Book Review: Food, Inc: Mendel to Monsanto – The Promises and Perils
of the Biotech Harvest by Peter Pringle (Simon & Schuster 2003)
This is an excellent unbiased journalistic narrative of the
history of both the science and politics of biotechnology up to 2003. Transgenic
foods have been around now in grocery stores for twenty years. By 2002 about
120 million acres were planted with transgenic crops. Many were designed to
resist pests or tolerate stronger pesticides. In the late 1990’s some of the
potential problems of biotech were popularized by anti-GMO activists. These
included potential allergies, unintended development of “super weeds” and
“super pests,” damage to biodiversity, possible extinction of wild plants,
damage to beneficial insects, and contamination of organic crops.
There is much debate about the dangers and benefits of
biotech and it does seem that there are some of each. The new ebola vaccine is
a genetically modified organism so clearly there is some beneficial potential
of GMOs, but it is also clear that there are dangers. It is unclear, however,
whether the overall effect will be beneficial or detrimental. So far GMO savior
foods like golden rice have fallen short of the hype but it is likely that they
have prevented blindness and death for many, although some say there are better
and safer ways to get nutrition and vitamins to those in need. Biotech
regulation seems to favor industrial interests over consumers and that has been
a sore point with many. The whole debate is yet another example of the uneasy
relationship between corporate and public interests. Industrial property rights
on both products and processes have given them an unfair advantage over
traditional farmers – supposedly for the good of all since there are modest
yield increases with biotech. Much of the plant gene pool is in the poor,
tropical, undeveloped south and ownership of those genes and processes to
manipulate them have been given to interests in the gene-poor, affluent, north.
Yet there has been no real evidence that GMOs are dangerous to consume, even
though scientists acknowledge some potential for allergies. Dangers to the
environment, to farmers, and to the integrity of food sources seem more likely.
Anti-GMO advocates sometimes refer to them as a “plague of sameness” where
monocultures are forced on us by corporations. The author notes that:
“The genetic revolution in agriculture is too important to
be left to propaganda, either from corporations or environmental ideologues.”
The early genetic experiments of Gregor Mendel are recounted
and his perplexity about hawkweed which was found to exhibit asexual
reproduction. Apparently this occurs in about 10% of flowering plant families
but only 1% of the species that make them up. The phenomenon is called apomixis. Much of asexual plant
reproduction remains a mystery. None of the major food crops are apomictic but
some minor ones are like mangoes, blackberries, and citrus. The main food crops
change by the year due to genetics. If the genes that produce apomixis can be
discovered and manipulated then food crops with specific reliable qualities
could be maintained year after year which is a goal of biotech, so far elusive.
This would mean the traits of prized varieties could be fixed and this would
likely help traditional farmers but only if the discovery was shared with them.
New hybrid corn varieties combined with industrial
agriculture, fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides, just before WWII, led to
greatly increased yields. This was counteracted in 1962 when Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring revealed the dangers of
many of these chemicals. Crop yields of wheat, corn, and rice doubled or
tripled over the last half of the century.
In the 1990s, the first generation of transgenic plants, the
biggest products were a tomato that didn’t rot on the way to market, a soybean
that tolerated strong herbicides, and corn plants with pest resistance. These
mainly benefited seed merchants, farmers, and food processors. In 1999 with the
modification known as “golden rice” there was a chance for biotech to help
people deficient in vitamins and nutrition in Third World
counties where rice was a staple crop. The death of a million people a year through
compromised immune systems due to malnutrition and the blindness of three
hundred thousand could potentially be prevented. This was made by genetically
instructing the rice to make beta carotene which humans convert to Vitamin A.
