Reflection htm

The discussion entry is your personal reflection of your personal thoughts on the podcast “Keeping it Fresh…”. There is no right answer.
What constitutes a “thoughtful”discussion entry? What are some examples of what you might address in your discussion?
Remember that the more connections you make between yourself, society, and the topic of the podcasts.
A minimum of 200 words per discussion entry is required. Upon submission, you will see other classmates’ posts.
Environmentbusiness
ATTACHED FILE(S)
15
1
Savior or Monster?
The Truth about Genetically Engineered Agriculture
Margaret Mellon
I first became aware of biotechnology early in the 1980s, when the field
was in its infancy. Biotechnology arrived in Washington, D.C., on a wave
of enthusiasm backed by the U.S. government, big corporations, and the
scientific community. All of these entities had direct interests in the success
of biotechnology: profits and influence for industry; global trade and eco-
nomic clout for government; and grants and prestige for scientists. Citizens,
too, were interested in the technology, not only in its potential benefits but
also in its impacts on the environment and human health. But in those early
days the optimism was high and the criticism was muted. During the last
thirty years much of that initial euphoria surrounding biotechnology has
waned. In particular, North Americans and Europeans are in the midst of a
heated debate between the concentrated power of the direct stakeholders
in the adoption of biotechnology, and a more diffuse set of stakeholders
who are affected by the technology and who want a say in how it is used,
or whether it should be used at all. Most of this debate over biotechnology
is to be found in the domain of food, and the use of genetically engineered
crops in particular.
Agricultural Genetic Engineering
Biotechnology is a broad term that can be applied to virtually any practical
use of any living organism. Most uses—beer-brewing, beekeeping, and so
on—are not controversial and many do not involve genetic modification
of individual organisms. In this chapter, I will focus on techniques that are
controversial because they involve modification of traits that can be passed
onto subsequent generations and employ sophisticated molecular-level
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
9.
T
he
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
of
N
or
th
C
ar
ol
in
a
Pr
es
s.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t
be
r
ep
ro
du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m
wi
th
ou
t
pe
rm
is
si
on
f
ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se
s
pe
rm
it
te
d
un
de
r
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 5/1/2020 2:44 PM via HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC
UNIV
AN: 2240985 ; Ludington, Charles, Booker, Matthew Morse.; Food Fights : How History Matters to
Contemporary Food Debates
Account: s3890005
16 Margaret Mellon
techniques to achieve modifications. Such techniques are referred to inter-
changeably as genetic engineering (GE) or genetic modification (GM). I
prefer the term “genetic engineering” because it is narrower than “genetic
modification” and more clearly excludes classical breeding and other time-
tested methods of modifying organisms. Genetically engineered organ-
isms that harbor combinations of traits that cannot be produced in nature
are also sometimes referred to as transgenic. Genetic engineering can be
applied to any organism—from a bacterium to a human—and the earliest
commercial applications of genetic engineering, microorganisms modi-
fied to produce human pharmaceuticals, were not very controversial. How-
ever, this chapter will focus on genetic engineering of agricultural crops,
a topic that has been, and for the foreseeable future will remain, hugely
controversial.
My Introduction to Biotechnology
I was first introduced to biotechnology in the mid-1980s while working on
the problem of environmental toxins at the Environmental Law Institute.
Few in the environmental community could escape the excitement of the
new technology that promised to transform industrial agriculture from a
frequently toxic into an environmentally benign activity. As a scientist, I
was naturally curious about the technology and predisposed to welcome it.
Because of my background in molecular biology, many colleagues came to
me with questions about it. I attended lectures and workshops on the issue
and was invited by Monsanto to visit its headquarters in St. Louis, where I
toured labs and greenhouses and heard the company lay out its vision for
the new technology.
And a breathtaking vision it was: an agriculture that was no longer
dependent on herbicides or insecticides; crops that could fix nitrogen and
no longer need chemical fertilizer; crops that were innately high yielding;
crops that could tolerate drought or cold; foods that could prevent disease;
and agriculture so productive it would end world hunger. I heard the siren
call. Without knowing much about agriculture, I expected that the technol-
ogy would work, albeit with some unexpected or downside effects. I believed
that regulation would help unearth and avoid such effects and was essential if
the technology was to achieve its promise. I was not naive. I understood that
regulation would not emerge without strong advocacy, but still I assumed
that the technology would bring about big and benign changes. I decided to
become a scientist-advocate in this field.
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
9.
T
he
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
of
N
or
th
C
ar
ol
in
a
Pr
es
s.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t
be
r
ep
ro
du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m
wi
th
ou
t
pe
rm
is
si
on
f
ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se
s
pe
rm
it
te
d
un
de
r
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 5/1/2020 2:44 PM via HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC
UNIV
AN: 2240985 ; Ludington, Charles, Booker, Matthew Morse.; Food Fights : How History Matters to
Contemporary Food Debates
Account: s3890005
The Truth about Genetically Engineered Agriculture 17
National Wildlife Federation
In 1992, I founded the National Biotechnology Policy Center at the National
Wildlife Federation, an organization steeped in the mission of environmental
conservation and protection, and committed to citizen activists as agents of
change and government regulation as a way of facilitating input into import-
ant decisions. As I went into this work, I understood that industry, science,
and citizens had different, but vital, roles to play in policy contests. I firmly
rejected the idea that any players in this pageant were evil. My side and your
side, for sure—but not villains and heroes.
At the policy center at the National Wildlife Federation, we accepted
GE technology, regarding it as neither immoral nor uniquely dangerous. At
the same time, we also rejected assertions that GE was inherently safe or
necessarily better than alternatives. We felt free to accept some applications
(drugs) while passing on others (many crops). We evaluated applications
on three factors—risks, benefits, and the availability of alternatives. This
position put the National Wildlife Federation in the middle of the advocacy
spectrum—neither cheerleader nor adamantly opposed. Unlike those at the
polar extremes, our middle position required data intensive evaluations of
benefits, risks, and alternatives.
Benefits assessments quickly became the most challenging parts of our
analyses. We came to understand that benefits depend on one’s vision of
agriculture. Herbicide-resistant crops, for example, were said to be benefi-
cial because they encouraged farmers to use glyphosate, an herbicide less
toxic than the more commonly used atrazine. To those who accepted that
U.S. agriculture would continue to be structurally dependent on chemical
pesticides, the replacement of one herbicide by a less toxic one counted
as a benefit. However, because our goal was the minimization of chemi-
cal herbicides by using methods like cover crops and conservation tillage
to control weeds, we believed that the substitution of one herbicides for
another, without a commitment to overall herbicide use reduction, was
not beneficial.
From my days as a lawyer, I was familiar with corporate influence and
resources and understood that many public policy debates played out on an
unequal field. But I was stunned by the clout that the preeminent biotech-
nology company, Monsanto, brought to the biotechnology debate. In order
to promote its interests, Monsanto mounted major museum exhibitions,
sponsored scholarships and fellowships at research universities, funded
an entire wing at the Missouri Botanical Gardens, and more. It influenced
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
9.
