.
W h i ch brings us back once again to the question of whether, on
this particular p o i nt of genetic m o d i f i c a t i o n, h u m a n k i nd is going
too far. I t is difficult to m a i n t a in that the i n d i v i d u al p l a nt is sacro-
sanct, i n the same way i n d i v i d u al humans are considered to be, so
the question must be w h e t h er the natural w o r ld as a w h o le suffers
as a result of the use of G M crops. W h at we must remember here is
that a fair a m o u nt of the genetic material obtainable t h r o u gh ge-
netic m o d i f i c a t i on can be produced just as w e ll (although more
slowly and more expensively) t h r o u gh t r a d i t i o n al plant breeding.
Thus i t seems o n ly reasonable that deliberation on this topic
should be confined to those instances i n w h i ch genes are, t h r o u gh
genetic m o d i f i c a t i on techniques, transferred across species b o u n d-
aries, such as f r om fish to plants. But m a ny genomes are quite sim-
ilar f r om one species to another, and the categories of many m i-
croorganisms
, as we n o t ed i n Chapter 2, are f l u i d. Therefore, the
d i v i s i on i n to species becomes more a m a t t er of pragmatism t h an a
decision based on elementary differences.
I f one t h i n ks i n p u r e ly technological terms, the d i s t i n c t i on be-
tween the genes of various species can seem very c o n t r i v e d. Genes
are, to a very large extent, identical, b ut located i n different places
and activated i n different ways. Imagine that someone asked,
" W o u ld y ou live i n a house b u i lt using a b r i ck f r om a demolished
school?" M o st people w o u ld probably reply, "Yes, w hy not? One

b r i ck is m u ch like another." " A b r i ck taken f r om a c h u r c h ?" w o u ld
probably produce the same response. But "a b r i ck f r om a cremato-
r i um or f r om an a b a t t o i r ?" You can almost feel the hesitancy i n the
response. Researcher
s k n ow o n ly too w e ll that the same response
can be expected w h en questions arise about transferring a gene.
Transfer f r om a buttercup to a t u r n ip w o u ld be deemed p r e t ty
harmless. But w h at about transferring a gene f r om a cat or a h u m an
brain? I t m i g ht w e ll be "the same k i nd of b r i c k ," b ut i t m i g ht raise
the same response of distaste or of going against the " n a t u r al or-
der" as using the b r i ck f r om a c r e m a t o r i u m.
One i n t r i g u i ng line of t h o u g ht arising f r om recent genetic re-
search, as we n o t ed i n Chapter 2, involves the theory that each i n-
d i v i d u al higher organism contains a large n u m b er of genes for all
sorts of qualities, b ut that most are "silent. " 4 A gene f r om a cat,
2
say—or f r om another well-charted species—could be used d u r i ng

the laboratory phase to help p i n p o i nt a successful c o m b i n a t i on of
qualities. After that, i t w o u ld be a matter of f i n d i ng the cor-
responding gene i n the t u r n ip and activating i t —a s o l u t i on b o u nd
to appeal to m a ny people, because i t gets r o u nd the p r o b l em of
crossing species boundaries i n the f i n al product.
Misgivings about G M plant technology are most often expressed
in the area referred to as the u t i l i ty ethic: is i t of any use to anything
or anyone? I f one felt uneasy or uncertain about these new techno-
, any lack of u t i l i ty w o u ld t ip the scales i n favor
logical possibilities
of "thanks, b ut no thanks." But the u t i l i ty ethic question works b o th
ways: i f there are appreciable benefits to be gained for h u m a n k i nd
by e m p l o y i ng the new technology, t h en the matter must be dis-
cussed seriously and some misgivings may have to be waived.
The p o i nt we w a nt to make here is that i f we consider the u t i l i ty
ethic, we m u st conclude that developing countries should make
t h e ir o wn choice about w h e t h er or n ot to apply genetic modifica-
t i on to agriculture as one means of f u r t h e r i ng t h e ir development
and reducing poverty a nd m a l n u t r i t i o n. A n d every choice made
should involve a w e i g h i ng of w h at is acceptable and w h at lies out-
side the bounds of w h at each society feels able to endorse. There is

n o t h i ng radically new i n this. W i t h any luck, we w i ll be able to
have an unbiased discussion, w i t h o ut anyone vetoing i n advance
either the debate or the decisions that m i g ht be reached. T h at way,
the dialogue can influence the agenda.
Ownership of the New Technology
One difficult aspect of using genetic m o d i f i c a t i on i n plants is that

an essentially positive attitude t o w a rd "sensible" products can r un
i n to serious practical difficulties, because the technology and the
products are n o r m a l ly t i g h t ly protected by various measures, p r i-
m a r i ly patents. So i t is n ot simply a matter of sailing along, devel-
oping crops that seem ideal for particular lands or locations. O n
the contrary, i f researchers and plant breeders set out to expand on
advances that have already been made, they can expect to r un i n to
major problems and a great deal of expense.
O w n e r s h ip of new developments may mean they cannot be used
by anyone else, or that they can be used o n ly i f one pays a hefty l i-
cense fee. I f the protective measures applied o n ly to a single, f i n al
p r o d u c t — f or example, a variety of maize resistant to a company's
weed k i l l e r — t he p r o b l em w o u ld be straightforwar
d enough. But
patent laws a l l ow a company to o wn b o th the resistance p r o p-
erty—the gene or genes, once their f u n c t i on has been documented
—and, even more exclusively, the techniques employed to identify,
prepare, and integrate the p r o p e r ty i n to a G M plant.
It is the private companies, of course, that have felt the need to
protect their inventions. Because they have invested so m u ch i n the
lengthy and costly w o rk of developing new plants, they naturally
w a nt to recoup their investment by having a m o n o p o ly on t h e ir
products for the d u r a t i on of the patent, w h i ch is n o r m a l ly t w e n ty
years. The key to most G M plant technology and products lies i n
the private sector, w h i ch latched on to the freely available results of
public research back i n the 1970s and 1980s w h en they first caught
the w h i ff of money. These companies t h en sank huge amounts of
capital i n to t h e ir o wn development programs, w i th the express i n-
tent of t a k i ng discoveries to the patent stage. W i t h buyouts and

mergers, a single company can gain c o n t r ol of all the technologies
developed in-house, b ut all companies need to buy or exchange
protected techniques f r om one another.
Public research has reacted i n three different ways. First, it may
p u b l i sh research findings as soon as they are k n o w n, thus m a k i ng
t h em freely available to everyone. Published results cannot be pat-
ented, since the very act of p u b l i s h i ng t h em means they are no
longer considered new i f applications for patents are made. Sec-
o n d, the public research i n s t i t u te may apply for patents on its dis-
coveries, so the institute has something to sell or "swap" and the
rights to using the discovery can be dispensed either on license or
free of charge. T h i r d, researchers may enter i n to j o i nt projects w i th
private companies under agreements specifying w ho can use
w h i ch findings and—most i m p o r t a nt for developing countries—
where p u b l ic research may freely use the products and techniques.
Researcher
s and plant breeders f i nd themselves i n the u n w o n t ed
situation for scientists of n ot being able to stand on the backs of
t h e ir predecessors—or
, i f they can, t h en o n ly for a fee. U n t il 1970,
the patenting of all or p a rt of a l i v i ng organism was u n c o m m o n,
but today thousands of such patents are i n existence, the m a j o r i ty
of t h em i n the U n i t ed States. Europe has been lagging slightly i n
this regard, although patent laws are m u ch the same on b o th sides
of the A t l a n t i c.
One cannot s i m p ly t u rn a b l i nd eye to patent rights and go on
w o r k i ng as one pleases. The w o r ld today is t h o r o u g h yl b o u nd up i n
i n t e r n a t i o n al agreements and we have to respect the ownership of
inventions, trademarks, artistic copyrights, and so o n; breaches of
these rights are punishable under i n t e r n a t i o n al sanctions. I n prac-
tice, this system w o r ks rather differently f r om c o u n t ry to country,
as we k n ow f r om the large-scale piracy of brand-name clothes i n
certain parts of Asia. But for plants, a n u m b er of successful appeals
have been b r o u g h t, and n ow that the W o r ld Trade Organization
( W T O ) is gaining more clout, o p t i ng o ut of the p r o t e c t i on system
is becoming almost impossible.
Patents are national i n nature and the p r o t e c t i on is v a l id only i n

countries where the patent has been granted. T a k i ng o ut patents
can be expensive and is usually l i m i t ed to those countries expected
to offer p r o m i s i ng markets. M a ny developing countries are there-
fore n ot targeted for patenting. F u r t h e r m o r e, many developing
countries do n ot grant patents for l i v i ng organisms. A l l members
of the W T O have agreed to provide patent legislation for m i c r o o r-
ganisms, b ut they need n ot do so for other l i v i ng organisms. W h e re
patents have n ot been granted, researchers are free to develop tech-
nology patented elsewhere and governments are able to approve
commercializatio
n of technology for farmers. Except for the rules
about microorganisms
, countries can c o m p ly w i th W T O rules
t h r o u gh other p r o p e r ty regulations, i n c l u d i ng p l a nt variety protec-
t i on (PVP) regulations. But this p r o t e c t i on covers o n ly the market-
i ng side, p r o h i b i t i ng other seed producers f r om c u l t i v a t i ng a par-
ticular variety i n order to sell the seed. U n l i ke under patents,
researcher
s and breeders can further develop the new material and
obtain the rights to the refined v a r i e t y — if approved by the author-
i z i ng body. A n d there is one other v i t al detail: farmers must be al-
l o w ed the t r a d i t i o n al practice of saving some of t h e ir harvest to use
as seed the f o l l o w i ng season.
The i n t e r n a t i o n a
l debate on one question is fierce: just h ow
m u ch can be covered by patents? Under the twenty-year patent
system, i f a company is u n w i l l i ng to exchange technology w i th
others, or to issue licenses, this can create serious bottlenecks, par-
ticularly w h en extensive patents are granted on large portions of a
plant's genome or on a comprehensiv
e general technique. The
t r e nd today is more t o w a rd ensuring that patent rights are n ot t oo
sweeping, and several U.S. lawsuits have succeeded i n l i m i t i ng the
scope of patents.? 2
The situation remains tricky. Public research i n countries where

patents for l i v i ng organisms are c o m m on has difficulty m a k i ng
progress, even w h en the professional expertise is at hand. A n d
even w h en the money can be found, starting up a research project
can involve complex legal juggling, since contracts often include
i n d i v i d u al genes and m a ny different pieces of technology, permis-

sion for w h i ch has to be released by a succession of owners. I n this
one instance, we can v i ew corporate buyouts as a good t h i n g, be-
cause they have reduced the n u m b er of contractors.
W e are n ow beginning to see some cases i n w h i ch private c o m-
panies are freely d o n a t i ng rights to researchers i n the developing
w o r l d. A n d occasionally we hear about m u l t i n a t i o n asl that award
t r a i n i ng grants and wealthy laboratories t h at pass on research f i n d-
ings to their poorer counterparts. I n general, t h o u g h, research
groups can make use of other people's findings o n ly i f they have
the cash or something to give i n exchange.
As is generally acknowledged
, some sort of ownership protec-
t i on is necessary i f private enterprise is to invest i n research. The
question is w h e t h er this needs to be the blanket p r o t e c t i on p r o-
v i d ed by patents or whether some more l i m i t ed arrangement such
as PVP regulations m i g ht n ot suffice. Private companies have n ot
been a ll t h at keen on departing f r om the patents s o l u t i o n. But t oo
dogged an insistence on exclusive rights and a reluctance to issue
licenses can violate a country's a n t i t r u st laws to the p o i nt where
national authorities can intervene w i th a court i n j u n c t i on m a k i ng
the issuing of licenses compulsory.
It is i r o n ic that some of the organizations opposed to genetic
m o d i f i c a t i on i n agriculture i n the developing countries also l a m-
baste the b ig companies for t a k i ng o ut patents, w h en the system of
patents and the insistence on getting a r e t u rn on the capital i n-
vested p r e t ty m u ch guarantee a slow a nd l i m i t ed spread of m o d e rn
development
s i n agriculture to the developing countries.
This slow progress may indeed be the outcome unless we can
come up w i th an i n t e r n a t i o n a
l agenda capable of s m o o t h i ng the
road and pushing changes t h r o u g h. Under t h is agenda, i t w o u ld be
ethically untenable for private companies to c l a im that new discov-
eries, based on p u b l i c ly funded research and r o o t ed i n the plant-
breeding efforts of generations of farmers, must show a p r o f it i n
markets t h at have l i t t le purchasing power.
7 • MOVING FORWARD
Handle with Care
Decades have passed since the days w h en one c o u ld be u n-

reservedly enthusiastic about technology, as were the first users of
the phonograph, the telephone, or the electric l i g h t b u l b. But the
fear of technology has always been there, l u r k i ng i n the shadow of
inventions, as the great French scientist Louis Pasteur discovered.
H is technique for k i l l i ng h a r m f ul microorganism
s i n foods w i t h o ut
damaging the foods themselves was called a t o ol of the devil and
p r o v o k ed some heated p u b l ic debate, before being seen for w h at i t
1
was: a genuine scientific advance.