This also makes the rice turn yellow. The scientists that developed it,
Potrykus and Beyer, were not long-time biotech industry people though toward
the end of their development they were forced to make deals in order to develop
it. Opponents accused them of being industry moles in a calculated move to
reinvigorate failing public support of the industry. It is still debatable
whether golden rice is better than simply distributing vitamins and addressing
the poverty, corruption, and social factors that lead to malnutrition in third
world countries. Anti-biotech advocate Vandana Shiva pointed out that
preferential monoculture of wheat, particularly the herbicides used on it, in India’s north decreased production of
greens that are high in Vitamin A. Monsanto actually developed a high-Vitamin A
mustard green whose seeds were given out for free to farmers in vulnerable
areas. Potrykus was taken aback by the criticisms of his work, which also included
increasing the iron content of rice to address iron deficiencies in a billion
and a half women. Eliminating vitamin deficiencies of these sorts were goals of
the World Food Summit in the 1990s. The UN and WHO advocated the nutritionally
modified crops as attempts to distribute vitamins and add iron to wheat flour
as vitamin distribution missed much of the remote rural at-risk populations. Of
course, there is little to no potential profit in addressing nutritional
deficiencies but much profit in dealing packages of seeds and pesticides that
must be renewed every season. Really, one of the main issues of biotech is
coordinating potential public benefit with the private interests of profit. The
deregulation and free market rallying cries of the 1990s certainly tended to
favor the corporate interests over the public interests, but that was not to be
the case in Europe and some counties in Africa .
Many countries were introduced to GMOs through food aid, and some refused it,
citing safety concerns and threats to the genetic diversity of their own crops,
despite having hungry people in need. The backlash in Europe
was one of activism, often overblown and yet the dangers were real enough. The
European public soured to biotech and still does today.
Patented genes and genetic processes were granted to protect
the interests of biotech companies that spent billions of dollars on laboratory
research. It can be difficult to ascertain who owns the patents to various
processes and if they apply to one’s research. In the case of golden rice,
deals were struck between universities and industry and models of pubic-private
partnerships in biotech that had implications for the poor and malnourished
began to be worked out. Of course, the researchers (Potrykus and Beyer) were
now considered traitors by the anti-biotech forces. Critics argued that they
could have kept it a public venture and some of the research money came from
the Rockefeller Foundation, presumably for humanitarian purposes. The rice
plant itself Taipei
Food plant varieties have dwindled since the advent of
industrial monoculturing. The Japanese pioneered the art of dwarfing before
WWII and this has been a boon to new varieties of rice and wheat that are more
productive and drought tolerant. Dwarfing can help plants grow better in
conditions of high fertilization. Hybridization leading to so-called “hybrid
vigor” was known in the late 1800’s and perfected later. Favoring one variety
over others on a big scale can reduce biodiversity and germ plasm of crops. The
problem with hybrid vigor is that it only lasted one generation so that new
seeds would have to be purchased every season. This is, of course, a boon to
seed merchants in cahoots with plant breeders. Monoculturing can also be
vulnerable to new disease problems if the main varieties are affected and there
is not enough diversity to include immune varieties. Genetic uniformity =
increased vulnerability. After WWII, factories that produced nitrogen-derived
explosives were converted to produce nitrogen fertilizer. U.S. corn hybrids failed first in Mexico but soon
were very successful, drastically improving yields. Success with corn and
dwarfed wheat in Mexico
led to the establishment of small groups of wealthy farmers and many more poor
local farmers who could not compete. This is a time when publicly funded plant
research centers and seed banks were set up – for corn in Mexico, for rice in
the Philippines, for beans in Columbia, and later for maize, cassava, and rice
in Africa. The formula of the Green Revolution was new hybrid seed varieties,
irrigation, and chemical fertilizers. The dwarfing gene was a factor in many
seed varieties. The results were stunning – a massive increase in available
food. By the early 1980’s it had been hailed as a massive success. But there
were downsides – decreased soil fertility brought greater dependence on
chemical fertilizers. The chemicals combined with poor drainage encouraged more
weed and insect growth. This in turn caused more use of insecticides and
herbicides and so a vicious cycle was created. Accidental pesticide poisonings
due to poor labeling and lack of protective clothing caused many unnecessary human
deaths. Pesticides also killed beneficial insects. These problems created a
desire to breed plants that had natural insecticidal action (like Bt corn) so
that less pesticides would be necessary. An integrated approach to pest
management, where limited amounts of pesticides were used, eventually proved to
be the most successful. American farming separated into large “superfarms” and
smaller organic farms. Family farms faded away. This was to happen in other
countries as well, even third world ones, as this style of industrial farming
became the norm.