T
he
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
of
N
or
th
C
ar
ol
in
a
Pr
es
s.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t
be
r
ep
ro
du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m
wi
th
ou
t
pe
rm
is
si
on
f
ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se
s
pe
rm
it
te
d
un
de
r
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 5/1/2020 2:44 PM via HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC
UNIV
AN: 2240985 ; Ludington, Charles, Booker, Matthew Morse.; Food Fights : How History Matters to
Contemporary Food Debates
Account: s3890005
18 Margaret Mellon
domestic and international regulatory and political arenas, sometimes in dis-
arming ways, and sometimes more aggressively. Despite its power, or perhaps
because of it, Monsanto eventually lost the debate for the hearts and minds
of consumers and others outside of mainstream agriculture, science, or gov-
ernment. In a 2015 Harris Poll of corporate reputations,1 Monsanto ranked
97 out of 100 corporations. Recently, Monsanto admitted its problems2,3 and
initiated efforts to spruce up its image, including new approaches to social
media.4
Union of Concerned Scientists
In 1993 I took a job at Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), where I founded
a program focused on agriculture rather than biotechnology. Because of the
issues UCS took on, it was important for advocates at UCS to maintain
scientific credibility. In that regard I was pleased to be named a fellow of
the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1994 and a
Distinguished Alumnae of Purdue University in 1993, which established
my scientific bona fides. My experience at UCS taught me about the role
of science in big societal debates. UCS’s signature issue was nuclear power
plant safety. Questions on how to build and run a plant or what safety mea-
sures might work are purely scientific questions, the necessary bedrock of
the debate. But the debate was about more than science. Questions of how
much risk to take in exchange for the benefits of nuclear power, or whether
nuclear power is preferable to coal or wind power, cannot be answered by
science alone. They require societal judgments on which reasonable people
can and do disagree. Both sides in the nuclear power debate make arguments
based on science. But, a favorable view of nuclear power does not make one
pro-science; nor do concerns about the safety of nuclear power make one
anti-science.
In contrast, the biotechnology debate I became involved in at UCS
has been cast as a debate between science and anti-science. Critics of
genetically engineered crops are labeled Luddites and arguments against
the technology are called emotional and sidelined as illegitimate. But the
genetic engineering debate involves economic, health, and safety issues
that are rife with societal judgments. Societal questions of how much risk
is appropriate for the supposed benefits of the technology, for example,
involve far more than scientific considerations. Not surprisingly, simplif y-
ing and polarizing the genetic engineering debate in this way has seriously
distorted it.
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
9.
T
he
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
of
N
or
th
C
ar
ol
in
a
Pr
es
s.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t
be
r
ep
ro
du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m
wi
th
ou
t
pe
rm
is
si
on
f
ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se
s
pe
rm
it
te
d
un
de
r
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 5/1/2020 2:44 PM via HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC
UNIV
AN: 2240985 ; Ludington, Charles, Booker, Matthew Morse.; Food Fights : How History Matters to
Contemporary Food Debates
Account: s3890005
The Truth about Genetically Engineered Agriculture 19
One reason the genetic engineering debate is so intensely contentious is
that it sits at the juncture of many overlapping issues: food safety; environ-
mental safety; control of the food system; international trade; wariness of
technology; deep-seated mistrust of government; and animal welfare. Sci-
ence can be a component of all of these issues, and getting the science right
is crucial to productive debates. But science per se does not have a position
on environmental safety or control of the food system. Like nuclear power
plant safety, the safety and appropriate use of GE crops raise societal issues
on which reasonable people can and do disagree.
Tensions of Science Advocac y
Scientific advocacy organizations like the National Wildlife Federation
and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) seek to change the world
for the better, often through the legislative process. At NWF and UCS
scientists work closely with lobbyists and media experts to carry out
legislative campaigns. In so doing, they need to communicate with and
motivate citizens who have much else to think about. One of the best ways
to mobilizing citizens is with short, compelling messages. Such messages
are often stylistically incompatible with the highly qualified language of
science, which values precision and abhors overstatement. Crafting such
messages—for action alerts, for example—routinely leads to lively dis-
cussions between scientists and media professionals in advocacy organi-
zations. In the genetic engineering debate, some opponents of genetically
engineered foods have mobilized supporters with scary images like skulls
and crossbones, scarecrows, or evocative terms like “Frankenfood.”
While I worked closely with the media professionals in my organiza-
tions to craft strong messages, I drew a line well short of using the term
“Frankenfood” or Halloween imagery in communications with the public.
I believed these images conveyed a degree of risk not warranted by the early
products of the technology and that they preclude the practical and the fact-
based debate we need about the impact of the technology in food and agri-
culture. However, I soon found that critics of genetically engineered crops
are not the only ones to use short, evocative—and misleading—messages
in these debates. Proponents do the same. The most egregious example is
the campaign to convince the public that genetic engineering is necessary
to “feed the world,” a message delivered with images of smiling farmers from
developing countries. The implication is that use of genetic engineering in
the United States and elsewhere is essential to meeting the challenges of
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
9.
T
he
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
of
N
or
th
C
ar
ol
in
a
Pr
es
s.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t
be
r
ep
ro
du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m
wi
th
ou
t
pe
rm
is
si
on
f
ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se
s
pe
rm
it
te
d
un
de
r
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 5/1/2020 2:44 PM via HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC
UNIV
AN: 2240985 ; Ludington, Charles, Booker, Matthew Morse.; Food Fights : How History Matters to
Contemporary Food Debates
Account: s3890005
20 Margaret Mellon
world hunger and that critics of genetic engineering are impeding the only
solution to the problem. But scientists understand that the root causes of
world hunger are complex and, for the most part, grow out of poverty, not
out of challenges in agricultural productivity.5 To suggest that genetic engi-
neering by itself is the magic solution to world hunger is just as misleading
as suggesting that it is inherently scary. On both ends of the spectrum, these
communications strategies are a major challenge to nuanced, scientifically
sound debate.
Looking at Benefits and Alternatives
The policy thrust of my early advocacy focused on the risks of products of
genetic engineering and the need for government regulation to control those
risks. The scientific analyses I and my collaborators produced in my early
career, assessed the ecological risks of genetically engineered crops;6,7 the
threats to the efficacy of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt)—a biological pesticide—
posed by resistance;8 gene flow of GE traits within agricultural crops,9 and
the uncontrolled movement of pharmaceutical traits in cultivated and wild
environments.10
By the earlier 2000s, biotechnology ’s most popular crops had a track
record that could be evaluated both against a sustainable vision of agri-
culture and the grand early promises of the proponents. In 2009 and 2011
my talented friend and colleague Doug Gurian-Sherman produced land-
mark studies asking what GE technology had accomplished in three key
areas—yield,11 nitrogen use efficiency,12 and drought tolerance13—all of
which were among the dramatic improvements promised by genetically
engineered crops. In each study, Dr. Gurian-Sherman assessed the per-
formance of alternatives to genetic engineering like classical breeding,
agroecology, and an enhanced version of classical breeding called marker-
assisted breeding. Gurian- Sherman’s careful analyses of the benefits of
GE crops led to a big surprise.