Today, even the most enthusiastic biotechnologis
t frequently re-
m i n ds us that genetic engineering, like other tools, can be used sen-
sibly or irresponsibly
. A comparison is often d r a wn w i th the age-
o ld discovery of f i r e , calling to m i nd the subject of a school essay
2
that once, m a ny years ago, b l i g h t ed a class of students' entire

Easter vacation: "Fire—Friend or Foe?" O ur guess is that w h i le
most of the hapless essay w r i t e rs c o u ld see the pitfalls of fire, they
f o u nd i t h a rd to imagine a life w i t h o ut i t. Such an essay probably
included warnings against letting c h i l d r en play w i th matches or
leaving b u r n i ng candles near the Christmas tree. Still, i t is a good
bet that most of the essays arrived at the same conclusion: "But,
handled w i th care, fire can b e . . . ."
127
A nd that is just h ow we v i ew the p o t e n t i al of genetic engineering

to help the farmers of developing countries. But the catalog of ex-
pectations as to w h at constitutes " h a n d l i ng w i th care" is somewhat
m o re complex t h an that for fire. W e can divide i t i n to general re-
quirements for technology and its uses and specific requirements
for the application of genetic engineering to the conditions i n de-
veloping countries. Here we discuss the general and specific re-
quirements together.
Free and Informed Choice
F r om the m o m e nt the first genetically m o d i f i ed crops appeared on

the market, the effort to treat G M products as a special case looked
like a losing battle. The major companies completely ignored de-
mands to label products containing G M ingredients. I n the U n i t ed
States, authorities saw the need for labeling o n ly i f a p r o d u ct con-
tained substances or qualities one w o u ld n ot n o r m a l ly expect to
f i nd i n that p r o d u c t — f or example, a peanut gene i n a soybean,
w h i ch m i g ht trigger an allergic reaction i n some consumers, or a
different n u t r i t i o n al content. The dismissive attitude of the m a n u-
facturers c o u ld be a t t r i b u t ed to their t h i n k i ng it a c o n t r a d i c t i on to
treat as a special case goods that were, i n the w o r ds of the U.S.
Food and D r ug A d m i n i s t r a t i o n
, "substantiall
y i d e n t i c a l" to already
k n o wn products, such as the maize i n cornflakes or the soy i n
bread products. This, of course, left manufacturer
s w i de open to
the obvious rejoinder, " W e l l, i f there's no p r o b l em w i th these
goods, w hy d o n 't you w a nt to declare t h em on food labels?" (This
sounds m u ch like the classic argument between advocates of open-
ness and secrecy i n politics and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n).A n d as l o ng as a
reasonably large m a j o r i ty felt happy about these new goods, one
could get away w i th saying there was no need for labeling.
The dismissive attitude of the producers was p r o m p t ed m a i n ly
by a n u m b er of concrete practical problems. After all, to farmers,
maize is maize and soybeans are soybeans, especially i f there are no
visible differences between one variety and the next. So d u r i ng the
first years of G M crops, i t was c o m m on practice to t h r ow together
M O V I N G FORWARD 129
G M and n o n - GM seeds i n one great mishmash. W i t h labeling re-

quirements, either the m i x t u re as a w h o le w o u ld have to be labeled
as genetically m o d i f i ed or the varieties w o u ld have to be separated.
A n d w h i le i n d i v i d u al farmers could easily manage the j ob of keep-
i ng t h em apart, the grain elevators, m i l l s, and factories that proc-
essed the crops w o u ld have to be very careful to keep the different
varieties separate f r om start to f i n i s h.
This w o u ld certainly create extra w o rk and cost a great deal, b ut
it c o u ld be done. I n the move to quash this demand, however, U.S.
manufacturer
s stressed the difficulties and the resulting price i n-
creases they w o u ld have to pass on to t h e ir customers. But i n Eu-
rope, where labeling of the few G M products on the market was
compulsory, the separation of the different varieties p r o v ed a prac-
tical possibility. I n January 2000, at the meeting i n M o n t r e al of the
Biodiversity Convention (a follow-up to the Earth S u m m it held i n
Rio de Janeiro i n 1992), the labeling of c o m m o d i t i es for export was
recognized as a universal requirement: m a ny countries simply
w a nt to k n ow w h e t h er crops have been genetically m o d i f i e d. The
a im n ow is to come up w i th a permissible p r o p o r t i on of G M seeds
per load that does n ot affect the p u r i ty of a crop. I n all p r o b a b i l i ty
countries w i ll settle on 1 to 2 percent, bearing i n m i nd that vac-
u u m i ng silos and cargo holds completely clear of every single seed
left over f r om harvest to harvest or f r om t r ip to t r ip w o u ld be very
difficult.
In the U n i t ed States, the labeling issue t o ok on a new d i m e n s i on
w h en exporters began to demand products that c o u ld be guaran-
teed free of G M components. Prices for G M maize and soybeans
d r o p p ed slightly, and even t h o u gh they were cheaper for the farm-
ers to produce, i n a n u m b er of cases the p r o f it was less t h an on
n o n - GM varieties. Today m a ny countries expect products contain-
i ng G M ingredients to be labeled as such, enabling consumers to
decide w h e t h er or n ot to purchase t h e m.
There is another side to the labeling issue. Some people support
"blanket labeling" that also indicates whether genetic engineering
has been used at any stage i n the processing of the p r o d u c t, regard-
less of w h e t h er traces of G M ingredients can be i d e n t i f i e d. This is

m u ch like differentiatin
g between eggs f r om hens i n cages and eggs
f r om free-range hens. For some consumers, detailed i n f o r m a t i on
on h ow the eggs have been produced is a selling p o i n t, even t h o u gh
there is no p r o of of any difference i n the n u t r i t i o n al value or
health-promotin
g qualities of the t wo types of eggs. But some see
this as an ethical, n ot a n u t r i t i o n a,l issue.
For these t wo types of consumer i n f o r m a t i o n, i t is clear w ho has
responsibilit
y for w h a t. The state m u st evaluate the risks to con-
sumers and take responsibilit
y for labeling products having ingre-
dients that c o u ld be damaging to health. However, labels giving de-
tails of the p r o d u c t i on process c o u ld be the manufacturer'
s
responsibility
, w i th the state ensuring that the labeling conforms to
set standards and provides proper i n f o r m a t i o n. This is required so
as to avoid any risk of misrepresentatio
n or the sort of confusion
that resulted f r om the i n t r o d u c t i on of various types of labeling for
organic foods or goods considered e n v i r o n m e n t a lyl friendly (eco-
labeling). I n the case of G M foods, the market w i ll most likely see a
diverse range of products bearing compulsory labels where re-
q u i r ed and supplemented by producers' v o l u n t a ry consumer infor-
m a t i o n, for w h i ch some sections of the b u y i ng public w i ll be happy
to pay a b it extra.
Political moves t o w a rd m a n d a t o ry labeling of all foods that have
been associated w i th genetic engineering at some p o i nt i n the p r o-
d u c t i on process w o u ld make i t difficult to avoid the labeling of
cheese, beer, bakery products, and other goods, because genetic
m o d i f i c a t i on is generally involved i n some stage of the processing.
This question of w h at constitutes comprehensiv
e labeling h i g h-
lights the issue of h ow one defines the " n o r m ." Advocates of blan-
ket labeling m a i n t a in that i t should also apply to livestock raised
on feed mixes c o n t a i n i ng a certain a m o u nt of G M feed, even
t h o u gh the contents of the feed are b r o k en d o wn i n the animals' d i-
gestive process. A n d that requirement, so farmers estimate, w o u ld
cover all the larger domestic animals i n the developed w o r l d, ex-
M O V I N G FORWARD 1 31
cept those raised organically. A n d w h at about o il f r om G M maize?

Maize o il contains no D N A and therefore no m o d i f i ed genes!
Blanket labeling w o u ld lead to higher prices for f o od that may
contain G M substances or may have been i n t o u ch w i th G M sub-
stances d u r i ng the p r o d u c t i on process. Some m i g ht f i nd i t m o re
reasonable to pass on the costs of labeling to those consumers w ho
are l o o k i ng for assurances t h at their food contains n o t h i ng that has
been genetically m o d i f i e d, as is already the case w i th organic p r o d-
ucts. The labeling c o n d i t i on w o u ld thus be imposed on another
group of manufacturers
: nonorganic producers w ho can guarantee
that their products involve no G M crops or ingredients and no ge-
netic engineering techniques i n the p r o d u c t i on process. T h is m i g ht
w e ll t u rn o ut to be as complicated as i t sounds. I n the short t e r m,
the regulations c o u ld stipulate that all f o od labels should state t h at
"genetic m o d i f i c a t i on has/has n ot been involved at some p o i nt i n
the p r o d u c t i on of this i t e m ." The authorities w i ll have to seriously
consider w h i c h, i f any, approach is tenable.
Consumer Information: More than Labeling
To be effective, a labeling system should be based on sufficient i n-

f o r m a t i on to p e r m it consumers to make choices based on t h e ir
values and desires. G o v e r n m e nt health warnings on tobacco p r o d-
ucts make good sense, because consumers are so w e ll i n f o r m ed
that, generally speaking, they k n ow w h at they are choosing or re-
fusing to buy. But things are n ot so clear-cut for organically pro-
duced foods and other products. The general feeling is t h at the or-
ganic p r o d u c t i on process has been good for the e n v i r o n m e nt and
has helped save some natural resources. But most people probably
also assume t h at foods bearing an "organically g r o wn and proc-
essed" label are better for t h e ir health t h an are nonorganic foods.
A n d here we are faced w i th a m o re debatable assertion, one t h at is
currently being explored to see whether i t has any solid f o u n d a t i on
in fact. So, as yet, customers have no guarantee t h at the label is say-
i ng w h at they t h i nk i t is saying.
For G M foods, consumers i n general have n o t h i ng like the

knowledge necessary to decipher w h at a label is actually t e l l i ng
t h e m. A ny labeling system must therefore be backed up by m u ch
more i n f o r m a t i on t h an is available at the m o m e n t. Consumer or-
ganizations do w h at they can, b ut i n the m a in their messages at-
tract broad p u b l ic a t t e n t i on o n ly w h e n, i n tandem w i th environ-
m e n t al organizations
, they issue statements on specific cases that
are of interest to the press. These statements t e nd n ot to raise the
general standard of i n f o r m a t i o n, because most efforts by these
groups and the responding industries involve accusations, denials,
rejections, and warnings.
In an enlightened climate, informative labels make good sense,
although one ought n ot to expect any really dramatic consumer
shifts as a result. Standards and descriptions are b o u nd to reflect
the society i n w h i ch the products are used. T h at being so, we cannot
assume that w h at people i n industrialize
d countries expect to learn
f r om labels can be transferred to the same type of p r o d u ct i n a de-
veloping country, where quality standards may be closer to those
deemed acceptable i n the industrialize
d w o r ld fifty years ago.
This is n ot to suggest, of course, that substandard products
should be d u m p ed on developing countries. I t is a fact of life, h o w-
ever, that people's tolerance thresholds or acceptable-ris
k levels
are greatly affected by t h e ir income levels. Shopping bags i n the su-
permarket of a prosperous c i ty suburb are n ot filled w i th the same
goods as are those i n a poorer i n n e r - c i ty district. For example, the
selection of f o od items and quality grades depends on whether a
household spends 5 percent or 30 percent of its income on food. I n
developing countries, 80 percent of the family's income may be
spent on food, and risk reductions causing food price increases
may n ot be of interest, p a r t i c u l a ryl i f the risks are v i r t u al rather
than real.
The Right to Say No
The resolution passed by the M o n t r e al Biodiversity Convention i n

