Genetic Engineering Comes Up Short
A Growing Global Population Requires Multiple Solutions
SOURCE: AP/Bullit Marquez
Crops yields must improve to feed a hungry planet amid global warming, but that will require more ecology-based farming and less biotechnology. Above: a farm laborer carries rice seedlings for planting at the experimental plots of the International Rice Research Institute in Manila.
Print
Agricultural Biotechnology
In order to feed a growing, hungry world amidst a warming climate, we have to produce more food. Solutions to the problem of how to increase crop yields include both ecology-based farming and biotechnology approaches. But how do we define biotechnology? And can it support progressive approaches to improving prospects for the poor farmers of the world? This series on the issue gathers perspectives from experts who take a hard look at the science, the economics, and the complexities of agricultural development.
Other articles in this series:
Igniting Agricultural Innovation
By L. Val Giddings and Bruce M. Chassy
Can Agricultural Biotechnology Help the Poor?
By Paul B. Thompson
The Global Food Security Act of 2009, if enacted, would presumably help foreign countries weather future severely reduced food availability akin to those a year ago, when multiple factors combined to push an additional 100 million people in developing countries into food insecurity and hunger. Problem is, this act (Senate Bill 384) requires the inclusion of “genetically modified technology” in research supported by the legislation-without mention of any other methods of boosting crop production. This emphasis could cause genetic engineering to displace more-successful scientific ways of boosting crop yields worldwide and may push countries to accept a technology that they do not want.
U.S. agriculture assistance abroad should provide a full spectrum of agricultural choices to increase food production without contributing to water pollution and other environmental harm amid global warming. These choices should favor agricultural techniques such as conventional seed breeding as well as breeding enhanced by our increased understanding of seed genomes, both of which are proven to increase yield. Favoring agricultural genetic engineering instead makes no sense.
U.S. agriculture assistance abroad should provide a full spectrum of agricultural choices to increase food production without contributing to water pollution and other environmental harm amid global warming.
That’s a shame because this legislation, introduced by Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), generally reflects the growing public recognition of the increasing challenges to produce enough food with limited resources such as fresh water and non-renewable energy. Climate change today, along with increasingly severe weather, will make it harder to grow our food at the same time that rising population will require greater food production. At the center of this overlapping set of crises is the issue of crop yield-producing enough food from available land and resources. How we resolve these crises will determine our success in ensuring that enough food is produced in coming years.
This effort requires emphasizing methods that work best rather than more impressive-sounding technologies like genetic engineering. The agricultural biotechnology industry, which produces genetically engineered crops, has naturally seized upon the threat of inadequate crop yield to promote its vision for agriculture. Genetic engineering involves inserting into the genetic material of a crop one or a few genes from an organism such as a bacterium—that may not be able to share genes with the crop through traditional breeding—using laboratory-based methods.
The industry has a big stake in promoting genetic engineering as an important solution for increasing yield. It has invested billions of dollars in the infrastructure needed to produce genetically engineered crops. And the ability to control the use of genetically engineered seed through U.S. patent law changes in the 1980s makes genetic engineering especially attractive to these companies. In the United States, the biggest market for GE seed, farmers cannot save patented genetically engineered seed as they previously could with traditional seed varieties from most crops, but must buy new seed every year.
From the beginning, proponents of genetic engineering have made bold claims about the revolutionary potential of the technology, from reducing the environmental footprint of agriculture to making foods more nutritious, and from boosting the ability to raise crops under drought conditions to raising crop yields. But it is this last claim—to raise the yield of crops—which is especially important to the debate about producing enough food.
Increased yield has always been a major goal of U.S. agricultural research. Indeed, agricultural scientists have succeeded in producing a six-fold increase in corn yields since 1930 and soybean yields have increased by a third over the past 30 years. Because a large part of the world’s most productive agricultural land is already used to produce food, getting more food out of cultivated land will require continuing increases in yield. Otherwise, even more forests or grasslands will continue to be converted into cropland, with serious negative consequences for climate change and biodiversity.
The amount of land needed to feed a future global population, however, also largely depends on meat and dairy consumption. The reason: These foods use land much less efficiently than when crops are consumed by people. That means even greater crop yields will be necessary to produce enough food for immediate consumption and to feed the livestock we in turn will consume unless we reduce growing meat-consumption trends.
How successful has genetic engineering been at addressing the important question of improving crop productivity? In our recent report, “Failure to Yield,” the Union of Concerned Scientists found that for the two major genetically engineered food and livestock feed crops in the United States, corn and soybeans, engineered genes have not met the promises of their supporters despite 13 years of commercial production and over 20 years of research.
To better understand the performance of these genetically modified crops, we need to distinguish between two types of yield. Intrinsic yield is the maximum yield obtainable under ideal conditions. Operational yield is the amount of the crop obtained after pests and stresses such as drought reduce the intrinsic yield. Only intrinsic yield raises the ceiling of how much food can be obtained. Operational yield, however, is also important, since pests and stresses typically cause significant losses-especially in developing countries that often have fewer means to control pests and mitigate stress.