An early manifestation of agribusiness was when the Colonial
empires of 18th and 19th century Europe
established trade and tropical plantations of tea, cocoa, sugarcane, pineapple,
dates, bananas, and spices. Such ventures up through the Green Revolution
favored larger operations.
Biotech companies like to point out that the new genetic
engineering is just a modernized extension of traditional crossbreeding that is
more detailed and targeted. Opponents argue that this is misleading.
Crossbreeders select from similar plants that share a recent genetic history
but bio-engineered plants often have genes injected from far distant species.
With the use of marker genes and signaling genes as part of the transgenic
package (called a cassette) there could be unintended consequences if the
target gene is not reached or if the cassette plays the wrong info in the wrong
place – so say opponents. This has yet to happen from my knowledge but it
remains a possibility. Genes from nuts used in biotech have been found to cause
allergies in those allergic to nuts – so now such genes are not used without
foreknowledge. A big argument of opponents is that biotech can be unpredictable
but the companies say that crossbreeding can be too – but likely within the
confines of closely related plants – say opponents. The companies also say that
any problems can be found during the experimental stages and be eliminated.
“Plants have very plastic genomes.” These arguments would seek to influence any
would-be regulation of the new GMOs.
In the early 1990’as the new crops were coming to market,
the first pronouncements of GMOs were that they are “generally regarded as safe
(GRAS) and the FDA proclaimed them “substantially equivalent” to non-GMO
plants. This term was perhaps intentionally ambiguous and vague and tended to
favor the industry. It was unclear whether GMOs would require extra testing. “Substantially
equivalent” is acceptable to some but unacceptable to others. Anti-biotech
forces tend to favor the “precautionary principle” which is equally ill-defined
in the sense of where one draws the line between risk and safety. The U.S ended
up favoring substantial equivalence while Europe
favored the precautionary principle. In the U.S. , GMO regulation is split
between the FDA, the EPA, and the USDA. FDA oversees food safety, EPA deals
with plants engineered to make their own pesticides, and USDA deals with
interaction of transgenic plants with traditional crops and the potential of
gene transfer.
The first GMO food to market was Calgene’s Flavr Savr tomato
which was genetically altered not to rot. It was developed in the late 1980’s.
It came to grocery stores in 1994 after extensive testing. It utilized marker
genes (common in GMO’s) as part of a jumping gene (one that move around in the
genome and replicates) of the bacterium E. Coli, a publically feared bacterium
– although commonly used in GMOs due to its properties. This nptII gene was
also antibiotic and there were questions about it conferring antibiotic
resistance after it entered the human gut but this was considered very
unlikely. Antibiotech forces led by the very intelligent Jeremy Rifkin were on
the warpath as well as the Europeans. Other biotech companies were developing
different marker genes that would be considered safer. By 1995 Calgene’s tomato
was not much of a success in stores and the company was bought by Monsanto (for
their other genetic work) and the Flavr Savr tomato disappeared.
Next there is an analysis of Basmati rice, involving its
history as an aromatic, sought after rice mainly from one main area in the
Punjab region of India and Pakistan . It
has always been in demand at a high price. The same could be said of jasmine
rice from Thailand .
When a Texas company crossbred basmati with a
Green Revolution dwarf variety and patented it (only in the U.S. ), there
were allegations of “biopiracy” from Vandana Shiva and others. The company
preferred to refer to it as “bioprospecting.” This and many other cases brought
up questions of “intellectual property” among indigenous products such as
crops.
“The highly publicized legal tussles over turmeric, the neem
tree, and basmati and jasmine rice fueled a bitter debate over the way patent
laws allow companies to assume ownership of the knowledge of indigenous people
from developing nations.”
The notion of companies in rich nations making profits from
the knowledge of people in poor nations while possibly reducing their own
market share tended to infuriate some people. Questions revolve around what should
be owned exclusively by those in the region and what could be up for grabs.