January 2000 concerned labeling and choice i n an even more radi-
cal context. I t represented the provisional end to a lengthy and ac-

r i m o n i o us battle over the extent to w h i ch free-trade regulations or
policy decisions should reign supreme i n a global context. The
large grain-producin
g countries i n the West, i n particular Argen-
tina, Canada, and the U n i t ed States, c o u ld n ot see w hy government
authorities should be e n t i t l ed to specific i n f o r m a t i on on the con-
tents of a l o ad of i m p o r t ed maize or soybeans and w hy they should
have the r i g ht to refuse G M commodities. They argued that the
principles of free trade h ad already been established under the
W T O . Given that G M and n o n - GM commodities are considered
"substantiall
y identical," such a refusal, they argued, is s i m p ly a
technical barrier to trade, unacceptable under the terms of the
W T O agreement.
It was a hard-fought battle. I n the end, a handful of the major
grain-exportin
g countries that opposed compulsory labeling,
called the M i a mi Group, were at odds w i th most of the rest of the
w o r l d, i n c l u d i ng a c o a l i t i on of such u n l i k e ly bedfellows as the Eu-
ropean U n i o n, Japan, and a n u m b er of developing countries. The
outcome was that any c o u n t ry had the r i g ht to refuse G M crops, i f
it was uncertain about the consequence
s of i m p o r t i ng t h e m. Such
uncertainty m i g ht concern adverse effects on consumers' health
or—the w o r ry most often expressed by developing countries—on
the e n v i r o n m e n.t A l t h o u gh most of the i m p o r t ed G M grain w o u ld
be consumed as food, some countries feared that some of i t m i g ht
be lost i n the w i ld or used as seed on farms, thus creating the risk of
inadvertent crossing w i th local crops or the w i ld flora.
This issue is closely b o u nd up w i th biosafety, w h i ch deals w i th
the responsible h a n d l i ng of l i v i ng organisms to prevent the risk of
accidents. Biosafety was set f i r m ly on the agenda after the 1992 Rio
de Janeiro s u m m i t. A l t h o u gh the resolutions passed by the confer-
ence were n ot endorsed on paper by every country, they n ow f o rm
the rules, national and international
, on h ow to manage the coun-
tryside, agriculture, fishing, and forestry. The chances of these
good i n t e n t i o ns being pursued depend heavily on the p o l i t i c al w i ll
b o th w i t h in i n d i v i d u al countries and at the i n t e r n a t i o n a
l level.
Slowly b ut steadily the agreements are being i m p l e m e n t ed i n a

n u m b er of countries. But m a ny countries face the purely practical
p r o b l em of f i n d i ng enough professional expertise to m o n i t or the
situation and make sure the rules are obeyed, as w e ll as a lack of ap-
propriate i n s t i t u t i o n .sI n this respect, m a ny of the smaller devel-
o p i ng countries are at a disadvantage
, a nd i t is therefore i m p o r t a nt
that they should be able to refuse an i m p o rt w i t h o ut having to
present an encyclopedia of scientific arguments. I f they cannot
gauge w h e t h er a particular crop m i g ht entail specific risks for t h e ir
country, w i th its particular natural e n v i r o n m e nt a nd f o rm of agri-
culture, they should be able to say no. So the M o n t r e al conven-
tion's r u l i ng was exactly w h at this group of countries needed.
W h e re biotechnology is concerned, no c o u n t ry is starting com-
pletely f r om scratch. But m a ny poorer countries are weak i n scien-
tific and technological expertise because they invest far less i n re-
search and development t h an do the wealthy countries. W e can
f i nd isolated pockets of b r i l l i a nt specialist research i n a n u m b er of
developing countries, i n c l u d i ng those of southern Africa, b ut i n the
m a in o n ly the larger developing countries, such as Brazil, China,
Egypt, I n d i a, and South Africa, are c o n d u c t i ng the really solid re-
search. These scientifically strong countries have embarked on b i-
otechnology research i n a b ig way, i n c l u d i ng testing and produc-
t i on of G M crops. This has required the passage of legislation and
regulations covering testing, m o n i t o r i n g, and safety. B o th the re-
search and the a d m i n i s t r a t i o
n sides are n ow up and r u n n i n g, so
these countries can enter i n to i n t e r n a t i o n al collaboration
s w i th the
multinational
s and apply genetic m o d i f i c a t i on techniques to agri-
culture.
In many smaller countries, t h o u g h, neither the legislation n or
the a d m i n i s t r a t i o
n has yet reached a stage where they can enter
i n to collaboration
s or develop G M crops for themselves. So one
obvious regulation has to be that no e x p e r i m e n t a t i n
o s h o u ld be
carried o ut i n these countries. I n any case, such a move w o u ld
probably be the kiss of death for the r e p u t a t i on of any company
that t r i ed to do so, a fact that the m u l t i n a t i o n asl fully appreciate.

W e have seen no instances of a developing c o u n t ry being used as a
test field w i t h o ut its f u ll consent a nd w i t h o ut the f i rm c o n v i c t i on
t h at i t was professionall
y equipped to reach such a decision.
The requirement for decent conduct m i g ht seem self-evident,
and a list of m o re wide-ranging demands for the biotechnology i n-
dustry as i t relates to developing countries has also been d r a wn up.
For example, a t r a i n i ng p r o g r am should be set up for researchers
f r om developing countries t h at w i ll b r i ng t h em to the forefront of
, giving t h e ir countries the expertise necessary to
biotechnology
evaluate the new possibilities.
' A few private companies have f i-
nanced such programs, and i n the short t e rm the public image of
these companies w o u ld be m u ch enhanced i f they were to system-
atically p ut aside money for more o f the same. I n the longer t e rm
this w o u ld i m p r o ve the chances for these companies to collaborate
w i th countries that otherwise w o u ld r e m a in blank spots on t h e ir
m a r k e t i ng maps w h i le at the same t i me strengthenin
g the expert-
ise of the developing countries.
Extermination of a Terminator
A n o t h er requirement for " h a n d l i ng w i th care" i n G M plant tech-

nology results f r om a new p l a nt p r o p e r ty developed by some of the
large genetic engineering companies: plants that produce sterile
seeds that do n ot sprout after harvesting. W h en the patent was
taken o ut on the technique, w h i ch was developed i n a collab-
oration between private a nd public research i n the U n i t ed States,
its originators were convinced they had f o u nd a b r i l l i a nt technical
solution to t wo annoying problems: the G M characteristic
s w o u ld
n ot spread i n the w i ld and farmers w o u ld have to buy seed every
season. Thus the r e d u c t i on of a p o t e n t i al e n v i r o n m e n t a
l risk and
p r o t e c t i on of the ownership of the technology were taken care of
in one go.
Sterile seeds have consequences
. W i t h t r a d i t i o n al crops, after
harvesting, some seeds—say maize seeds or seed potatoes—can be
set aside for use at the start of the next season. However, seeds and
seed potatoes b r i ng i n a better price t h an do grain or potatoes sold
at the b a rn door, so seed producers are n ot keen on farmers' saving
seed. Setting aside seed for next year may be expressly f o r b i d d en
under the rules of a contract covering patented crops. A n d sterile
seeds, of course, make such rules unnecessary
. This is no b ig deal i n
the wealthier countries, where farmers generally prefer to buy
fresh seed every year: n ew seed carries less risk of disease, has
p r o b a b ly been treated against fungi a nd m o l d, and comes w i th a
guarantee t h at i t w i ll sprout. I n a d d i t i o n, for h y b r i d s, second-gen-
eration seeds do n ot produce nearly as good a y i e ld as the first.
Farmers i n developing countries, however, do save seeds for sow-
i ng the next season, s i m p ly because they cannot afford to buy n ew
seeds every year—this is the case for 80 percent of farmers i n the
developing w o r l d. 4 I t is impossible to distinguish between a G M
and n o n - GM seed w i t h o ut specialized testing equipment, and sav-
i ng seeds for next year's harvest that may prove sterile c o u ld be dis-
astrous for f a rm families and even for w h o le villages, because farm-
ers i n developing countries c o m m o n ly l e nd or sell seeds to t h e ir
neighbors.
For a w h i l e, the seed producers tended to ignore t h is detail, b ut
it elicited such a strong response f r om p u b l ic development re-
search and n o n g o v e r n m e n tla organizations
, w h i ch came up w i th
the epithet " t e r m i n a t or gene," t h at the patent holders have l a id
d o wn t h e ir arms, at least for the t i me being. I n a statement issued
in the fall of 1999, after a w h o le summer of dispute, M o n s a n to an-
nounced t h at for the next five-year p e r i od i t w o u ld n ot seek ap-
p r o v al of any material t h at i n c l u d ed t e r m i n a t or genes.s One of the
conditions i m p o s ed on the industry, therefore, should be a manda-
t o ry requirement that t h is " t e r m i n a t o r" technology should n ot
t u rn up later i n crop seeds p r o d u c ed for use i n the developing
countries. I n the industrialize
d countries the situation does n ot
pose m u ch of a p r o b l e m, p a r t ly because the level of i n f o r m a t i on is
generally higher and p a r t ly because, as n o t ed above, the reusing of
harvested seeds has gradually been phased out.
Corporate Profits
N o one w ho has f o l l o w ed the development of genetic m o d i f i c a t i on

in agriculture can be i n any doubt t h at the private sector is d r i v en
by the possibility of m a k i ng a t i dy p r o f i t. Years of w o rk and m i l-
lions of dollars go i n to the development o f a marketable product.
A nd along the way, as i n any research, investigators come up
against m a ny a dead end and scrap many a half-baked p r o t o t y pe
that has come to n o t h i n g. Even w h en a company does end up w i th
a successful product, i t s t i ll cannot be sure of recouping its invest-
m e n t. A u t h o r i z a t i o ns can be w i t h d r a w n, as is happening i n the Eu-
ropean U n i o n; proceedings can be suspended, as has been the case
w i th the E.U. m o r a t o r i um on new approvals; or approval can be
denied, as has happened i n the U n i t ed States. So w h en a p r o d u ct
does eventually make its way onto the market, i t has to b r i ng i n
some p r o f i t. This is w hy producers take such a h a rd line on the
need for patents and on p r o t e c t i ng themselves t h r o u gh contracts
w i th farmers and checks to prevent any abuse.
Seen i n this l i g ht the t e r m i n a t or p l oy seemed quite logical, b ut i t
is n ot the way f o r w a rd for developing countries. Consideration is
being given to e m p l o y i ng somewhat less radical methods of p r o-
tecting a company's investment and the environment. Say, for i n-
stance, that a producer develops a sturdy h i g h - y i e l d i ng maize p l a nt
that can also tolerate a certain plant disease i f the seeds are treated
w i th a harmless chemical developed by the same company. Such a
variety w i ll attract interest f r om m a ny quarters, certainly i n some
developing countries. Farmers w ho can afford to do so w i ll buy the
new maize seeds and the appropriate volume of chemicals to acti-
vate disease p r o t e c t i on i f and w h en necessary. After harvesting,
seed can be set aside for the next season, i f the farmer so wishes.
But the b u i l t - in p r o t e c t i on w i ll come i n to play next season o n ly i f
the chemical is also used, and this is h ow the company makes its
p r o f i t. Farmers w i ll n ot be b u y i ng a p ig i n a poke; they w i ll get ex-
actly w h at they pay for: a sturdy h i g h - y i e l d i ng maize that can be
reused b ut does n ot spread its new properties to the environment.
F r om an ethical p o i nt of view, such a variety of maize w o u ld n ot

present the same problems as the t e r m i n a t or technique. U n d o u b t-
edly, there w o u ld be some c o m p l a i n t, a nd we w o u ld hear some
r u m b l i n gs on the day this proposal was p ut i n to effect i n the devel-
o p i ng w o r l d. But before raising i m m e d i a te objections, one must
accept that agriculture is a business; money, n ot p h i l a n t h r o p y, calls
the shots. A n d public research could n ot possibly manage to do all
the development w o rk necessary.
There is no way that all hopes can be fulfilled. The G M rice w i th
beta-carotene—th
e golden rice developed by public research w i th
funding f r om private p h i l a n t h r o pci foundations and freely avail-
able for further breeding by i n d i v i d u al countries—seem
s to be a
splendid a d d i t i on to the diet of p o or people. But, on behalf of those
same people, Christian A i d has rejected such synthetic discov-
eries. The poor w o u ld do better to eat a varied diet, this group
6
argues, t h en there w o u ld be no p r o b l e m. I t fails to t e ll us, however,