Despite wide adoption and commercial success, overall biotechnol-
ogy has a disappointing track record. As an agricultural technology, it
had not achieved even a modicum of what it had promised. Beyond that,
Gurian- Sherman’s analyses showed that in the very areas where biotech-
nology had stumbled, classical breeding and agroecology had succeeded.
For me, as well as for many other scientists in the field, Doug’s work was
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
9.
T
he
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
of
N
or
th
C
ar
ol
in
a
Pr
es
s.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t
be
r
ep
ro
du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m
wi
th
ou
t
pe
rm
is
si
on
f
ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se
s
pe
rm
it
te
d
un
de
r
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 5/1/2020 2:44 PM via HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC
UNIV
AN: 2240985 ; Ludington, Charles, Booker, Matthew Morse.; Food Fights : How History Matters to
Contemporary Food Debates
Account: s3890005
The Truth about Genetically Engineered Agriculture 21
an eye-opener that prompted many questions. As an early enthusiast for
the promises of genetically engineered crops, I had to face the reality of
its disappointing performance. So, in midcareer, I refocused my interests
on the articulation of alternative, more sustainable visions for agriculture
and strategies for achieving them (e.g., in the 2013 Vision Statement of the
Union of Concerned Scientists).14 And it is to that subject which I will
now turn.
Chemical -Free Agriculture?
Let’s start with perhaps the biggest promise of all: genetic engineering will
allow us to achieve chemical free agriculture. Has this been achieved? Not
even close, although there have been a few bright spots. There are no GE
nitrogen-fixing crops,15 and while the herbicide-resistant crops reduced her-
bicide use initially, the trend is now heading in exactly the opposite direction
because weeds, like all organisms, can adapt to stress.
Among herbicide resistant crops, Roundup Ready ™ crops are the com-
mercial stars in the biotechnology pantheon. Companies have introduced
commercially successful varieties of most of the important commodity crops:
soybeans, corn, cotton, alfalfa, and canola. These crops were widely adopted
because—at the beginning—they saved time and reduced costs, especially
on large industrial farms. As a result, one herbicide—glyphosate—has been
used on tens of millions of acres of American farmland, year after year. Pre-
dictably, such intensive use encouraged the growth of weeds able to with-
stand glyphosate, and soon such weeds began to show up in fields all over
farm country.16 Farmers responded by using more and more glyphosate and
adding other chemical herbicides to the mix. Thus, the early dip in herbicide
use was soon reversed and herbicide use skyrocketed. Over its first sixteen
years, the evolution of resistant weeds led to a 527-million-pound increase in
herbicide use in the United States.17 Because farmers continue to plant the
GE crops, and resistant weeds continue to emerge, herbicide use is still rising.
The industry’s response has been to engineer resistance to additional
herbicides, 2,4-D and dicamba, into crops, so those chemicals can be applied
along with glyphosate.18 In sum, widespread use of herbicide-resistant
crops, by far the dominant application of agricultural biotechnology, has
lead to an unfolding environmental and agronomic disaster: more and worse
weeds, higher farm costs, exploding use of herbicides, and the evolution
of multi-herbicide-resistant weeds.19 These concerns are heightened by the
International Agency for Research on Cancer’s recent determination that
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
9.
T
he
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
of
N
or
th
C
ar
ol
in
a
Pr
es
s.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t
be
r
ep
ro
du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m
wi
th
ou
t
pe
rm
is
si
on
f
ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se
s
pe
rm
it
te
d
un
de
r
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 5/1/2020 2:44 PM via HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC
UNIV
AN: 2240985 ; Ludington, Charles, Booker, Matthew Morse.; Food Fights : How History Matters to
Contemporary Food Debates
Account: s3890005
22 Margaret Mellon
glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen20 and that 2,4-D, whose use will
increase with the next generation of herbicide-resistant corn and soybeans,
is a possible carcinogen.21
The second major application of genetic engineering has been crops
modified to produce their own insecticidal toxins.22 The toxins were origi-
nally found in soil microbes called Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). The family of
Bt toxins contains slightly different molecules that kill different classes of
insect pests. Like herbicide-tolerance traits, Bt toxins have been engineered
into a variety of crops, most importantly corn and cotton. Over the first
sixteen years of the biotechnology era, insecticide use in this country was
reduced by 123 million pounds.23 Although the decline was offset by the
dramatic rise in herbicide use, the environmental benefits of lower external
insecticide use in Bt crops have been impressive.24 And until recently the
emergence of Bt resistance was held at bay. One big reason for this success
has been the implementation of sophisticated refuge strategies developed
by entomologists to delay resistance.
But trouble is brewing in Bt crop fields. Farmers did not heed entomol-
ogists’ advice on a major pest of corn—the Western corn rootworm—and
now fields are teeming with these rootworms despite being planted with
Bt corn varieties.25 Belatedly, the Environmental Protection Agency has
developed plan for companies and farmers to manage resistance in the root-
worm,26 but it may be too late. In addition, the introduction of Bt crops has
coincided with the increased use of other insecticides in corn systems, most
ominously the neonicotinoids or “neonics.” These chemicals, first introduced
in the early 1990s, are now the most widely used insecticides on earth. Neon-
ics are highly toxic to insects, including honeybees and other pollinators at
very low doses, and their nearly ubiquitous use is a suspected cause of the
decline of bee colonies around the world.
The rise in neonic use was missed initially because the pesticides were
sold as seed coatings and as such were not counted by the government in sur-
veys of pesticide use. While not a direct result of GE technology, the demand
for neonics certainly belies the promise that biotech crops would usher in an
era of chemical-free agriculture. In sum, while deserving credit for substantial
reductions in insecticide use in corn and cotton, Bt crops have not staved off
ever-increasing use chemical insecticides in those crops. Instead, fields full of
genetically engineered crops are saturated with chemical poisons.27,28
Having said that, genetic engineering has had success with crops engi-
neered to be resistant to viruses, but the total acreage of virus-resistant crops
is tiny in comparison to herbicide-resistant and Bt crops. A virus-resistant
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
9.
T
he
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
of
N
or
th
C
ar
ol
in
a
Pr
es
s.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t
be
r
ep
ro
du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m
wi
th
ou
t
pe
rm
is
si
on
f
ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se
s
pe
rm
it
te
d
un
de
r
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 5/1/2020 2:44 PM via HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC
UNIV
AN: 2240985 ; Ludington, Charles, Booker, Matthew Morse.; Food Fights : How History Matters to
Contemporary Food Debates
Account: s3890005
The Truth about Genetically Engineered Agriculture 23
variety of papaya has been widely adopted by Hawaiian papaya growers and
continues to account for 70% of the Hawaiian papaya crop.29 Varieties of
virus-resistant squash have also been approved for sale in the United States,
although there are no mechanisms for determining how much of the seed
has been sold.