After a careful review of several dozen of the best studies in the United States—where much of the best peer-reviewed research has been conducted—we found that no genetically engineered crop increases intrinsic yield. The most widely-used traits, which confer herbicide tolerance to soybeans and corn, also provide no overall operational yield benefit. Several traits, called Bt, which are widely used in corn to control several insect pests, do increase operational yield in the presence of pests, but only modestly. Averaged over the whole corn crop, these traits provide only about a 3 percent to 4 percent yield benefit. Bt genes have not been used in soybeans, so no increase in soybean yield has occurred because of these genes.
These results compare unfavorably to ongoing yield gains from other agricultural methods such as traditional crop breeding, or breeding enhanced by our increasing understanding of crop genomes such as marker-assisted selection. These more traditional and improved methods boosted soybean yields by about 16 percent over the past 13 years. Over that same period corn yields have increased about 24 percent to 25 percent due to conventional breeding and other agricultural advancements.
The meager results of genetic engineering so far compared to more traditional agricultural methods are not for lack of effort. The experimental record over the past 20 years shows over 3,000 field tests approved for genes associated with yield. This represents a major investment of effort and funds with little to show.
What about the future? As the technology advances, scientists continue to discover new genes that may raise yields. Many of these new genes, however tend to interact with the plant genetic material in much more complex ways than the few genes such as Bt that have been successful so far. These complex interactions alter the function of many plant genes—often with unpredictable and sometimes harmful effects.
Case in point: a gene that otherwise shows promise for increasing operational yield through drought tolerance was found to also increase the susceptibility to several types of crop diseases. It is unclear whether this problem can be resolved. If not, we may pay for increased drought tolerance with reduced yield when the pathogens are present, or increased pesticide use to control disease losses.
The upshot: it will be challenging to make these genes work as intended without causing unintended harm.
By contrast, ecologically-based methods have been shown by the United Nations to more than double yields in hundreds of farmers’ fields in Africa and elsewhere, at low cost, and with environmental benefits. A joint World Bank-United Nations report that involved hundreds of scientists concluded that genetic engineering should take a back seat to ecologically-based methods such as organic farming, infrastructure development, and farmer-assisted crop breeding in developing countries. These methods are usually ignored by the private sector because they do not provide a way to easily capture profits and are best developed through public research initiatives.
One can only wonder, then, why the Global Food Security Act of 2009 includes a provision in a proposed amendment to foreign food aid law, requiring the inclusion of “genetically modified technology” in research funded by the legislation without mention of any other methods. The increasing need for food demands that we refocus our public resources on proven methods for increasing yields. That means promoting conventional breeding and demoting genetic engineering.
Doug Gurian-Sherman is a Senior Scientist in the Food and Environment Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Comments on this article
C’mon. You are smart enough to know that the legislation permits biotechnology to be one of the aspects of research. But you know that there will never be a point where all crops are biotech-modified.
Here’s the language, that you didn’t provide:
“include research on biotechnological advances appropriate to local ecological conditions, including genetically modified technology.”
See? _Appropriate_. Not mandatory.
June 10th, 2009 at 10:12 pmI often wonder why it is so frequently the case that people critical of genetic engineering do not directly quote and analyze the text of bills that they are commenting on. First it was HR 875 and now it is the Lugar-Casey Act.
Senator Lugar himself had to write a comment to the Des Moines Register debunking the claim made here and elsewhere that genetic engineering is “required.”
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090610/OPINION04/906100343/1038/Opinion
June 11th, 2009 at 2:02 pmBoth Mary and Karl fail to include the whole and most important part of the language of the bill. The language that Mary cites is preceded by the term “shall”. That is, genetically modifies technology shall be included. The conditional terms (”appropriate to local ecological conditions”) are not defined in the bill, and are broad enough to include a huge range of research projects.
Furthermore, the issues I raise are not about whether genetic engineering would make up all of the research funding as Mary suggests–it is hard to conceive of that happening. Rather the issues are pressuring governments to accept genetic engineering projects that may not want them–as is currently the case for many countries–and favoring an approach to improving food security that has so far proven to be much less effective than other methods and technologies.
Pressuring countries to accept genetic engineering is contrary to the tone of mutual respect often sounded by the Obama Administration (and many aid groups).
There may well be successful genetic engineering projects for these countries, but we should also consider how to spend scare development dollars most effectively, and also make sure that the countries most affected have the ultimate say in what methods they adopt.
Karl seems to base his entire argument on the assurances of the amendment’s author (Senator Lugar). I would rather trust Webster on what “shall” means.
June 14th, 2009 at 8:39 pmDoug–”biotechnological advances” also doesn’t necessarily mean GE as some people describe it. Restricting that could cause the the kind of work of the World Food Prize winner–Dr. Ejeta–to not have been able to get support that has dramatically improved sorghum farming. His work required biotechnological advances. Are you opposed to that work? Are you seriously willing to prevent African farmers from having access to that technology? That is unfair and paternalistic of you to define what they can and can’t have access to.
http://www.worldfoodprize.org/press_room/2009/june/ejeta.htm
There are many solutions needed to improve food security–and improving the tools of local farmers and scientists are among them. Withholding those tools is wrong.