h ow these people should f i n d, let alone pay for, this varied diet.
The knee-jerk response of N O A H , a Danish nongovernmenta
l or-
ganization ( N G O ), was to back up this c r i t i c i sm of golden rice by
declaring that private companies are o ut s i m p ly to line their o wn
pockets.? I t is interesting to note that this rice was developed by the
p u b l ic sector and that all patent holders have granted free access to
the components i n c l u d ed i n its development. I n this respect, too, i t
seems reasonable to make the requirement that, rather t h an mak-
i ng sweeping judgments about G M foods based on the motives of
the developers and distributors, we address each case on its merits,
its actual, inherent advantages and disadvantage
s to the p o t e n t i al
recipients.
The e n v i r o n m e n t a
l N G Os have taken a negative v i ew of G M
foods f r om the start, and many N G Os w i th a developing-worl
d fo-
cus have backed t h em up i n this, some more categorically t h an
others. W e f i nd i t deeply d i s t u r b i ng t h at private organizations w i th
an honorable record of setting h i gh standards and p r o m p t i ng
Western society to be concerned about the food and agriculture i n
developing countries, to support t h em b o th m o r a l ly and m a t e r i-
ally, should be so b l i nd to the p o t e n t i al of genetic m o d i f i c a t i on to

help the w o r l d 's p o or feed themselves. They seem to have closed
t h e ir eyes and t h e ir m i n d s, a l l o w i ng t h e ir skepticism about the i n-
volvement of private companies to completely dominate and over-
shadow some of the p r o m i s i ng elements of the new technology.
This is p a r t i c u l a ryl unfortunate because the technology can be de-
veloped by the public sector and made available to p o or farmers at
l i t t le or no cost.
N ot that the private companies make i t any easier. But surely the
N G O s, i n all t h e ir diversity, c o u ld approach this topic w i th a more
open m i n d, c o u ld analyze the possibilities
, each according to its
o wn merits. A n d indeed, a more nuanced attitude and an openness
to dialogue are beginning to emerge among some of the private de-
velopment organizations. By a d o p t i ng such a stance, the N G Os
8
could w i t h o ut d o u bt become a valuable pressure group—one t h at

is n ot s i m p ly dismissive b ut uses its clout to help realize the p o t e n-
t i al of genetic engineering for the smallholder
s of the developing
w o r l d.
A nd i f the private companies could relax t h e ir restrictions just a
l i t t l e, creating a more general openness to the further development
and use of genetic m o d i f i c a t i o n,they c o u ld be persuaded that the
patents system is t oo sweeping i n its p r o t e c t i on of t h e ir rights i n
developing countries. The rights system that operates under the
auspices o f the W T O offers another o p t i on specifically for plants:
the plant variety p r o t e c t i on system (see Chapter 6), w h i ch has l o ng
been an i n t e r n a t i o n a
l n o rm and is still, i n most countries, the o n ly
system. Patenting, on the other hand, functions more as a sort of
rental arrangement for farmers: the r i g ht to cultivate a crop f r om
patented seeds is rented for a fee and the harvested crop can be
sold for c o n s u m p t i on b ut cannot be replanted w i t h o ut a fee. This is
similar to b u y i n g, or "licensing," a computer software p r o g r a m: as
w i th computer software, the buyer cannot develop the patented
p l a nt further and t h en sell the i m p r o v ed p r o d u c t; b ut w i th the soft-
ware, at least we can s t i ll reuse i t on our o wn machines.
A n o t h er requirement, therefore, is for m u l t i n a t i o n asl to ac-
knowledge t h at they can get by w i th less t h an p a t e n t i ng and can

cover themselves w i th the solid guarantees of the PVP system,
w h i ch has up to n ow ensured excellent profits for the seed p r o-
ducers. The companies c o u ld do as a few already have done: grant
licenses en masse to researchers and agriculture i n the developing
countries. The release of key pieces of technology—suc
h as one of
the protected techniques for the transfer of genes f r om one organ-
i sm to another—for use i n developing countries w o u ld also be a
positive move.
W e are n ow hearing calls for such steps f r om all sides,? and i n
the l o ng t e rm the b ig companies w o u ld do w e ll to heed t h e m. Cor-
porate mergers and buyouts have created such massive conglomer-
ates that government authorities i n some countries may begin to
demand the disbanding of these monopolies. The m o re provoca-
tively a m o n o p o ly is r u n, the greater the r i sk of the state's inter-
vening. After years of t u r n i ng a deaf ear to the dialogue on alterna-
tives to patenting, the i n d u s t ry w o u ld be wise to pay a l i t t le m o re
attention.
You Can Never Be Too Careful
In the overcautious c i v il service of an earlier day, obsessed as i t was

w i th n ot m a k i ng mistakes, "you can never be too careful" was an
unofficial m o t to i n m a ny countries. A n d on the w h o le mistakes
were avoided, although, as one m i g ht expect, advances were also
t h in on the ground. Today, a different sort of balance has been
struck i n most sectors of society between progress a nd safety, b ut
we also have the knowledge and c o n t r ol mechanisms t h at increase
the demand for something close to absolute insurance against risk,
w i t h o ut any slackening of the pace.
In February 2000 the G e r m an authorities decided to rescind au-
t h o r i z a t i on of a G M maize variety, because i t h ad been developed
w i th the a id of a marker gene resistant to a certain group of anti-
biotics (this type of marker gene was chosen for its usefulness i n
the laboratory d u r i ng the research stage; see Chapter 2). A n u m b er
of countries have refused to grant m a r k e t i ng p e r m i ts on this maize,
on the grounds of uncertainty about the risk of a n t i b i o t ic resist-

ance giving rise to resistant bacteria that cause h u m an disease.
It is difficult to o b t a in any w a t e r t i g ht guarantee that this type of
marker gene carries no health risks. The crops have been on the
market for some years n ow and no problems have been identified.
But scientific doubts have been raised, and analysts have estab-
lished the theoretical chances of a p r o b l em arising. So, for some
years now, b o th private and public researchers have been w o r k i ng
on ways of e l i m i n a t i ng this type of marker f r om the finished p r o d-
uct. One way is to remove the antibiotic marker after the devel-
o p m e nt w o rk is completed and before the new p l a nt goes on the
market. This is a rather complex exercise and is n ot cheap, b ut i t
can be done. The other m e t h od is to develop other, harmless
markers. These are n ow f i n d i ng their way i n to the laboratory and
w i ll soon be a standard part of the process. Use of private f i r m s'
patented markers w i ll obviously cost money, and even the markers
developed t h r o u gh p u b l i c ly funded research w i ll probably contain
a certain element of privately o w n ed technology, w h i ch means
these, too, w i ll entail some outlay.
In such a situation, companies that h o ld the rights to techniques
i n v o l v i ng antibiotic-resistanc
e markers m i g ht be i n c l i n ed to carry
on using this technology because i t costs t h em n o t h i n g. Therefore,
regulations w i ll have to be p ut i n to effect to shelve the first genera-
t i on of marker genes. Varieties already on the market w i ll probably
have to be m o d i f i e d, w i th the new type of marker replacing the
o l d; otherwise these older varieties w i ll be impossible to sell w h en
better products are to be had, as the German response has shown.
Higher Priority to Social Utility
Unless we u t t e r ly reject the idea of genetic m o d i f i c a t i on i n agricul-

ture as a m a t t er of principle, we have to a d m it that, for the devel-
o p i ng countries, i t does present some favorable opportunities
.
These exciting prospects, however, w i ll n ot come to f r u i t i on on
t h e ir o w n. The market w i ll n ot develop and deliver the goods i f
there is no one to buy t h e m. I n the best of all possible w o r l d s, ef-
fective state systems w o u ld supplement the market by supplying

w h at is needed for the c o m m on good, w h i ch i n this case is solid ag-
r i c u l t u r al research.
In most developing countries the state infrastructur
e is weak
and underfinance
d and can supply l i t t le i n the way of services. To
compensate for such failings, a n u m b er of i n t e r n a t i o n al public sys-
tems have been set up, a m o ng t h em the Consultative G r o up on I n-
ternational A g r i c u l t u r al Research centers. The CGIAR has an an-
nual budget of a r o u nd 350 m i l l i on U.S. dollars—not a huge a m o u nt
of money by the t i me i t is d i v i d ed a m o ng sixteen centers conduct-
i ng research on agricultural crops, livestock, fisheries, agroforestry
,
food policy, and systems for the preservation of p l a nt genes. The
CGIAR also offers support to developing countries for setting up
t h e ir o wn research institutes—anothe
r area of expenditure. A p-
p r o x i m a t eyl 20 percent of each center's budget goes t o w a rd t r a i n-
i ng researchers i n developing countries. Each of the centers i n-
volved i n crop breeding spends the lion's share of its money on
t r a d i t i o n al agricultural research. O n an i n t e r n a t i o n a
l plane, this
represents just a t i ny fraction of the funds that any one of the b ig
biotechnology companies has at its disposal. Thus the public and
private sectors are by no means w o r k i ng on equal terms, even
t h o u gh researchers i n some wealthy countries are w o r k i ng on
crops for the developing countries. So one obvious requirement
w o u ld be for the wealthy p a rt of the w o r ld to make a bigger invest-
m e nt i n agricultural research i n the developing countries. By i n-
creasing its c o n t r i b u t i on to i n t e r n a t i o n a
l agricultural research and
using its enormous p o ol of expertise, the industrialize
d w o r ld
could ensure t h at genetic m o d i f i c a t i on w i ll eventually f u l f i ll some
of its promise for feeding the poor.
The developing countries could also reap direct, relevant ben-
efits f r om private research by way of a tender system. A group of
aid organizations could band together to identify a crucial agricul-
t u r al p r o b l em i n, say, Africa—leaf mosaic, for example, the scourge
of the cassava plant. Leaf mosaic is a virus spread by m i n u te i n-
sects, and so far i t has been almost impossible to combat. Stamping
out leaf mosaic for good w o u ld be a great b o on to p o or farmers and

consumers, because cassava is i m p o r t a nt i n the diet of many l o w-
income people a nd i t can t h r i ve even i n p o or soil and w i th unrelia-
ble rainfall. The virus and its spread c o u ld be combated by render-
i ng the plants resistant to v i r al attack, w h i ch w o u ld probably
require a n u m b er of genes to prevent resistance f r om breaking
d o wn t oo rapidly. This is an expensive and complicated exercise
calling for m o d e rn equipment, specialist knowledge, and access to
the very latest technology. Few developing countries c o u ld manage
to carry o ut such a task w i t h in a reasonable t i me frame, and cer-
t a i n ly n ot the African countries plagued by leaf mosaic. Guided by
specialists, the aid organizations c o u ld calculate the f u ll scope of
such an u n d e r t a k i ng and organize a " c o m p e t i t i o n" for the devel-
o p m e nt of a h i g h - y i e l d i ng cassava plant that is resistant to leaf m o-
saic. The prize w o u ld have to cover the likely costs of the devel-
o p m e nt w o rk plus a substantia] p r e m i um correspondin
g to the
n o r m al r e t u rn on agricultural research. The c o m p e t i t i on c o u ld be
open to b o th private and public bodies, possibly i n collaboration
,
b ut there w o u ld be just one prize for c o m i ng up w i th a successful
result. The new plant w o u ld thereafter become p u b l ic property,
available for further development and adaptation to local con-
ditions and subsequentl
y available free to all small-scale farmers.
Similar ideas have been bandied about for the development of a
malaria vaccine, another good example of a pressing and enor-
10
mous p r o b l em facing the developing countries for w h i ch a techni-

cal solution c o u ld surely be f o u nd i f o n ly the f u n d i ng were avail-
able.
Slow and Steady Wins the Race
The outcry elicited by the hasty launching of G M foods onto an u n-

prepared market has certainly taught the major seed producers an
expensive lesson. Even the best discoveries—an
d these particular
ones were n ot i n that category—need t i me to be accepted. Instead,
the companies' hell-for-leathe
r approach has t u r n ed w h at could
have been a case-by-case discussion i n to an all-out, all-embracing
confrontation for or against genetic m o d i f i c a t i o n. As such, the de-