What then can be said about the dream of chemical free agriculture that
was envisioned by proponents of genetically engineered crops some thirty
years ago? Despite a few bright spots, large-scale adoption of GE crops has led
to dramatic increases in pesticide use that are likely to continue to increase
in the future. Put another way, however hopeful our dreams may have been,
GE in practice has turned out to be a chemical and environmental nightmare.
High-Yielding Crops
Another claim made in the salad days of biotech agriculture was that genet-
ically engineered crops would produce much higher yields. In fact, that has
not been the case. But first it’s important to understand that crop yields are
of two types. The first type of yield refers to performance in the presence
of pests or stress. Herbicides and insecticides increase yields when weeds
or insects are present, but have little effect when pests are absent; those are
called operational yields. The second, more fundamental kind of yield is
innate or potential yield, the yield possible under the ideal conditions—with
no pests, no stress, adequate nutrients, and benign climate. Innate yields
represent the upper limit on agricultural productivity, and increasing them
is essential to keeping pace with increasing human populations.
Classical breeding is the stellar technology in this realm. It is responsi-
ble for virtually all the increases in innate yield in crops since the dawn of
agriculture. Dramatic examples of the power of classical breeding are the
shorter, sturdier versions of wheat and corn yields that were the backbone of
the Green Revolution.30 Less dramatic, but no less important, are the steady,
ongoing 1–2% a year annual increases in U.S. corn yield that are attributable
to classical breeding and agronomic practices. By contrast, as of 2015, there
is only one new GE crop pending in the commercial pipeline that claims to
increase the innate yield of a crop. This dismal performance on innate yields
is often missed because of confusion with increases in operational yields—
yields measured in the presence of pests—that have been produced by Bt
crops.31 Nevertheless, GE’s failure to produce crops with increased innate
yields severely undercuts the claim that GE is essential for fundamentally
improving agriculture.
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
9.
T
he
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
of
N
or
th
C
ar
ol
in
a
Pr
es
s.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t
be
r
ep
ro
du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m
wi
th
ou
t
pe
rm
is
si
on
f
ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se
s
pe
rm
it
te
d
un
de
r
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 5/1/2020 2:44 PM via HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC
UNIV
AN: 2240985 ; Ludington, Charles, Booker, Matthew Morse.; Food Fights : How History Matters to
Contemporary Food Debates
Account: s3890005
24 Margaret Mellon
In a similar vein, scientists once hoped and predicted that crops could
be genetically engineered to resist various forms of stress. Alas, genetic
engineering has produced only one commercialized stress- resistant crop,
Monsanto’s DroughtGard™ Hybrids, corn varieties resistant to mild
drought. No commercialized GE crops are resistant to being flooded
(important in rice production), to cold, or to salt. Sometimes confused
with drought tolerance, water use efficiency is the ability to maximize yields
from a given amount of water, often irrigation water.32 Again, there are
no GE crops on the market in this category. Monsanto’s public relations
materials include posters asking, “How Can We Squeeze More Food from
a Raindrop?” The answer is, if we rely on current GE technology to produce
water-use-efficient crops, we can’t.
Foods a s Medicine
Of all the promises of genetically engineered crops, perhaps the most exciting
was that they could be engineered to prevent human disease. In this regard,
GE so far has been a disappointment, although not for lack of trying. Right
now, there are no GE crops on the market engineered to prevent disease.
There are some products that claim more nutritious oils and one that reduces
acrylamide levels,33 but there are no studies demonstrating health benefits
from consumption of these foods. Perhaps most famous of all disease preven-
tion crops is golden rice, a rice that has been genetically engineered to com-
bat vitamin A deficiency and the nearly 700,000 annual childhood deaths
that result from this deficiency each year. However, after almost twenty years
of effort, golden rice has still not gotten the green light from its sponsor,
the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI). According to IRRI, the
yields of the rice still lag behind comparable varieties in Philippine fields.34
Moreover, golden rice has yet to be shown to increase vitamin A levels in
target populations, perhaps because the diets of extremely poor people lack
sufficient fat to enable the absorption of the vitamin.
Ending World Hunger?
Finally, what can we say about the claim that genetically engineered crops
would improve agriculture in developing countries and alleviate, if not even
eliminate, world hunger? There have been successes with genetically engi-
neered crops in the developing world, primarily with a fiber crop, Bt cotton.
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
9.
T
he
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
of
N
or
th
C
ar
ol
in
a
Pr
es
s.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t
be
r
ep
ro
du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m
wi
th
ou
t
pe
rm
is
si
on
f
ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se
s
pe
rm
it
te
d
un
de
r
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 5/1/2020 2:44 PM via HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC
UNIV
AN: 2240985 ; Ludington, Charles, Booker, Matthew Morse.; Food Fights : How History Matters to
Contemporary Food Debates
Account: s3890005
The Truth about Genetically Engineered Agriculture 25
But the promise that the technology alone could produce necessary changes
in the complex arenas of developing country agriculture and world hunger (a
phenomenon not confined to the developing world) has not been fulfilled.
The only large consensus international study of developing-country agri-
culture concluded that agroecological approaches have more potential than
GE crops for meeting future food and agricultural challenges.35 This conclu-
sion should not be surprising. It is common sense that a crop- breeding tech-
nology whose major successes after twenty-five years are confined almost
entirely to the realm of pest management cannot be counted on for the broad
array of products needed to improve agriculture worldwide. It is possible
that the situation will change in the future; genetic engineering may one day
deliver a robust array of crop varieties with traits like increased innate yield,
stress tolerance, and a host of other benefits. But right now the development
pipeline in the United States is dominated by pest management products,
primarily more combinations of Bt and herbicide-resistance genes. This is
hardly what we once believed GE crops could do.
The Implications of Genetic Engineering
a s a Limited Technology
The performance of GE in its first several decades has fallen short of origi-
nal expectations, primarily because of technical challenges. So far the major
applications of genetic engineering have been based on the transfer of one or
a few independently operating genes. Herbicide tolerance and Bt toxin pro-
duction are essentially one-gene traits. A number of the herbicide tolerance
and Bt genes can be added successively to crops as so-called stacks, but the
genes do not interact with one another. Yet many important crop traits like
innate yield and stress tolerance require multiple interacting genes. Unable
to move interacting sets of genes, genetic engineers, for the most part, have
failed to improve such traits.
Another barrier to the success of genetically engineered crops is the
imprecise nature of the processes for delivering new genetic material to crop
plants. The most popular methods carry pieces of genetic material into plant
cells and integrate them into chromosomes where they can function. But this
method inserts the new genetic material more or less randomly along the
length of chromosomes, and often at more than one location. The inability
to control the number and location of gene insertions makes genetic engi-
neering a hit-and-miss—and expensive—process.
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
9.