Another issue is determining what constitutes exploitation of indigenous
knowledge and market share. The ideological push from the West towards free
trade, free market fundamentalism, and deregulation – of course tended to favor
business interests quite much. Patents could be abused in order to make
profits. The author goes through the history of plant patent law, particularly
in the U.S.
and notes that in 1980 was the first time cells (with genes) were patented.
Biotech companies began to patent techniques which allowed them to monopolize
processes. Deals were made between college research labs and biotech companies.
Larger biotech companies like Monsanto bought out other companies for their
patents. Another issue is that biotech crops and their accessories (fertilizers
and pesticides) were more expensive and so disadvantaged small traditional
farmers, particularly in developing countries. The author notes that India could
have applied for a GI (Geographical Indicator) for basmati rice but did not. A
GI protects a regional product like Scotch whisky or French champagne. Another
consideration is how one defines “biopiracy” since seeds have been shared
throughout the world as long as people have traveled.
The cauliflower mosaic virus has peculiar genetic qualities
as it works well as a promoter, kick-starting reluctant genes selected for
their qualities. Monsanto applied for a patent to any gene cassette containing
this virus genome, the 35S. British geneticist, biophysicist, and avid
anti-biotech crusader Mae-Won Ho, went on to preach of the dangers of the 35S
with the potential to make the DNA unstable and unpredictable. Many scientists
vehemently disagreed, some pointing out that the promoter was consumed at
levels 10,000 times those in the transgenic plants by eating plants in the
cabbage family. Others noted that as a “jumping gene” it was more stable than
others in use. The promoter gene of the cauliflower mosaic virus (35S) was
eventually approved and is in many transgenic foods.
While GMO soy, canola, and corn became established in the
U.S., Europe refused shipments of Monsanto food under the influence of
anti-biotech groups like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. In 1998 the EU
banned GMOs. The author notes that anti-biotech forces were arranged in three
camps:
“The rejectionists believed that for religious,
environmental, or food safety reasons plant biotechnology was wrong, dangerous,
and should be stopped.” “The reformists believed that scientists, business, and
government had mishandled the new technology; the technology itself was not the
root of the problem.” (I tend to favor this camp) The third group was organic
growers and consumers who advocate labeling and precautions against “genetic
pollution” by cross-pollination. This is reasonable. Greenpeace and others
(including Prince Charles) promoted the uncertainties of GMOs. Richard Dawkins
was counter as pro-GMO. Since much of the food was to come from America (although
European science has had many biotech discoveries and advocates) that was
perhaps another incentive for the public to oppose it. Another disagreement
between those in Europe and the U.S.
was how GMOs were tested, how proteins were isolated for tests, and the
thoroughness of the testing. A 1998 study of rats fed GMO potatoes was said to
reveal weakened immune systems and less growth in the rats. This study was
strongly criticized in peer review (by the Royal Society) for several valid
reasons. This likely flawed study prompted Greenpeace to call for a GMO ban.
In 1998, the “Terminator seeds” of Monsanto came about –
seeds good for one season and saving seeds from those crops would become punishable
by lawsuit. After Monsanto lost market share by mis-predicting the effect of
anti-biotech forces, then CEO, Robert Shapiro, actually went before a meeting
of Greenpeace and apologized for the way they handled biotech promotion and
regulation. This had no effect, however.
In 1999 a study suggested that Bt corn might harm monarch
butterfly caterpillars. Other scientists debunked this and called for better
studies. All types of Bt corn produce proteins. They were tested in solutions
mimicking stomach acid to see how fast they broke down – the slower they broke
down the more they would be likely to produce an allergic reaction. One protein
form a Bt corn called Star Link broke down very slowly and so the EPA approved
it only for animal feed. Some questioned whether it could truly be kept
separate. In 2000, a Friends of the Earth activist went to his local
supermarket, bought corn products and had them tested for Star Link DNA. It was
found in taco shells made by Kraft. Some people complained of allergic
reactions after eating the taco shells but it was undetermined if Star Link was
to blame. The company Aventis voluntarily withdrew the product and the
government spent 15-20 million dollars buying back all the Star Link corn.