bate bears l i t t le resemblance to the m o d el n o r m a l ly employed i n
addressing v i t al concerns i n a compromise-oriente
d democratic so-
ciety. One of our essential aims must be to get back to a reasonable
f o rm of debate. N ot every k i nd of genetic engineering is justifiable
and n ot every risk scenario is relevant i n every case.
M u ch h a rm has been done to the debate by the b u n d l i ng to-
gether of a n u m b er of different agendas. W h en biologists argue the
scientific aspects of the matter (and of course, they do n ot all see
eye to eye), t h e ir arguments are met by denunciation
s of the m u l t i-
nationals' m o n o p o l i z a t i o
n and concentration of capital. W h en at-
t e n t i on is d r a wn to the food deficit i n developing countries, o ut
come the statistics to prove there is p l e n ty to eat i f o n ly the food
were d i s t r i b u t ed evenly across the globe. Arguments about the dis-
persal r i sk of G M maize i n M e x i co are used as a line of attack
against using potatoes w i th an i n b u i lt resistance to pests i n D e n-
m a r k!
Obviously we cannot start the discussion again f r om scratch, ig-
n o r i ng all the dust already s t i r r ed up. But we c o u ld f o l l ow a piece of
good advice f r om researchers w o r k i ng at the Royal D a n i sh Veteri-
nary and A g r i c u l t u r al University: " T u r n i ps on t h e ir o w n, rape on
its o w n . "" W h at they are getting at is that ( in D e n m a r k, at least)
the risks of crossbreedin
g w i th w i ld varieties are very different for
these t wo crops: the fodder t u r n i ps n ow being cultivated i n test
fields are biennials harvested before they flower; rape is an annual.
So the precautions that need to be taken w i th G M t u r n i ps are n ot
necessarily the same as those that apply to rape, under Danish con-
ditions. This piece of advice also has a broader application, of
course: consideration
s that may be relevant i n one context cannot
be allowed to dictate the rules i n another, quite different context.
Such a mistake c o u ld lead to b o th t oo l i t t le and t oo m u ch regula-
t i on and c o n t r o l, i f w h at we are left w i th is some sort of standard
package. For example, D a n i sh experts have had such serious reser-
vations about the possible crossing of G M rape w i th local weeds
t h at a G M variety ready to be marketed has n ow been shelved, for
the t i me being at least. Similar concerns about G M potatoes m i g ht

be v a l id for Peru b ut w o u ld be pointless for D e n m a r k, because po-
tatoes have no w i ld relatives i n D e n m a r k.
A n approach to genetic m o d i f i c a t i on based on a case-by-case
evaluation, as practiced i n E.U. a u t h o r i z a t i on procedures, is a rea-
sonable requirement to set. A n d such an approach w o u ld u n d o u b t-
edly enhance the objectivity of the entire debate and reduce the
chance of several different agendas becoming m i x ed up. A l l issues
can be discussed, w i th or w i t h o ut consensus; b ut they ought to be
kept apart. The p o l i t i c al aspects of dependency and monopoliza-
t i o n, for example, go far beyond genetic m o d i f i c a t i on to the
broader issue of globalization
. The l i m i ts to h u m an m a n i p u l a t i on
of God's creations is another aspect that can be discussed indepen-
dently. The argument about organic versus t r a d i t i o n al agriculture
w o u ld be an ideal subject for a general debate on w h at we expect
f r om t o m o r r o ws' agriculture. Social u t i l i ty is an issue i n itself, for
all countries. T h en comes the p r o b l em of resolving all the technical
risk factors, w h i ch is undeniably a j ob for the specialists. I n the
public debate, the need for a certain a m o u nt of professional where-
w i t h al to decide specific points about the risks of the new technol-
ogy is still n ot fully accepted. This is due i n part to a general dis-
trust of new technology and the competence and i n t e g r i ty of b o th
government authorities and private companies.
Free Choice for Everyone—Us and Them
O n a Saturday m o r n i n g, for those standing i n line at the checkout

in their local supermarket i n Europe or the U n i t ed States, an ad-
equate f o od supply appears to be a n y t h i ng b ut a p r o b l e m. They see
not only p l e n ty of food b ut also an o v e r w h e l m i ng variety of p r o d-
ucts, brands, and qualities. W h at more c o u ld one ask for? I t is easy
to dismiss the n o t i on that there is any need for G M products. I f
such products do f i nd t h e ir way o n to grocery store shelves, shop-
pers certainly do n ot have to pop t h em i n to their shopping carts.
But can a strong case be made for stopping others f r om d o i ng so?
We, the authors of this book, do n ot believe the arguments
against genetic m o d i f i c a t i on are strong enough to dictate that the

w o r ld should stop any further development of G M plants. A n d we
f i nd i t extremely w o r r y i ng that a m i n o r i ty that has m o re than
enough to eat should make life so difficult for those w ho do n o t.
Potential p u b l ic and private investors, facing a vociferous and hos-
tile response f r om some quarters, may w e ll decide that the o n ly
easy and logical s o l u t i on is to discount the use of genetic engineer-
i ng technology i n food p r o d u c t i on a nd focus exclusively on its use
in h u m an medicine. Society may be t u r n i ng its back on some pos-
sible advances, b ut we, the well-fed of the w o r l d, w i ll get by just
the same.
The developing countries, w i th the possible exception of China,
w i ll have no chance to benefit f r om G M f o od research unless they
can draw on knowledge and contacts i n the wealthy p a rt of the
w o r l d. I f the c o n t i n u a t i on of research i n the d o n or countries—
those that invest, t h r o u gh a id c o n t r i b u t i o n ,s i n development-
oriented p u b l ic i n t e r n a t i o n al research—is deemed unacceptable
,
the i n t e r n a t i o n al research groups w i ll have to stand by as the fund-
ing dries up. A n d researchers i n the developed w o r ld w i ll naturally
t u rn their a t t e n t i on to areas for w h i ch f u n d i ng is available.
T r a d i t i o n al agricultural research w i ll carry on as before, and, as
before, good results w i ll regularly be f o r t h c o m i n g. But n ot at the
rate, or of the innovative nature, that is clearly needed. How, i n all
conscience, can the well-fed of the w o r l d, by t u r n i ng w h at should
be a choice i n to a global dictate, o pt o ut of the new technologies
that could p r o v i de the o p p o r t u n i ty for all the w o r l d 's people to be
well-fed?
NOTES
The following abbreviation s are used in the notes: CIMMYT, Cen-

tra Internaciona l de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo (Internationa l Maize
and Wheat Improvement Center); IFPRI, Internationa l Food Policy Re-
search Institute. Short titles are used for cited works after the first citation.
Introduction
1. Mae-Wan Ho, Genetic Engineering Dream or Nightmare? Turning the

Tide on the Brave New World of Bad Science and Big Business (London: Con-
tinuum, 2000).
2. Lord Melchett, " G M Crops Worse Than N-waste," Guardian (Man-
chester), September 6, 2000.
3. Robert B. Shapiro, The Welcome Tension of Technology: The Need for
Dialogue about Agricultural Biotechnology, CEO Series no. 37 (St. Louis,
Mo.: Center for the Study of American Business, Washington University,
2000).
4. Nuffield Council on Bioethics, Genetically Modified Crops: The Ethical
and Social Issues (London: Nuffield Foundation, 1999).
5. "Gener Spredes i Naturen [Genes are spreading in the w i l d ] ," Poli-
tiken (Denmark), September 12,1999.
6. Mira Shiva and Vandana, "India's Human Guinea Pigs: Human vs.
Property Rights," Science as Culture 2 no. 10 (2000): 59-81.
7. Christina A i d, "Selling Suicide," at <www.christian-aid.org/uk
/
reports/suicide/summary >, accessed September 23,1999.
8. Ibid.
147
148 NOTES TO PACES 4-3O
9. S. Rampton and J. Stanber, Trust Us, We're Experts: How Industry Ma-
nipulates Science and Gambles with Your Future (New York: Jeremy R
Tarcker/Putnam , 2 0 0 0 ).
10. Cyrus G. Ndiritu, "Biotechnolog y in Africa: Why the Contro-
versy?" in Agricultural Biotechnology and the Poor, ed. G. J. Persley and
M . M . Lantin (Washington, D.C.: Consultative Group on Internationa l
Agricultural Research, 2 0 0 0 ).
11 Hassan Adamu, "We'll Feed Our People as We See Fit," Washington
Post, September 11, 2000.
12. Soren Kolstrup, "Kan Generne Traekkes Tilbage? [Can the genes be
pulled back?]," Information (Denmark), November 8,1999.
13. Ndiritu, "Biotechnology in Africa."
14. Birger Lindberg Moller, "Genteknologien s Betydning for Frem-
tidens Fodevareproduktio n [The importance of genetic technology in fu-
ture food production]," in Gensplejsede Fodevarer (Copenhagen: Teknolo-
giradet, 1999), 59.
Chapter 1. Agricultural Research
1. Donald L. Plucknett, Science and Agricultural Transformation, Inter-

national Food Policy Research Institute Lecture Series no. 1 (Washing-
ton, D.C: IFPRI, 1993). Tons here and throughout the book refers to met-
ric tons.
2. Ibid.
3. Throughout this book the cereal crop Zea mays is referred to as
maize rather than corn, as it is known is the United States.
4. Peter B. Hazell and C. Ramasamy, The Green Revolution Reconsidered
(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, for IFPRI, 1991).
5. CIMMYT, CIMMYT Annual Report 1994 (Mexico City: CIMMYT,
1995)-
6. Consultative Group for Internationa l Agricultural Research, Tech-
nical Advisory Committee (TAC), "Environment Impact of the CGIAR:
A n Assessment" (Rome: TAC/Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations, April 2001).
7. CIMMYT, Annual Report 1994.
8. Gordon Conway, The Doubly Green Revolution: Food for All in the
Twenty-first Century (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1998).
9. CIMMYT, A Sampling of CIMMYT Impacts, 1998 (Mexico City:
CIMMYT, 1999).
10. United Nations Population Fund, newsletter, September 23,1999.
NOTES TO PACES 3 2 - 4 8 149
Chapter 2. The Expanding Boundaries of Research
1. Seren Molin, "Biologiens Paradoxer [The paradoxes of biology]," an-

nex toErhvervsministerietsDebatoplceg:DeGenteknologiske Vdlg[Debate: the
genetic technology choices] (Copenhagen: Ministry of Industry, 1999).
2. David Baltimore, "Our Genome Unveiled," Nature 4 09 (February
15, 2001): 814-16.
3. This theory is outlined in "When D id Rice Become Corn?" Inter-
national Herald Tribune, March 3, 2000.
4. "Scientists Weed Danger out of G M Crops," Times (London), No-
vember 16,1999.
5. Moller, "Genteknologien s Betydning."
6. Samuel B. Lehrer, "Potential Health Risks of Genetically Modified
Organisms: How Can Allergens Be Assessed and Minimized?" in Agricul-
tural Biotechnology and the Poor, ed. G. J. Persley and M . M . Lantin (Wash-
ington, D.C.: Consultative Group on Internationa l Agricultural Re-
search, 2 0 0 0 ).
7. Press conference, London, February 1999, reported in New Scientist,
February 20,1999, 4 .
8. The Royal Society, "Review of Data on Possible Toxicity of G M Po-
tatoes," in Promoting Excellence in Science, at <www.royalsoc.ac.uk >, ac-
cessed May 8,1999.
9. Stanley Ewen and Arpad Pusztai, Lancet 354, no. 9187 (October 16,
1999)-
10. News, New Scientist, October 16, 1999; Emma Ross, "Disputed
Study" (Associated Press, October 15,1999).
11. Lars From, "Gen-roer Gavner M i l j 0 et [ GM turnips benefit the en-
vironment], " Jyllands Posten (Denmark), December 6,1999.
12. "GMOs Seen as Asia's Saviour, Not Frankenstei n Food" (Reuters
News Service, November 23,1999).
13. "Gene-Altered Corn's Impact Reassessed, " Washington Post, No-
vember 3, 1999; Tina Hesman, "Under Milkweed, Monarchs May Sway
Fate of High-Tech Crops," St. Louis Post-Dispatch, August 7, 2 0 0 0; Mar-
tina McGloughlin, "Biotech Crops: Rely on the Science," Washington
Post, June 14, 2 0 0 0, A39 ; Dan Ferber, " G M Crops in the Cross Hairs,"
Science 286, no. 26 (1999): 1662-66; Carol Haesuk Yoon, "Altered Corn
May Imperil Butterfly, Researcher s Say," New York Times, May 20, 1999,
A i ; J. Losey, L. Raymor, and M . Carter, "Transgenic Pollen Harms M o n-
arch Larvae," Nature, 399 (May 20,1999): 214.
150 NOTES TO PACES 51-76
14. Clive James, "Transgenic Crops Worldwide: Current Situation and