T
he
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
of
N
or
th
C
ar
ol
in
a
Pr
es
s.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t
be
r
ep
ro
du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m
wi
th
ou
t
pe
rm
is
si
on
f
ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se
s
pe
rm
it
te
d
un
de
r
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 5/1/2020 2:44 PM via HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC
UNIV
AN: 2240985 ; Ludington, Charles, Booker, Matthew Morse.; Food Fights : How History Matters to
Contemporary Food Debates
Account: s3890005
26 Margaret Mellon
Summary of Benefits of Genetically
Engineered Crops after T went y-Plus Ye ar s
Although it has succeeded with a very limited set of pest control applications,
agricultural biotechnology has produced substantial economic benefits for a
handful of entities. Sales of herbicides, insecticides, and seeds have generated
huge profits for technology companies. And until resistance sets in, farmers
benefit economically from reduced input costs for weed and insect control
and increased convenience, especially in large commodity crop operations.
As mentioned above, availability of the virus-resistant GE papaya reinvig-
orated the Hawaii papaya industry that was previously threatened by the
ring-spot virus.36
There have also been some public benefits stemming from the use of
genetically engineered crops. By public benefits, I mean improvements in
the quality of shared resources like air, water, soil, or health. Public benefits
of Bt crops have included reduced insecticide use on the Bt crops, including
so-called halo effects in nearby non-Bt crops, which can benefit indirectly
from suppressed pest populations.37 Adoption of herbicide-resistant crops
also led to reduced herbicide use in the early days before the appearance of
resistant weeds. Herbicide-resistant crops may encourage adoption of con-
servation tillage, including no-till, wherein a new crop is planted through the
remnants of the previous year’s crop. Conservation tillage helps to prevent
water erosion and at one time was credited with sequestration of carbon in
soil, but careful scientific studies have shown that that is not the case.38,39 In
any case, the majority of the increase in the use of conservation tillage pre-
dated the introduction of the GE crops.40 In short, the public benefits of GE
crops should not be dismissed, but they are hardly overwhelming.
Crop Improvement Alternatives
Superior to Genetic Engineering
A key fact often lost sight of in the biotechnology debate is that genetic
engineering is not the only way to improve agricultural crops and animals.
Classical breeding; marker-assisted breeding, which is an enhanced version
of classical breeding using molecular biology to identify parental organisms
(also called marker assisted selection); and agroecology, a scientific disci-
pline that uses ecological theory to design and manage agricultural systems
that are productive and resource conserving, are all powerful alternatives to
genetic engineering.41 More importantly, in many cases these techniques
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
9.
T
he
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
of
N
or
th
C
ar
ol
in
a
Pr
es
s.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t
be
r
ep
ro
du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m
wi
th
ou
t
pe
rm
is
si
on
f
ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se
s
pe
rm
it
te
d
un
de
r
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 5/1/2020 2:44 PM via HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC
UNIV
AN: 2240985 ; Ludington, Charles, Booker, Matthew Morse.; Food Fights : How History Matters to
Contemporary Food Debates
Account: s3890005
The Truth about Genetically Engineered Agriculture 27
have been scientifically proven to be superior to GE in improving agro-
nomic traits across the breadth of crop varieties. In fact, most of what GE
has claimed to have done, or is trying to do, has already been done using one
of these approaches.42,43,44 There are areas where classical breeding faces
challenges, like the production of vitamin A precursors in rice (the goal of
golden rice), but they are relatively few.
To cite a few examples of success, classical breeding routinely turns
out crops with increased innate yields—indeed it is the only technology
that ever has. Let me repeat: classical breeding is responsible for virtu-
ally all increases in innate yield since the beginning of agriculture. The
same is true for crops with increased nitrogen use efficiency and water
useefficiency—there are no GE varieties, but many classically bred variet-
ies.45,46 Even where GE does work, it is often slower and more expensive
than classical breeding. A project launched by the International Maize and
W heat Improvement Center in 2012 was reported in 2014 to have developed
twenty-one classically bred varieties of nitrogen-use efficient crops adapted
to African soils, while the single comparable GE variety to come out of the
project was at least ten years away.47 Classical breeding has also produced a
ring-spot resistant variety of papaya,48 carotene-rich sweet potatoes,49 and
a nonbrowning apple.50 Classical breeding, enhanced by marker assisted
breeding, has also been successful in producing flood-resistant rice varieties
now found in rice paddies all over Asia.51
Agroecology: Crop Rotation Cover Crops
and Other Agronomic Practices
Crop rotation, cover crops, and other agronomic practices help prevent
the emergence of pests in ways that are superior to engineered crops aimed
at only one or two pests. These practices exemplify an agroecological as
opposed to an industrial approach to agriculture. Agroecology uses ecologi-
cal science to design systems that minimize or prevent pest problems, while
industrial systems usually address pests with toxic chemicals. Planting differ-
ent crops in the same field in successive years deprives many potential pests
of reliable food sources and prevents their buildup, reducing the need for
pesticides from the get-go. Scientists concerned about the emergence of the
resistant corn rootworms have noted that three- or four-crop rotations would
make it unnecessary to use either Bt corn or chemical pesticides. One group
of public interest entomologists commenting on the EPA resistance manage-
ment plan for corn rootworm recommended that crop rotation be the sole
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
9.
T
he
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
of
N
or
th
C
ar
ol
in
a
Pr
es
s.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t
be
r
ep
ro
du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m
wi
th
ou
t
pe
rm
is
si
on
f
ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se
s
pe
rm
it
te
d
un
de
r
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 5/1/2020 2:44 PM via HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC
UNIV
AN: 2240985 ; Ludington, Charles, Booker, Matthew Morse.; Food Fights : How History Matters to
Contemporary Food Debates
Account: s3890005
28 Margaret Mellon
course of action in response to evidence of resistant rootworms.52 Unlike
industrial systems, which are characterized by the evolution of resistance
and the subsequent need to turn to new pesticides (the so-called pesticide
treadmill), properly implemented agroecological approaches are robust over
time. Insects have a hard time developing resistance to them, so they preserve
rather than erode the efficacy of chemical pesticides.
When Facts Don ’t Matter
My biggest personal disappointment over the course of my career has been
how stubbornly the biotechnology debate has resisted recognition of classi-
cal plant breeding and agroecology as plausible, if not preferable, alternatives
to genetic engineering. In light of the solid science supporting the broad
potential of such approaches, it seems that facts just don’t matter. Over the
years I have tried many times to interest the media in the performance of
crops produced by classical breeding, but was always rebuffed. GE’s vitamin
A rice made it onto the cover of Time magazine on the strength of a mere
whiff of potential to help hungry people with nutritional deficiencies. Mean-
while the hundreds of classically bred rice varieties produced by IRRI that
are already in the ground, boosting health, nutrition, and farmer incomes,
stir very little media interest. Similarly, the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) seems unmoved by track record of classical breeding. My sugges-
tion that the USDA produce a brochure touting the vital role classical breed-
ing plays in U.S. agriculture was met with a big yawn.