The author documents the most prolific plant hunter of all
time – the Russian botanist/explorer/geneticist/geographer/linguist Nikolai
Ivanovich Vavilov. He scoured vast nooks and crannies of the world collecting
seeds from germ plasm, for science. He was able, for the first time, to
pinpoint places where staple plants were first domesticated. By 1940 he had
collected and housed 250,000 specimens. Unfortunately he was to be scapegoated
by Stalin for not renouncing the science of genetics and died in prison in
1943. Even though he was tried and sentenced as a traitor he would later be
reinstated as a hero of Soviet science after Stalin’s death. Bioprospectors (or
biopirates) still access his collections. More patent battles were to follow
when people tried to patent selections of traditional crops. One reason to
pursue new plants was to corner local markets to rival special food crops that
had to be imported. People also began to consider that special pesticide and
fertilizer intensive GMO crops were not the sole solution to Third
World starvation.
“The Green Revolution doubled wheat yields in India ,
and the Chinese boosted rice harvest by two-thirds – probably saving more than
a billion people from starvation.”
Poor countries took what they could get as they needed it.
The amount of people subject to starvation was cut in half but there were still
many starving due to cost rather than supply. Some like Kenyan ecologist Hans
Herren thought too much emphasis was being put on GMOs and not enough on more
conventional and proven technologies – many that had yet to be implemented in
developing countries. The World Trade Organization (WTO) was convened in 1995
to establish global trade rules and came up with a section on property rights
called – Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). This
agreement stated that “biological resources, including microorganisms and
microbiological processes, should be subject to intellectual property rights
and that countries should also set up some form of protection for plant
varieties.” Detractors condemned the agreement as sanctioned biopiracy and
thought that it overshadowed the intellectual property rights of traditional
farmers and thus threatened biodiversity. African farmers have the most
desperate need to increase yields to stave off starvation so that is where the
GMO debate has been very active. Africa mostly missed the Green Revolution
because the crops were more designed for temperate zones rather than the mostly
tropical zones of Africa . Pro-biotech Kenyan
biologist Florence Wambugu thinks biotechnology can help Africa
(and so too now does the Gates Foundation). She has worked on a transgenic
sweet potato (a staple crop in Africa ) that was
projected to increase yields up to 80 %. An African anti-biotech activist is
Tewolde Berhan Egziabher, who became head of Ethiopia ’s Environmental Protection
Authority. The Ethiopian region is the source of coffee, barley, and tef –
offering the most biodiversity of each. His main argument is not against
genetic engineering itself but against the privatization and profit-oriented
nature of it.
In 2001 it was found that the treasured Mexican criollo corn
variety was tainted with alien genes from transgenic varieties from the U.S. It was
debatable whether this would affect native corn varieties in the long run.
Likely what happened was that local Mexican farmers bought corn to eat from the
U.S.
and ended up planting some. It could also have been corn bought from the U.S. to make tortillas – corn they probably did
not know was GMO as there was a ban on planting GMO corn in Mexico . Generally
speaking, subsistence farmers will plant the best seeds they can get their
hands on as has happened in several countries where GMOs were planted during
bans. The main controversy about the Mexican corn cross-pollinations is whether
there was “gene flow” or whether the transgenes fragmented and scattered around
the genome – and most scientists concluded that they did not and it would have
been unprecedented if they did. An issue brought up by anti-biotech forces is
the collaborations between the biotech industry and university research which
replaced public funding with private funding.
One of the biggest concerns with GM crops is what they could
do in those crops centers of diversity. The creation of super weeds out of wild
relatives of food crops is a danger:
“The problem is that nearly all the major crops, such as
corn, rice, barley, and sorghum, have close relatives that are regarded as
weeds somewhere in the world and could theoretically be turned into
superweeds.”