Future Outlook" (paper presented at the conference Agricultural Bi-
otechnology in Developing Countries: Toward Optimizing the Benefits
for the Poor, Center for Development Research [ZEF], Bonn, November
15-16,1999),
15. CIMMYT, "Genetic Variations among Major Bread Wheats in the
Developing World," in CIMMYT World Wheat Facts and Trends, 1995/96
(Mexico City: CIMMYT, 1996).
16. "Vaccination Med Frugt [Vaccination w i th fruit]," Politiken (Den-
mark), March 12, 2000.
Chapter 3. What Is Wrong w i th More of the Same?
1. Henrik Pontoppidan , "Et Grundskud [A deathblow]," in the short

story collection FraHytterne (Copenhagen, 1887).
2. Per Pinstrup-Andersen , Rajul Pandya-Lorch, and M a rk W . Rose-
grant, The World Food Situation: Critical Issues for the Early Twenty-first Cen-
tury (Washington, D C : LFPRI, 1999).
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Serageldin, lecture, Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University.
6. K im Fleischer Michaelsen, "Nourishment and Undernourishment, "
in Good News from Africa, by Ebbe Schi0ler (Washington, D.C.: IFPRI,
1998).
7. Timothy G. Reeves, "Role of Internationa l Agricultural Research,"
in Biotechnology and Biosafety, ed. Ismail Serageldin and Wanda Collins
(Washington, D C : World Bank, 1999).
8. IFPRI, "Internationa
l Model for Policy Analysis of Commodities and
Trade (IMPACT)" (Washington, D.C: IFPRI, 1999), computer software.
9. Estimated figure, based on the assumption that the reduction in
child malnutrition w i ll correspond proportionall
y to the reduction in
the number of hungry people.
10. Figures here and in the remainder of the chapter are from Pin-
strup-Andersen , Pandya-Lorch, and Rosegrant, World Food Situation.
Chapter 4. The Alternatives
1. Kolstrup, "Kan Generne Traekkes Tilbage?"

2. Moller, "Genteknologiens Betydning."
3. Anthony Trewavas, "Much Food, Many Problems," Nature 402 (No-
vember 1999): 232.
NOTES TO PAGES 77-91 151
4. Moller, "Genteknologien s Betydning."

5. Miguel A. Altieri, Peter Rosset, and Lori Ann Thrupp, The Potential
of Agroecology to Combat Hunger in the Developing World, 2020 Vision Brief
no. 55 (Washington, D . C: IFPRI, 1998).
6. Schioler, Good Newsfrom Africa.
7. Norman Borlaug, "Verdens Bred [The world's bread]," Politiken
(Denmark), November 27,1999.
8. Schioler, Good News from Africa.
9. Robert L. Paarlberg, Sustainable Farming: A Political Geography, 2020
Vision Brief no. 4 (Washington, D.C: IFPRI, 1994).
10. Borlaug, "Verdens Brad."
11. Ibid.
12. Serageldin and Collins, Biotechnology and Biosafety, 157.
13. "Vand-og Sanitetsprogra m Bangladesh [Water and hygiene pro-
gram, Bangladesh], " in Evaluering 1999/2, ed. Ismail Serageldin and
Wanda Collins (Copenhagen: Royal Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Danida, 1999).
14. Nuffield Council on Bioethics, Genetically Modified Crops.
15. Serageldin and Collins, Biotechnology and Biosafety.
Chapter 5. Can the Poor Benefit from Genetically Modified Foods?
1. See, for example, Kolstrup, "Kan Generne Traekkes Tilbage?"; and

Bo Normander, N O A H, interview on Danish public broadcasting (DR 1)
program Orientering, March 7, 2 0 0 0.
2. "Declaration from Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Appli-
cation of Science and Technology," at <www.psrast.org/dcl >.
3. See, for example, Johan Keller, "Rent N u l! [Zero!]," Information
(Denmark), January 8-9, 2 0 0 0.
4. James, "Transgenic Crops Worldwide."
5. Serageldin and Collins, Biotechnology and Biosafety, 157.
6. See, for example, Peter Ulvskov's comments in Lykke Thostrup,
"Genteknolog i Som Ulandsbistan d [Genetic technology as development
assistance]," in Biolnfo NYT(Copenhagen: Royal Veterinary and Agricul-
tural University, November 1999); and Per Pinstrup-Andersen , Modem
Biotechnology and Small Farmers in Developing Countries: Commentary
(Washington, D . C: IFPRI, 1999)-
7. See, for example, "Terminator Terminated?" RAFI News, at
<www.rafi.org> , accessed October 4,1999; and Hans Herren, discussion
at the International Conference on Biotechnology in the Global Econ-
152 NOTES TO PAGES 92-101
omy, Winnipeg, Canada, September 2-3, 1999, quoted in Sustainable De-

velopments 30 (September 6,1999).
8. Walter Dannigkeit, "Biotechnolog
y from a Global Food Security
Perspective
" (paper presented at the conference Agricultural Biotechnol-
ogy in Developing Countries).
9. G. M . Kishore and C. Shewmaker, "Biotechnology
: Enhancing Hu-
man Nutrition in Developing and Developed Worlds" (paper presented
at the colloquium Plants and Population: Is There Time? Irvine, Calif.,
December 5-6, 1998), here quoted from Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences [online] 96 (May 25, 1999), at <www.pnas.org/cgi
/
content>.
10. Vernon W . Ruttan, "Biotechnolog
y and Agriculture: A Skepti-
cal Perspective,
" AgBio Forum 2 (winter 1999), at <www.agbioforum
.
missouri.ed/agbioforum
x
11. Henk Hobbelink, " N yt Hab Eller Falske Lofter? Bioteknologie
n og
Den Tredje Verdens Landbrug [New hope or false promises? Biotechnol-
ogy and t h i rd w o r ld agriculture]" (Copenhagen: N O A H, 1988).
12. M . Morris and D. Hoisington, "Bringing the Benefits of Biotech-
nology to the Poor: The Role of the CGIAR Centers" (paper presented at
the conference Agricultural Biotechnolog
y in Developing Countries).
13. M . Hossain et a l, "Biotechnolog
y Research in Rice for Asia: Prior-
ities, Focus and Directions" (paper presented at the conference Agricul-
tural Biotechnolog
y in Developing Countries).
14.Ibid.
15. W . B. Frommer et al., "Taking Transgenic Plants w i th a Pinch of
Salt," Science 285 (August 2 0 , 1 9 9 9 ).
16. "Iron-fortified Rice" (Nature Biotechnolog
y Press Release, Nature,
March 1999).
17. D. T. Avery, "Golden Rice Could Combat T h i rd W o r ld Malnutri-
tion," Bridge News Forum, August 27,1999.
18. F. Wambugu, "Why Africa Needs Agricultural Biotech," Nature 4 0 0
(July 1,1999).
19. "Boosting Insect Biocontrol" (Nature Press Release, Nature, No-
vember 1999).
20. Karby Leggett and Ian Johnson, China Bets Farm on Promise of Genetic
Engineering (New York: Dow Jones/Wall Street Journal, March 29, 2 0 0 0 ).
21. M . Qaim, The Economic Effects of Genetically Modified Orphan Com-
modities: Projectionsfor Sweetpotato in Kenya (Bonn: IS AAA and Center for
Development Research [ZEF], 1999).
NOTES TO PACES 102-118 153
22. M . Qaim, "Potential Benefits of Agricultural Biotechnology

: An
Example from the Mexican Potato Sector," Review of Agricultural Econom-
ics 21, no. 2 ( 2 0 0 0 ).
Chapter 6. W h o Sets the Agenda?
1. Adamu, "We'll Feed Our People as W e See Fit."

2. Jennifer A . Thomson, "Developing Country's Can't Wait and See,"
at <www.cid.harvard.edu/cidbiotech/comments/comments69.htm
>,
accessed July 28, 2000.
3. African Biotechnolog
y Stakeholders
' Forum, "RE: Biotechnolog
y
and Kenya's Socioeconomi
c Survival" (Nairobi, Kenya, September
1999).
4. P. Chengal Reddy, "When Western Activism Is Misguided," per-
sonal communication
, 2 0 0 0.
5. <www.greenpeace.dk/www/kampagner/gen2.html
>.
6. Niels Norgaard, "Jagt Pa Gensplejse
t M ad [Hunt for G M food]," Pol-
itiken (Denmark), January 9, 2 0 0 0.
7. "Sund Gris Bliver D yr [Healthy pigs could prove costly]," Politiken
(Denmark), January 15, 2 0 0 0.
8. Independent (London), January 15, 2001.
9. Wall Street Journal, February 21, 2 0 0 1.
10. Per Pinstrup-Andersen
, "Den Globale Fodevareforsynin
g [The
global food supply]" (paper presented at Landsplanteavlsnwd
e i Arhus,
Denmark, January 19, 2 0 0 0 ).
11. Ibid.
12. Niels N 0 r g a a r d, "Klar Besked om Gener [A clear message on
genes]," Politiken (Denmark), January 9, 2 0 0 0.
13. "French Pet Food Co Goes GM (genetically modified)-free," Agrow
20, September 1999; personal communicatio
n from staff member, W o r ld
Bank.
14. "Greenpeace t il Auken: EU Ma Tage Gen-skepsi
s Alvorligt [Green-
peace to Auken: E.U. must take GM-skepticism seriously]" (Greenpeace
Denmark press release, December 10,1999).
15. Frank J. Mitsch and Jenifer S. Mitchell, "DuPont, Ag Biotech:
Thanks, But No Thanks" (New York: Deutsche Bank, July 12,1999).
16. Merete Nielsen, "Ingen V i l Hjaslpe Monsanto [Nobody w i ll help
Monsanto]," Information (Denmark), January 13, 2000.
17. Rick Weiss, "EPA Restricts Gene-Altered Corn in Response to Con-
cerns: Farmers Must Plant Conventional 'Refuges' to Reduce Threat of
154 NOTES TO PAGES 118-140
Ecological Damage," Washington Post, January 16, 2000.

18. Dennis T. Avery, "Environmentalist
s Are Hunting the Biotech
Foods Revolution, but Corporate Missteps and Farmers Are Giving
Them Plenty of Help," Bridge News Forum, January 7, 2 0 0 0; Mitsch and
Mitchell, "DuPont, Ag Biotech."
19. "USA V i l Begrsens
e Brug af Genmajs [The United States w i ll con-
strain the case of G M maize]," Information (Denmark), January 17, 2 0 0 0;
"Brazil Farmers Smuggle, Plant G M Soy," AgBiotech Reporter, October
1999.
20. "Seeds of Trouble," Wall Street Journal, September 15,1999.
21. John Tavis, "Vatican Experts OK Plant, Animal Genetic Engineer-
ing," St. Louis Review, October 22,1999.
22. "The Church of England Statement on Genetically Modified Or-
ganisms" (London: Church of England, A p r il 1999).
23. Jonathan Petre, "Church Bans G M Crop Trials on Its Land," Sun-
day Telegraph, December 5,1999.
24. "When D id Rice Become Corn?"
25. Nuffield Council on Bioethics, "Genetically Modified Crops
Chapter 7. Moving Forward