Some of this reaction is certainly due to the power of commercial inter-
ests in modern agriculture. Industrial systems are dependent on chemical
inputs and chemical companies, like Monsanto, have tremendous influ-
ence with media and governments. Producers of pesticides, whether placed
inside or outside a crop, have little interest in pest management solutions that
reduce pesticide use.
But I believe the preference for GE comes from a deeper place in our
history. For many Americans, new technologies embody the idea of prog-
ress, a central idea of both the Enlightenment era in which our nation was
born, and of the liberal capitalism that we have historically practiced. This
conception of progress is rooted in the belief that scientific discoveries
and technological advancements are necessarily superior to that which
came before. Thus, we look forward to a constant stream of innovation to
achieve better lives and more vibrant societies. Our faith in progress leads
us to prefer new to existing technologies even when the new ones aren’t
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
9.
T
he
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
of
N
or
th
C
ar
ol
in
a
Pr
es
s.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t
be
r
ep
ro
du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m
wi
th
ou
t
pe
rm
is
si
on
f
ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se
s
pe
rm
it
te
d
un
de
r
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 5/1/2020 2:44 PM via HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC
UNIV
AN: 2240985 ; Ludington, Charles, Booker, Matthew Morse.; Food Fights : How History Matters to
Contemporary Food Debates
Account: s3890005
The Truth about Genetically Engineered Agriculture 29
working particularlywell. Wetend to give new technologies the benefit of
the doubt. If they don’t perform this year, they may do so next year. Faith
in progress even overrides concerns about harm. To make omelets, we
must break eggs.
Progress is one of the many mental frames that allow people to organize
and respond to facts and arguments, and frames are notoriously resistant
to facts. I believe the progress frame blocks the acceptance of the truth of
the GE technology’s relatively poor performance. But reality matters. Or at
least it should. We gave transgenic technology a chance to prove itself, and
it did not. That was a reasonable but costly miscalculation that has deprived
the world of more effective technologies available to confront agricultural
challenges.
So I happily acknowledge Peter Coclanis’s point in this volume that
industrial agriculture is highly productive and historically fueled the indus-
trialization of the rest of the American economy. But the relentless drive
toward productivity and the belief in technologically fueled progress has
overshot its mark. Only 2% of the population now is engaged in commercial
farming, yet the United States can feed itself many times over. The challenge
in agriculture is no longer producing enough to feed ourselves, but what to
do with our enormous agricultural overproduction. That’s why we devote
huge swaths of fertile midwestern farmland to energy crops, not food crops.
But the intense focus on productivity and the faith in new technologies
have had other important consequences as well, including environmental
problems that are growing in magnitude. Toxic pollution of air and water,
loss of soil fertility, production of climate gases, loss of pollinators, and the
disruption of the nitrogen cycle and the destruction of coastal ecosystems
can no longer be dismissed as mere externalities to be managed or ignored.
Taken together, they are becoming existential threats to the planet.
Innovators have developed new sustainable systems of agriculture that
can dampen threats to the environment without undermining productivity
but they require a fundamental shift away from our current system based on
enormous monocultures of a handful of crops. That move will require bold
new ideas: reintegration of plant and animal agriculture, multiyear crop rota-
tions, reducing our consumption of meat, and much else.
It won’t be easy. As Rachel Laudan lays out in her essay (chapter 13), agri-
culture and food are complicated issues—environmentally, culturally, and
economically. Coclanis underscores how a willingness to change has been
an important element in the past success of U.S. agriculture. This is certainly
true. Unfortunately, however, rather than chart a course for change, most
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
9.
T
he
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
of
N
or
th
C
ar
ol
in
a
Pr
es
s.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t
be
r
ep
ro
du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m
wi
th
ou
t
pe
rm
is
si
on
f
ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se
s
pe
rm
it
te
d
un
de
r
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 5/1/2020 2:44 PM via HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC
UNIV
AN: 2240985 ; Ludington, Charles, Booker, Matthew Morse.; Food Fights : How History Matters to
Contemporary Food Debates
Account: s3890005
30 Margaret Mellon
of the current agricultural establishment has battened down the hatches,
defending the status quo by belittling creative entrepreneurs like organic
farmers. The biggest obstacles to the improvement of agriculture today are
the inability to admit its environmental shortcomings and the failure to envi-
sion fundamentally new ways of doing things.
Just a Tool in the Toolbox
Yet all is not lost. An accommodation to reality is under way. Many propo-
nents of biotechnology have abandoned the early grand claims of a trans-
formational technology and now modestly present GE as just a tool in the
toolbox. The argument now is that because society faces momentous chal-
lenges, we need every available tool to solve them; so, although not a panacea,
GE is still important. And I agree, we do need all the tools in the toolbox.
But we need to take seriously GE’s poor track record. Yes, GE is a tool, but
the evidence shows it to be a limited one. Meanwhile, it is taking up most of
the room in the box, pushing bigger and better tools to the side. Resources
for agricultural research, extension, and trade promotion continue to go dis-
proportionately to GE products.
If we are serious about taking on the challenges of burgeoning popu-
lations, environmental degradation, and climate change, we need to make
room for the big tools: classical breeding, marker-assisted breeding, and
agroecology—and fund them commensurate with their importance. And
we need help from the media to talk about the big tools. How about a front-
page story in the New York Times on the contribution of classically bred crops
in developing-country agriculture?
To be clear, in my view, GE crops do have a role in the future of agri-
culture, but the role will be relatively small—primarily as niche products in
the few areas where classical breeding falls short. Putting the cart of genetic
engineering before the horse of sustainable systems has impeded society’s
ability to produce sufficient food in a warming, polluted world. Our great-
est progress will be made not by reflexively adopting new technologies but
by choosing wisely from among the technologies available to us, especially
those with proven track records of success.
Here We Go Again?
What then of the future of genetic engineering? I just said that I think GE
should be a small tool in the agricultural toolbox, and I’ve tried to make it
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
9.
T
he
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
of
N
or
th
C
ar
ol
in
a
Pr
es
s.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t
be
r
ep
ro
du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m
wi
th
ou
t
pe
rm
is
si
on
f
ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se
s
pe
rm
it
te
d
un
de
r
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 5/1/2020 2:44 PM via HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC
UNIV
AN: 2240985 ; Ludington, Charles, Booker, Matthew Morse.; Food Fights : How History Matters to
Contemporary Food Debates
Account: s3890005
The Truth about Genetically Engineered Agriculture 31
clear that the transgenic techniques that drove the early biotechnology rev-
olution are beginning to run out of steam. The combination of the technical
challenges and the paucity of new useful proteins is putting a damper on the
era of transgenes.
However, moving new genes into crops is not the only GE technique.