Weed is a subjective term referring to a nuisance or
troublesome plant that can lead to reduced crop yields of those crops that
compete with the weed. Gene flow in this manner – cross-pollination of wild and
cultivated species – is most potentially troublesome in areas of greatest
diversity where there are many versions from wild to tame of the species. Corn
and its largely inedible ancestor, teosinte – have begun to cross-pollinate and
the teosinte is changing in some areas, getting features of the corn. Corn is
thought to be the food crop most susceptible to gene flow through
cross-pollination. Monsanto brought litigation against many farmers for
allegedly saving seeds and replanting without paying them royalties. The
well-known case of Canadian canola farmer Percy Schmeiser is recounted and he
became a sort of folk hero standing up to Monsanto after their crops
contaminated his and he saved the seeds and replanted them without paying them
a royalty. Many call that corporate arrogance so organic canola growers
counter-sued Monsanto for contaminating their crops with GM varieties.
During the African famine of 2002, the countries of Zambia , Mozambique ,
and Zimbabwe refused GM corn
food aid from the U.S.
under the influence of European bans. Zimbabwe
and Mozambique decided to
take the corn only if it was milled so seeds could not be planted but Zambia refused.
One problem with U.S. food
aid is that corn is the most sought after crop and (at the time) one third of U. S.
corn is GM and the grain system does not separate GM from non-GM. By 2003 GMO
bans were in place in many countries of the world and that is still the case.
Aside from the bans there were studies that suggested that crops like Bt corn
did not really cut down on pesticide use. Gene flow was discovered between GMO
and wild sunflowers and GMO and wild sugar beets.
The European and Brazilian bans hurt Monsanto’s bottom line
and their new CEO pledged to be more ethical and open. New GM plants have been
developed to be more nutritious, richer in antioxidants, and a new
drought-tolerant variety of rice. Monsanto and Syngenta both renounced the
Terminator technology. But next came what the anti-biotech people were to call
the Exorcist and Terminator II – seeds that would not pass on the transgenic
traits to the next generation of seeds. As more plants genomes are sequenced
there has been re-interest in traditional cross-breeding in more detail.
Changing flowering times to allow two rice crops in a year and changing plants’
responses to light have been goals. Switching on latent genes within a crop
itself is generally regarded as safer than injecting genes from other species.
Plants under stress can undergo a reshuffling of genes in response, looking for
genetic ways to adapt. Working within the genome of the plant itself through
cross-breeding for traits is one way of working around plant patents and
staying clear of biotech companies for those countries that have banned GMOs.
It is not just the GMOs that they are wary of, but the corporate control as
well. Philanthropic groups like the Rockefeller Foundation have been trying to
pool resources of biotech companies and government research to make some
biotech tools and products royalty-free and inexpensively available to all. The
great yield increases of the Green Revolution were in part due to the early
effects of pesticide and fertilizer use and have since dropped off. One of the
big issues is the contrast between the public good and the profits of the
private sector. Another is optimizing the good effects and limiting the
detrimental ones. The author gives some final statements:
“Biotech agriculture is another step in the evolution of
human food, a process of change that began slowly and now, in evolutionary
terms, moves at mach speed. The changes are not inherently unsafe, nor are the
companies that produce them inherently evil. Transgenic foods have been eaten
by contented and discerning consumers in America for a decade. {now two
decades}. Moreover, the promise of producing more food in African deserts or
the wetlands of Asia is worth the time and
money spent on these new seeds.”
“There are plenty of things for the public to worry about,
however. One concern is how government agencies study and approve new seeds. In
addition, old seeds must be preserved in public seed banks. Companies need to
be more generous with patents that can be used to produce food in countries
where people are starving. Genetic engineering has a pragmatic and realistic
use for developing countries but only if it is properly integrated into the
different agricultural systems. Finally, the strategic planners of world
agriculture must bring an end to a system that through farm subsidies has long
been rigged in favor of rich countries. Without this reform, poor nations have
no hope of being able to compete in world grain markets.”
“These experimental foods deserve respect from those who
discover them, call for more caution from those who regulate them and grow
them, and finally, at the end of this real food chain, demand close study by
those of us who eat them.”