1. Morton Satin, Food Irradiation: A Guidebook, 2 d ed. (Lancaster,
Penn.: Technomic Publishing,1996).
2. Michael Palmgren, Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University,
lecture on Agenda 2000, Allerslev, Denmark, February 17, 2 0 0 0.
3. Gordon Conway, "The Rockefelle
r Foundation and Plant Biotech-
nology" (address to Monsanto management
, June 1999).
4. Gordon Conway, "Crop Biotechnology
: Benefits, Risks, and Own-
ership" (paper presented at the biotechnolog
y conference sponsored by
the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
, Edin-
burgh, February 28-March 1, 2 0 0 0 ).
5. "'Terminator' Seed Sterility Technology Dropped" (Rockefelle
r
Foundation news advisory, October 4,1999), at <www.rockfound.org
>.
6. <www.christian-aid.org.uk
>, accessed February 2 0 0 0.
7. Bo Normander, "Husk de Baeredygtig
e Losninger [Remember the
sustainabl
e solutions]," Politiken (Denmark), March 5, 2 0 0 0.
8. Telephone conversation
s w i th several Danish NGOs: IBIS, Folke-
kirkens Nadhjaslp, and Mellemfolkelig
t Samvirke, March 2 0 0 0.
9. Brian D. Wright, "IPR Challenges and Internationa
l Research Col-
NOTES TO PACES 1 4 3 - 1 4 4 155
laborations i n Agricultural Biotechnology" (paper presented at the con-

ference Agricultural Biotechnolog y in Developing Countries).
10. Jeffrey Sachs, "Helping the World's Poorest," Economist, August 14,
1999.
11. Lykke Thostrup, "Roer for Sig og Raps for Sig [Turnips on their
own, rape on its own]," in Biolnfo NYT.
INDEX
Page numbers in italics indicate Allergens: reduction through ge-

material presented in boxes. netic modification, 94 ; stand-
ards for GM foods, 40, 41, 42
Adamu, Hassan, 5,107-8
Anemia, 61
Africa: future of increased produc-
Antibiotic-resistanc
e marker gene,
tivity in, 67-68; future of nutri-
39,140-41
tion in, 64 ; Green Revolution in,
14; irrigation in, future of, 82; Argentina: GM crops in, 51, 88,118
lack of fertilizer in, 28, 78-79 ; Asia: economic developmen t in,
population growth, projected, 75; famine in, 10-11; future of
65; promise of agricultural bio- increased productivity in, 67,
technology for, 5-6; silent 68; irrigation in, 82; NPV bio-
hunger in, 59-6 0 pesticide in, 99-100; revitalized
agriculture in, 12-13. See also
African Biotechnolog y Stakehold-
East Asia; South Asia
ers' Forum, 108
Aventis, 90
Agricultural biotechnology : debate
over, 2-6; promise of, 5-6,
Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), 45-47, 76,
91-92; science of, 3-4. See also
117-18; butterflies threatened
Genetically modified food; Ge-
by, 47-4 9
netic engineering
Bioinformatics , 36
Agriculture. See Industrialized ag-
Biosafety, 133-34
riculture
Biotechnology , 36-37. See also Agri-
Agriculture, global: problems
cultural biotechnology ; Geneti-
with, 72-73
cally modified food
AIDS: in Africa, 65; vitamin A defi-
Blanket labeling, 129-31
ciency and, 61
157
158 INDEX
Bolivia: potato yields in, 77, 78 (CGIAR), 13,142; in Africa, 14;

Borlaug, Norman, 80, 81 research priorities of, 97; rice
Breeding. See Propagation gene bank of, 29; rice varieties
Bt. See Bacillus thuringiensis developed by, 21, 22-27
Business . See Private corporation s Consumers: in industrialized vs.
Butterflies : Bt threat to, 1, 47-49 , developing countries, 106-7; la-
115 beling and, 131-32; understand -
ing of GM foods by, 111-12
Calories: in developing world, Conway, Gordon, 20
59-60; and eating habits, 66; Corporations . See Multinational
improvemen t of, 63-64; nec- companies
essary number of, 62 Cotton, genetically modified, 47, 88
Canada: GM crops in, 51 Crop varieties, new: in developing
Carson, Rachel, 19 world, 12; genetically modified,
Cassava, 14,142-43; pest control 52-55, 93-94 ; Green Revolution
for, 15-18 and, 20-21; in industrialized
Cassava green spider mite, 15,17-18 countries, 8-10; research on, 28;
Cassava mealy bug, 15-17 shutting off genes in, 93
Catholic Church, 120 Crossbreeding, 9, 35; for new Afri-
Centro Internaciona l de Agricul- can rice varieties, 25-27
tura Tropical (CIAT): and cas- Cultivation, traditional: to solve
sava mealy bug problem, 15 productivity problems, 82-83, 91
Centro Internaciona l de Mejora-
miento de Maiz y Trigo (CIM- Denmark, 114-15,144-45
MYT), 12; on Green Revolution, Deutsche Bank, 117
20; maize varieties developed Developing world: agricultural
by, 21; wheat gene bank of, 29 problems of, 10-11; disasters i n,
CGIAR. See Consultative Group on 58-59; economic aspects of,
Internationa
l Agricultural Re- 74-75; future of hunger in,
search 62-64; Green Revolution in (see
China: famine in, 10-11; GM crops Green Revolution) ; hidden mal-
in, 47, 51,100 nutrition in, 6 0 - 6 2; vs. indus-
Chromosomes
, 33 trialized agriculture, 106-7; la-
Church of England, 120 bels and, 132; personal income
CIAT. See Centro Internaciona
l de in, 65; perspective on agricul-
Agricultura Tropical tural biotechnology , 2, 5-6,
CIMMYT. See Centro Inter- 107-9; population growth, pro-
nacional de Mejoramient o de jected, 65; potential GM benefits
Maiz y Trigo for, 55, 97-100,104-5,145-46;
Consultative Group on Inter- projected food needs for, 65-66;
national Agricultural Research research in, 134-35,141-43; re-
INDEX 159
search priorities for, 92, 97-100; Farmland: poor condition of, 54,
research programs established 68-69
for, 12-13; and right to refuse Feed grains: genetically modified,
GM products, 108,133-34; seed from developing countries, 94
saving in, 136; silent hunger in, Fertilizer(s): lack of, in Africa, 28,
59-60; yield gap in, 28, 30 78-79; organic viewpoint on,
Diagnostics, 36 78-79; and productivity, 82; re-
Disasters: in developing world, duced need for, 52, 54
58-59, 70-71 Food and Agriculture Organiza-
Distribution of food supply, 5-6, tion (FAO), 63
69-70, 73-75 Food consumption : trends in,
Doubly Green Revolution, 20 65-66
DuPont, 117,118 Food enrichment.See Nutrition
Food production. See Production
East Asia: potential for increased Food supply: distribution of {see
agricultural production in, 68 Distribution of food supply); fu-
Eating habits: predictions about, ture of, 62-64, 81-83
65-66 Ford Foundation, 12
Environment: and better crop Foreign aid: decrease in, 30-31;
yields, 67; genetically modified and prevention of starvation,11;
food and, 43-44 , 51, 95,133; projected demand for, 69-70;
Green Revolution and, 19-20; state of, 73
irrigation and, 81-82; organic Frankenfood , 109
farming and, 75-76 Free trade: and GM food regula-
Environmenta l organizations: re- tions, 133
sponse to GM foods, 109-10, Functional genes, 33
114-15
Ethical issues: of genetic engineer- Gene banks, 28, 29
ing, 118-23 Gene dispersal: by GM plants, fear
Ethiopia: cattle in, 78 of, 49-50,133
Europe: response to GM foods, Gene gun, 39
112-15 Gene manipulation . See Genetic
European Union: response to GM engineerin g
foods, 113-14; safety standards Gene mapping, 35, 36, 37
of, 4 0 - 4 1 Genes, 33; shutting off, 93; species
and, 32, 33-34, 121-22
Famine, threat of: in developing Gene splicing, 36, 38-39; precision
world, 10-11,13, 30. See also of, 4 0
Starvation Genetically modified food: ad-
FAO. See Food and Agriculture Or- vances in, 50-56, 93-95; case-by-
ganization case approach to, 143-45; criti-
160 INDEX
Genetically modified food (cont.) 19- 20; new development

s i n,
cisms of, 109-11; current cultiva- 2 0 - 21
tion of, 88-89 ; debate over, 2-6, Growing conditions, poor, 68-69;
88-90,142-45; decisions about, GM plants for, 52, 54, 98
who makes, 106-9,122-23,
145-46; environmenta l risks of, Health, risks posed by GM prod-
43-44,133; ethical questions ucts to, 39-42. See also Safety
about, 118-23; governmenta l re- Health-giving properties: as goal of
sponses to, 113-16; groups ben- genetic modification , 94
efiting from, 100-104; labels for, Health problems: in industrialize
d
128-33; media coverage of, 1, as. developing world, 109
42-43, 47-49,110-11; misinfor- Herbicides, 44-45 , 95
mation about, 111-13; naturalnes
s Hidden malnutrition , 60-62
of, 80-81, 84-85,121-22; optimis- Ho, Mae-Wan, 3
tic view of, 104-5; priorities for Human Genome Project, 35,100
developing countries, 97-100; Hunger: in developing world,
safety of, 39-42,133-34. See also 59-60; future of, 63-64, 70-71
Agricultural biotechnolog y Hybrids, 35; in history of agricul-
Genetic engineering : ethical issues ture, 9; for new African rice vari-
i n, 118-23; future of, 55-56; eties, 25-27
promise of, 5-6, 91-92,145-46;
responsibl e use of, 127-28; suc- IFPRI. See Internationa l Food Pol-
cess of, 8 9 - 9 0; techniques i n, icy Research Institute
35-39 IITA. See International Institute of
Genetic mixing, 34 Tropical Agriculture
Genome(s), 33; maps of, 35 Income, personal: projected
GM food. See Genetically modified growth in, 65
food India: famine in, 10-11; Green Rev-
Golden rice, 99,138 olution in,14-19
Governments , of industrialize
d Industrialize
d agriculture: vs. agri-
countries: response to GM foods, culture in developing world,
113-16 106-7; research for, 28, 92-95
Grain: improvement s in, 94-95 ; Industrialized countries: attitude
world production of, 69-70 toward agriculturalbiotechnol-
Green manure, 76, 78 ogy, 2-3; governmenta l re-
Greenpeace, 113 sponses to GM foods, 113-16; in-
Greenpeace Denmark, 109-10 fluence on agenda for developing
Greenpeace U.K., 3 world, 106-9; opposition to GM
Green Revolution, 13; criticism of, foods by, 109-13; personal in-
13-20; environmenta
l effects of, come in, 65; population growth,
INDEX 161
projected, 64-65; research re- Land, appropriation of: organic

sults and, 28, 92-95 farming and, 77-78; productivity
Inequality: Green Revolution and, and, 11,19-20, 66-67, 81
14-19 Land races, 8
Insects: controlled by GM plants, Livestock: and GM feed, 130
51-52, 93, 99-100; resistanc
e to Livestock revolution,66
Bt, 45-4 7
Institute for Agricultural Research Maize: genetically modified, 88,
(Kenya), 5 90,114,129,140-41; CIMMYT
Internationa l Food Policy Research varieties of, 21; prevalence of,
Institute (IFPRI): Green Rev- 50-51; in U.S., 117-18
olution study, 18; 2020 Vision Malnutrition in developing world,
for Food, Agriculture, and the 53, 6 0 - 62
Environment program, 62-63 Malthus, Thomas, 7-8
Internationa l Institute of Tropical Marker gene, 38, 39-40; antibiotic-
Agriculture (IITA): and cassava resistant, 39,140-41
mealy bug problem, 15-17 Meat: demand for, 66
Internationa l Rice Research Insti- Media coverage: of developing
tute (IRRI): and rice for Africa countries' plight, 1, 58; of food
project, 25; rice gene bank of, 29 stories, 1; of GM foods, 109-11;
Investment: in developing-worl d of Monarch butterfly scare, 1,
agriculture
, 30-31, 68,142,145- 47-48 ; of Pusztai research, 42
46; in GM food business, 116-17 Medicines: genetic engineering
Iron deficiency, 61 and, 84
IRRI. See International Rice Re- Melchett, Lord, 3
search Institute Mendel, Gregor, 9
Irrigation: and agricultural devel- Mexico: GM crops in, 51; GM po-
opment, 81-82; infertile farm- tatoes in, 102-4; research sta-
land from, 68, 98 tions establishe d in, 12
Miami Group, 133
Kenya: GM sweet potatoes in, 99, Micronutrients . See Nutrition
101-2 Molecular breeding, 36
Monarch butterflies: Bt threat to,
Labels, 128-33; "blanket labeling," 1, 47-49,115
129-31; and free trade issue, 133; Monopolies, 116
in industrialize d vs. developing Monsanto, 3,101,102-3,116;
countries, 132; responsibility for, Roundup by, 44
130; in U.S., 128-29 Montreal Biodiversity Convention,
Labor force: in developing coun- on labeling, 129,132-33
tries, 79 Multinational companies: distrust
162 INDEX
Multinational companies (cont.) Pests. See Insects