The next wave of genetic engineering will probably be based less on adding
new genes and more on editing and modifying the genes already in place in
the target crops. These techniques are emerging from exciting new discov-
eries about the elegant but complicated ways gene expression is controlled
in cells.53 Scientists have learned that noncoding stretches of DNA can give
rise to a variety of RNA molecules that determine which genes produce
proteins and when. Double-stranded RNAs are key molecules in these pro-
cesses, which have given rise to two general categories of techniques—gene
silencing and gene editing. Gene silencing, or RNA interference (also called
RNAi), turns genes off by inactivating or degrading messenger RNA mole-
cules that code for proteins.54 Gene editing can snip into DNA and stimulate
repair processes that introduce small or large changes in the DNA sequence
at specific locations.55
The ability to produce changes at particular locations in DNA molecules
offers a big advantage over techniques that insert new genetic material into
chromosomes at random locations. Both editing and silencing have proven
to be powerful research tools for deciphering the secrets of gene expres-
sion and scientists are working diligently to employ them in agriculture and
human medicine. Gene editing and gene silencing, however, have down-
sides. They cannot restrict their snipping activities to the target site and often
cause off-target effects.56 These are significant problems.
Nevertheless, the future of these techniques looks to be exciting, and
once again we are hearing the siren song of new technologies that will change
everything.57 This may well happen, and the possibility of new technologies
able to address agricultural and health problems should be welcomed. But
our experience with agricultural transgenesis should temper our enthusi-
asm. This time around, we can no longer afford to be blinded by the light of
promises and possibilities. Instead, we need to invest resources to understand
and assess the risks and benefits of these new techniques. We also need to
ask questions early on about whom the technologies benefit and what the
alternatives are. Even if gene silencing can control a single pest, is it a better
approach to pest management than crop rotation, which can control many
pests? If gene editing and silencing are directed to agricultural productivity,
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
9.
T
he
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
of
N
or
th
C
ar
ol
in
a
Pr
es
s.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t
be
r
ep
ro
du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m
wi
th
ou
t
pe
rm
is
si
on
f
ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se
s
pe
rm
it
te
d
un
de
r
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 5/1/2020 2:44 PM via HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC
UNIV
AN: 2240985 ; Ludington, Charles, Booker, Matthew Morse.; Food Fights : How History Matters to
Contemporary Food Debates
Account: s3890005
32 Margaret Mellon
will they deliver innate yield or stress tolerance any better than classical
breeding or agroecology do?
Dealing with new technologies is a central challenge of modern life.
We need to find the balance between the hype and enthusiasm that fuels
innovation and the hard-nosed evaluation of risks, benefits, and especially
alternatives. So, while I don’t call genetically engineered crops Frankenfood,
neither do I call them the future.
Notes
In 2014, at the invitation of the Genetic Engineering and Society Center, I had the
privilege of delivering a public lecture at North Carolina State University exploring the
history debate around biotechnology in the United States. I welcomed the opportunity to
reflect on issues I have worked on for most of my career. They have turned out to be more
fundamental and far-reaching than I ever imagined when I first encountered them. This
essay is adapted from that lecture.
1. Harris Poll, “Regional Grocer Wegmans Unseats Amazon to Claim Top Corporate
Reputation Ranking,” 4 February 2015, http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/
regional-grocer-wegmans-unseats-amazon-to-claim-top-corporate-reputation-ranking-
300030637.html.
2. Jenny Hopkinson, “Monsanto Confronts Devilish Public Image Problem,” Politico, 29
November 2013, n.p.
3. Lessley Anderson, “Why Does Everyone Hate Monsanto?,” Modern Farmer, 4 March
2014, n.p.
4. Sarah Henry, “Monsanto Woos Mommy Bloggers,” Modern Farmer, 18 September
2014, n.p.
5. Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, “Do We Need GM Crops to Feed the
World?,” 6 December 2015, https://cban.ca/do-we-need-gm-crops-to-feed-the-world/.
6. Margaret Mellon, Biotechnology and the Environment (Washington, D.C.: National
Wildlife Federation, 1988).
7. Jane Rissler and Margaret Mellon, The Ecological Risks of Engineered Crops
(Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1996).
8. Margaret Mellon and Jane Rissler, Now or Never: Serious New Plans to Save a Natural
Pest Control (Cambridge, Mass.: Union of Concerned Scientists, 1998).
9. Margaret Mellon and Jane Rissler, Gone to Seed: Transgenic Contaminants in the
Traditional Seed Supply (Cambridge, Mass.: Union of Concerned Scientists, 2004).
10. Union of Concerned Scientists, A Growing Concern: Protecting the Food Supply in
an Era of Pharmaceutical and Industrial Crops (Cambridge, Mass.: Union of Concerned
Scientists, 2004).
11. Doug Gurian-Sherman, Failure to Yield: Evaluating the Performance of Genetically
Engineered Crops (Cambridge, Mass.: Union of Concerned Scientists, 2009).
12. Doug Gurian-Sherman and Noel Gurwick, No Sure Fix: Prospects for Reducing
Nitrogen Fertilizer Pollution through Genetic Engineering (Cambridge, Mass.: Union of
Concerned Scientists, 2009).
13. Doug Gurian-Sherman, High and Dry: Why Genetic Engineering Is Not Solving Agriculture’s
Drought Problem in a Thirsty World (Cambridge, Mass.: Union of Concerned Scientists, 2011).
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
9.
T
he
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
of
N
or
th
C
ar
ol
in
a
Pr
es
s.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t
be
r
ep
ro
du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m
wi
th
ou
t
pe
rm
is
si
on
f
ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se
s
pe
rm
it
te
d
un
de
r
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 5/1/2020 2:44 PM via HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC
UNIV
AN: 2240985 ; Ludington, Charles, Booker, Matthew Morse.; Food Fights : How History Matters to
Contemporary Food Debates
Account: s3890005
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/regional-grocer-wegmans-unseats-amazon-to-claim-top-corporate-reputation-ranking-300030637.html
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/regional-grocer-wegmans-unseats-amazon-to-claim-top-corporate-reputation-ranking-300030637.html
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/regional-grocer-wegmans-unseats-amazon-to-claim-top-corporate-reputation-ranking-300030637.html

GMO Inquiry: Do We Need GM Crops to Feed the World?

The Truth about Genetically Engineered Agriculture 33
14. Union of Concerned Scientists, The Healthy Farm: A Vision for U.S. Agriculture
(Cambridge, Mass.: Union of Concerned Scientists, 2013).
15. Gurian-Sherman and Gurwick, No Sure Fix.
16. Michael Livingston, Jorge Fernandez-Cornejo, Jesse Unger, Craig Osteen, David
Schimmelpfennig, Tim Park, and Dayton Lambert, The Economics of Glyphosate
Resistance Management in Corn and Soybean Production ERR-184 (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, April 2015).
17. Charles M. Benbrook, “Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use in
the U.S.—the First Sixteen Years,” Environmental Sciences Europe 24, no. 24 (2012): n.p.
18. David A. Mortensen, J. Franklin Egan, Bruce D. Maxwell, Matthew R . Ryan, and
Richard G. Smith, “Navigating a Critical Juncture for Sustainable Weed Management,”
BioScience 62 ( January 2012): 75–84.