June 15th, 2009 at 6:24 pmMary, I wish you would read my comments more carefully. You seem determined to try to ascribe statements to me that I did not make.
I am not opposed to genetic engineering, let alone other methods of breeding. What I have written is that other agricultural methods and technologies have proven much more effective so far at improving yield, and therefore these other cost-effective and successful methods should have some priority, if that is what the receiving countries want.
As to being paternalistic, I wrote in my response to you “…and also make sure that the countries most affected have the ultimate say in what methods they adopt”. In other words, the receiving countries should be the ones to decide. I am not sure how that is paternalistic.
In fact, the way the bill is currently written is more likely paternalistic in mandating biotechnology projects. Again, one of the primary points I was trying to make.
And finally the term “biotechnology” has not been defined in the bill, so it is unclear what it means (part of the problem with the bill is that it is poorly worded), but it seems unlikely that the authors meant things like the use of agro-ecology, water-sparing technologies, etc. So again, we are left with genetic engineering (and here again–I am assuming that the awkward phrase “genetically modified technology” means genetic engineering) as the only specifically mentioned and mandated technology in the bill.
June 16th, 2009 at 5:16 pmSo the word “shall” is uninterpretable and fixed in the way you insist (despite explicit evidence to the contrary by the bill’s author) but “biotechnology” is all sorts of squishy but you are sure it is genetic engineering.
How _convenient_.
By trying to restrict biotechnology from this legislation you are absolutely withholding “the ultimate say in what methods they adopt”. Like a gag order on abortion by Bushies–it’s out there, but we can’t tell you. Ejeta specifically said that science is part of what these farmers and countries need, and that requires funding. I can’t believe you would try to prevent that. That is so anti-science and superior–you know better what they need–that it is appalling.
June 16th, 2009 at 9:45 pmAgain, you seem to be ignoring much of what I have been saying. So it is pointless discussing this beyond this posting, except to say, you have again misinterpreted the language of the bill, as well as what I have written.
First, “Shall” has well defined legal meaning in most cases, biotechnology does not. Senator Lugar does not provide evidence to the contrary in the op-ed linked above, only an assertion.
Additionally, leaving the language about genetic engineering out of the bill would do absolutely nothing to prevent that technology from being part of the research mix (perhaps you can show us the language in the bill that contradicts this). It would just be another unmentioned technology or method that would absolutely be allowed, rather than mandated.
This is clear also because the amendment in question is added on to a 1961 bill which has been in effect, and has not prevented genetic engineering projects from being developed in recent years by one of the implementing agencies, U.S. AID.
June 17th, 2009 at 3:01 pmApparently Webster’s Dictionary isn’t helping Doug figure out what “biotechnology” means, but he is certain what “shall” means.
Here’s what the bill would change the Foreign Assistance Act to say:
The change mentions both biotechnology and “genetically modified technology” (A misnomer but we all know what it means). If you take a look at the wording of this sentence you will notice that the text of the bill clearly considers “genetically modified technology” as a sub-set of biotechnology. As Mary brings up, there are many instances of what are appropriately referred to as biotechnology, but are not genetic engineering. This text, as worded, opens any biotechnological advance to be eligible to receive Foreign Assistance Act funding.
It highlights genetic engineering as one such technology. Perhaps it would be better to specifically mention several more such as marker-assisted breeding, etc, but that’s not a very good objection. Mentioning one technology in-specific does not elevate it to being “mandated” while other biotechnologies are simply “allowed.” They are all made eligible for financial assistance through the act.
Given Doug’s statement about “we should also consider how to spend scare development dollars most effectively…” suggests that he believes, as implicated in many places, that we should not fund genetic engineering reesearch in efforts to address food production issues here and abroad. But he also says that we should “make sure that the countries most affected have the ultimate say in what methods they adopt.” These two positions do not reconcile very well, so quoting the second to say you didn’t suggest anything by the first is logically problematic.
Would Doug like to make a clear, coherent statement to the effect of, should we fund genetic engineering projects in developing countries at all, yes or no? That is what this discussion is about, yet nothing clear is said to that end.
July 10th, 2009 at 8:11 pmCould I have a little global warming please.
August 3rd, 2009 at 5:38 pmDoug,
Have you ever heard of round up ready crops? I realize this sounds like a funny question but according to the paragraph below it seems relevent.
U.S. agriculture assistance abroad should provide a full spectrum of agricultural choices to increase food production without contributing to water pollution and other environmental harm amid global warming. These choices should favor agricultural techniques such as conventional seed breeding as well as breeding enhanced by our increased understanding of seed genomes, both of which are proven to increase yield. Favoring agricultural genetic engineering instead makes no sense
Since the itroduction of genetically altered crops such as RR and Liberty Link seed farmers have been able to dramatically decrees the amount of herbicides being applied and have been able to reduce the amount of cultivation due to less weed pressure reducing your so called impact on global warming, wich as a segway is a bunch of bull considering that the earths tempurature has risen six degrees in the last century
September 12th, 2009 at 10:32 pm