of, 4,138-39; position of, 116-18; Pharmaceuticals : genetic engineer-
profits of, 137-40 ing and, 84
Philippines : research stations es-
Natural: organic farming as, 76 tablished in, 12
Natural vs. unnatural debate: Plant variety protection (PVP) reg-
about genetically modified ulations, 125,139
food, 4 , 80-81, 84-85,121-22 Politicians: response to GM foods,
Ndiritu, Cyrus, 5-6 113-16
NGOs. See Nongovernmenta l or- Pontoppidan , Henrik, 57
ganizations Population growth; in developing
Nitrogen fertilizer, reduced need world: current, 30; improved
for, 52, 54 health and, 9; projected, 64-65;
NOAH, 138 and starvation, 7,10-11
Nonchemical farming, 75-79 Poultry: demand for, 66
Nongovernmenta l organizations Private corporations : distrust of, 4,
(NGOs): criticism of GM foods, 138- 39; mergers by, 116,118,140;
138-39 position of, 116-19; profits of,
Novartis, 116 137-40
NPV biopesticide , 99-100 Private-secto
r research, 92-95; in
Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 3 developing world, 135,142-43;
Nutrient depletion, in soil, 52, 69. patent issues in, 123-24,126,
See also Growing conditions, 139- 4 0
poor Production, increased: benefits to
Nutrition: increased, by GM poor, 106-7; future needs,
foods, 53, 98-9 9 66-69, 81-83; goals for devel-
oping world, 9 0 - 9 1; historical
OECD. See Organization for Eco- improvemen t of, 7-10; need for,
nomic Cooperation and Devel- 5-6; obstacles to, 68-69; private
opment industry and, 95; proposed solu-
Organic farming, 75-79,131; pro- tions to, 81-84. See also Yield
ductivity and, 77-78; standards improvement s
for, 76 Profits: from GM products, 137-40
Organization for Economic Coop- Propagation : conventional tech-
eration and Development niques, 4, 35, 52, 82-83; genetic
(OECD): aid from, 73 engineerin g and, 35-39,36-37;
Orphan crops, 97 methods of, 35; nutrition and,
98; safety of, 39-42
Patents: on GM products, 123-26; Public-sector research, 92, 97-100;
alternative s to, 139-40 patent issues in, 124,125-26
Pesticides: vs. Bt, 47, 48-4 9 Pusztai, Dr. Arpad, 42-43
INDEX 163
PVR See Plant variety protection Safety standards: for GM crops,

(PVP) regulations 39-42; Pusztai findings and,
42-43
Rape, genetically modified, 88; Seeds: contracts with farmers for,
prevalence of, 50-51 118; in gene banks, 28, 29; ster-
Reddy, P. Chengal, 108 ile, 135-36
Redistribution of food. See Distri- Silent Spring (Carson), 19
bution of food supply Smallholders : as beneficiarie
s of
Regulator genes, 33 GM crops, 101-4; crops grown
Religious convictions: and genetic by, 97; Green Revolution' s ef-
engineering , 120-21 fects on, 18-19; new crop varie-
Research: beneficiarie
s of, ties for, 20-21; use of fertilizer
100-104; current, 53-56, 93-95; by, 79
for developing world, 12-13, 92, South Africa: GM crops in, 51
97-100; in developing world, South Asia: future of nutrition i n,
134-35,141-43; funding for, 3 0- 64; potential for increased agri-
31,146; goals of, 27-30; for in- cultural production in, 68; pro-
dustrialize d world, 28, 92-95 ; jected growth in, 65; silent
patent issues, 123-26; social fac- hunger in, 59-60
tors in, 21. See also Green Rev- Soybeans, genetically modified, 88,
olution 129; prevalence of, 50-51
Research centers: in developing Species: and genes, 32-34,121-22;
world, 12-13 genetic changes in, 34-35
Rice: in Africa, 22-27; in gene StarLink maize, 90,116
bank, 29; "golden," 99,138; re- Starvation: Malthus' predictions
search projects on improvemen t of, 7-8. See also Famine, threat
of, 54, 97-9 8 of
Rio de Janeiro summit, 133 Sterile seeds, 135-36
Risks, 6, 86-88; environmental
, Substitute products: concerns
43-44,133 about, 95-97
Rockefelle
r Foundation: and new Sunlight: efficient use of, 55
agricultural packages of 1950's Sweden: attitude toward GM
and 1960's, 12; rice research by, foods, 112
98 Sweet potatoes: genetically mod-
Roundup, 44 ified, 99,101-2
Royal Society: on Pusztai findings,
43 Terminator gene, 136
Thomson, Jennifer, 108
Safety: in experimentation
, 133-35; Tissue culture, 37,37
as goal of genetic modification
, Transformatio n (gene splicing), 36.
93-94 See also Gene splicing
164 INDEX
Transgenics , 38 Weed control: and African rice,

Triticale, 35 22-24; by G M plants, 44-45 ,
2020 Vision for Food, Agriculture, 51-52, 93
and the Environment, 62-63 Weeds: cross-pollinatio n with GM
plants, 49-50,133
United Kingdom: attitude toward West Africa Rice Development As-
GM foods, 111-12,115 sociation, 21, 23-27
United Nations: population esti- Wheat: gene bank for, 29; im-
mate by, 64 proved varieties of, 52
United States: attitude toward GM World Bank, 63, 9 0
foods, 111,112,114,115-16; GM World Trade Organization
crops in, 50-51, 88,117-18; G M (WTO): and compulsory label-
industry in, 117-18; labels i n, ing, 133; and patents, 124,125,
128-29; lawsuit by farmers i n, 139
118; resistant insect regulations
in, 47; safety standards of, 4 0 - 4 1 Yield ceiling, 28-30, 31
Utility, social, 122,141-43,145 Yield gap, 27-28, 30
Yield improvements : future of,
Vaccine(s): in GM foods, 54-55 67-68, 82-83; by GM products,
Vaccine technology, 37 51; historical, 7-10; in 1950s and
Viruses: resistance to, by GM 1960s, 12; research on, goals of,
plants, 52,142-43 27-30, 31. See also Production,
Vitamin A: deficiency, 61-62; in increased
GM rice, 53, 99,138
E C O N O MC
I D E V E L O P M E NT J O H NS HOPKIN S PfiPERBRC K
In recent years the media have reported, frequently with alarm, o n the increasing use o f
genetically modified crops in agriculture. Some groups have expressed concern about
consumer safety and the risks o f large-scale ecosystem damage. O t h e r s have noted the
resulting shift of power away from locally controlled farming operations toward large
agribusiness and biotech companies, and the particular vulnerability o f farmers in the de-
veloping world to this trend.
In Seeds of Contention: World Hunger and the Global Controversy over GM Crops, develop-
ment specialists Per Pinstrup-Andersen and E b b e Schioler focus attention o n the less
discussed issues of the potential benefits and costs of genetically modified crops for devel-
oping countries. Pinstrup-Andersen and Schioler review the basic issues and discuss the
potential that such crops have for addressing the great needs of poor and undernourished
peoples throughout the world. T h e y explain how increased agricultural productivity is not
enough in addressing the problem o f famine. People in developing countries need crops
that are disease-resistant, can fend off insect predators, and can withstand severe environ-
mental conditions in order to produce larger crop yields.
Pinstrup-Andersen and Schioler are sober in their assessment o f these prospects, for
they acknowledge that G M crops alone will not solve the w o r l d s food problem. T h e y
argue, however, that they may he one element in the solution and that people in develop-
ing countries should have information about benefits and risks of G M crops and the free-
dom to make their own decisions about whether or not to grow and consume them.
" A timel y c o n t r i b u t i o n o na n importan t i s s u e . I t i sgrea t t o hav e

an unemotional , broad-base d assessmen t o f g e n e t i c a l l y modifie d
crops. " - L E S T E R BROWN,Worldwatc h I n s t i t u t e
"Thi s boo k present s a balance d perspectiv e o nth e p o t e n t i a l bene ›

f i t s an d r i s k s o f moder n biotechnolog y f o r developing-countr y
foo d an d a g r i c u l t u r e an d suggest s a c t i o n t o reduc e r i s k s an d
increas e b e n e f i t s . I t i sa n e x c e l l e n t an d highl y welcom e a d d i ›
t i o n t oth e ongoin g debat e o n biotechnolog y an dGM foods. "
-GORDON R . CONWAY , P r e s i d e n t , Th e R o c k e f e l l e r Foundatio n
P F R P I N S T R U P - A N D E R S E N is director general o f the International F<x>d Policy Research

Institute. E B B E S C H I B L E R is a consultant in research and development issues primarily
related to agriculture.
I N T E R N A T I O N AL FOOD P O L I C Y R E S E A R CH INSTITUT E
THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY PRESS

Baltimor e an dLondo n www.press.jhu.ed u ISB N 0-8 0 1 8 - 6 8 2 6 - 2
HI llllllllllllllllllllll 9 0 0 0 0
( W r . k - M i i n : Glen Bums. Cover illustration: Photodisc j'jj
9 ll 780801 ll 868269 11

P15738coll2 126310

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

P15738coll2 126310

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

P15738coll2 126310

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WORLD HUNGER cmd the GLOBAL

CONTROVERSY over GM CROPS

World Hunger and the Global Controversy

The Johns Hopkins University Press

Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper

The Johns Hopkins University Press

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publicatio

1. Food supply. 2. Food supply—Developin

I n t r o d u c t i o n: W h at Is the Debate A l l About? • 1

2 T he Expanding Boundaries of Research: Risks

5 Can the Poor Benefit f r om Genetically M o d i f i ed

6 W h o Sets the Agenda? • 106

7 M o v i ng F o r w a r d: Handle w i th Care • 127

" A person w ho has f o od has many problems. A person w ho

H ow m u ch should we t r u st science? I f there's one t h i ng we

m an health, and the well-being of p o or people; the other argues

President, Bread for the World and

One cannot f o l l ow events i n the media for l o ng before c o m-

tries. Instead, we propose that the p o or should be given the oppor-

This book is a revised and updated version of a book published i n

What Is the Debate All About?

D o y ou recall the reports about the threat to the m o n a r ch

Science, b u i l d i ng on the w o rk of generations of farmers and of

These are i m p o r t a nt questions, and the answers have great w e i g ht

• H ow can this technology i m p r o ve the quality of the f o od we

These questions are the topic of this book.

director of Greenpeace U.K., also voices his concern: "Genetically

comes the response of the chairman of the agricultural conglomer-

searchers are shamelessl

asked, "Are G M crops the next i n line of inappropriat

The distrust of private corporations, of course, is n ot l i m i t ed to the

developing w o r ld i n o p p o s i t i on to this o u t r i g ht rejection of agri-

ture, w r o te i n a Washington Post op-ed article i n September 2000,

This is at the core of the debate. Some see no p o i nt i n t a k i ng ag-

F r om the Kenyan p o i nt of view, the situation does n ot seem quite

rica to a subsidiary r o l e . " ' Let's assume, t h o u g h, that the r i ch

w o r ld d id f i nd the w i ll to set up a massive r e d i s t r i b u t i on p r o g r a m;

people to reconsider that all t oo easy and u n d e m a n d i ng " n o !"

Making a Difference in People's Lives

One of history's most famous prophets of d o om was the

to be a static factor, and a collision between r a p id p o p u l a t i on

had i m p r o v ed a good deal by Malthus's t i m e, compared w i th his

The Research Factor: Altering the Status Quo

In fact, quite a l ot had already been achieved i n agriculture by the

n o rm for centuries the w o r ld over. Better education of farmers,

This p a t t e rn was repeated for m a ny other crops i n many coun-

tries, n ot o n ly i n the developed regions of the w o r ld b ut also i n

Bleak Outlook for the Developing World

D u r i ng the years since M a l t h us first p r o p o u n d ed his views, his fol-

another, findings have to be m o d i f i ed to meet the conditions and

Turning the Tide: A New Agricultural Package

In the 1950s, t wo leading A m e r i c an p h i l a n t h r o pci institutions, the

they f o r m ed an association called the Consultative Group on Inter-

One Picture, Many Interpretations

n i n agricultural p r o d u c t i v i ty i n many parts of

first. Here, as i n other contexts, Africa is seen as the forgotten con-

I N S E C T W A R S IN A F R I C A ' S CASSAVA FIELDS