19. Mortensen et al., “Navigating a Critical Juncture for Sustainable Weed Management.”
20. World Health Organization, “Evaluation of Five Organophosphate Insecticides and
Herbicides,” IARC Monographs 112 (20 March 2015): 321–412.
21. Dana Loomis, Kathryn Guyton, Yann Grosse, Fatiha El Ghissasi, Véronique
Bouvard, Lamia Benbrahim-Tallaa, Neela Guha, Heidi Mattock, and Kurt Straif,
“Carcinogenicity of Lindane, DDT, and 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid,” Lancet Oncology
16, no. 8 (1 August 2015): 891–92.
22. Jorge Fernandez-Cornejo, Seth Wechsler, Mike Livingston, and Lorraine Mitchell,
“Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States,” Economic Research Service Report 162
(February 2014): 1–54.
23. Benbrook, “Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops.”
24. A. M. Shelton, D. L. Olmstead, E. C. Burkness, W. D. Hutchison, G. Dively, C.
Welty, and A. N. Sparks, “Multi-state Trials of Bt Sweet Corn Varieties for Control of the
Corn Earworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae),” Journal of Economic Entomology 106, no. 5
(October 2013): 2151–59.
25. Aaron J. Gassmann, Jennifer L. Petzold-Maxwell, Eric H. Clifton, Mike W.
Dunbar, Amanda M. Hoffmann, David A. Ingber, and Ryan S. Keweshan, “Field-Evolved
Resistance by Western Corn Rootworm to Multiple Bacillus thuringiensis Toxins in
Transgenic Maize,” Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences 111, no. 14 (2014):
5141–46.
26. Environmental Protection Agency, “Proposal to Improve Corn Rootworm
Resistance Management,” ID-EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0805-0001 Federal Register 80, no. 51
(17March 2015): 13851.
27. “Corn Soil Insecticide Use Up Dramatically to Combat Widespread Rootworm
Challenges,” Agri-View, 10 January 2013, n.p.
28. Margaret R . Douglas and John F. Tooker, “Large-Scale Deployment of Seed
Treatments Has Driven Rapid Increase in Use of Neonicotinoid Insecticides and
Preemptive Pest Management in U.S. Field Crops,” Environmental Science and Technology
49, no. 8 (2015): 5088–97.
29. Dennis Gonsalves, Savarni Tripathi, James B. Carr, and Jon Y. Suzuki, “Papaya
Ringspot Virus,” in Plant Health Instructor (St. Paul: American Phytopathological Society,
2010).
30. Prabhu L. Pingali,”Green Revolution: Impacts, Limits, and the Path Ahead,”
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, no. 31 (2012): 12302–308.
31. Gurian-Sherman, Failure to Yield.
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
9.
T
he
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
of
N
or
th
C
ar
ol
in
a
Pr
es
s.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t
be
r
ep
ro
du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m
wi
th
ou
t
pe
rm
is
si
on
f
ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se
s
pe
rm
it
te
d
un
de
r
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 5/1/2020 2:44 PM via HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC
UNIV
AN: 2240985 ; Ludington, Charles, Booker, Matthew Morse.; Food Fights : How History Matters to
Contemporary Food Debates
Account: s3890005
34 Margaret Mellon
32. Gurian-Sherman, High and Dry.
33. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, “Biotechnology Consultation Note to the File
BNF No. 000141. Subject Genetically Engineered (GE) Potato Varieties,” 20 March 2015.
34. The International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) reports that as of March 2014 the
yields for golden rice were below those for comparable local varieties and that the rice
had yet to approved by national regulators or shown to improve vitamin A status under
community conditions. See IRRI, https://irri.org/golden-rice, accessed July 2015.
35. Beverly McIntyre, Hans R . Herren, Judi Wakhungu, and Robert T. Watson, eds.,
International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development
(IAASTD): Synthesis Report with Executive Summary: A Synthesis of the Global and Sub-
Global IAASTD Reports (Washington, D.C.: International Assessment of Agricultural
Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development), 1–11.
36. Gonsalves et al., “Papaya Ringspot Virus.”
37. Bruce E. Tabashnik, Thierry Brévault, and Yves Carrière, “Insect Resistance to Bt
Crops: Lessons from the First Billion Acres,” Nature Biotechnology 31, no. 6 (2013): 510–21.
38. John M. Baker, Tyson E. Ochsner, Rodney T. Venterea, and Timothy J. Griffis,
“Tillage and Soil Carbon Sequestration—What Do We Really Know?,” Agriculture,
Ecosystems and Environment 118 (2007): 1–5.
39. Vincent Poirier, Denis Angers, Philippe Rochette, Martin Chantigny, Noura Ziadi,
Gilles Tremblay, and Josee Fortin, “Interactive Effects of Tillage and Mineral Fertilization
on Soil Carbon Profiles,” Soil Science Society of America Journal 73, no. 1 ( January 2009):
255–61.
40. National Research Council, Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm
Sustainability in the United States (Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2010).
41. McIntyre et al., International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and
Technology for Development.
42. Gurian-Sherman, Failure to Yield.
43. Gurian-Sherman, High and Dry.
44. Gurian-Sherman and Gurwick, No Sure Fix.
45. Gurian-Sherman, Failure to Yield.
46. Gurian-Sherman and Gurwick, No Sure Fix.
47. Natasha Gilbert, “Cross-Bred Crops Get Fit Faster,” Nature 513, no. 7518
(18September 2014): 292.
48. S. V. Siar, G. A. Beligan, A. J. C. Sajise, V. N. Villegas, and R . A. Drew, “Papaya
Ringspot Virus Resistance in Carica Papaya via Introgression from Vasconcellea
quercifolia,” Euphytica 181, no. 2 (September 2011): 159–68.
49. Christine Hotz, Cornelia Loechl, Lubowa Abdelrahman, James K. Tumwine, Grace
Ndeezi, Agnes Nandutu Masawi, Rhona Baingana, et al., “Introduction of b-Carotene-
Rich Orange Sweet Potato in Rural Uganda Results in Increased Vitamin A Intakes
among Children and Women and Improved Vitamin A Status among Children,” Journal of
Nutrition 142, no. 10 (1 October 2012): 1871–80.
50. Trudy Bialic, “The Opal Apple: No Browning, Naturally!,” Sound Consumer, PCC
Natural Markets, November 2014, https://www.pccmarkets.com/sound-consumer/
2014-11/opal_apple/.
51. Benno Vogel, Marker-Assisted Selection: A Non-invasive Biotechnology Alternative to
Genetic Engineering of Plant Varieties (Amsterdam: Greenpeace International, 2014).
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
9.
T
he
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
of
N
or
th
C
ar
ol
in
a
Pr
es
s.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t
be
r
ep
ro
du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m
wi
th
ou
t
pe
rm
is
si
on
f
ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se
s
pe
rm
it
te
d
un
de
r
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 5/1/2020 2:44 PM via HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC
UNIV
AN: 2240985 ; Ludington, Charles, Booker, Matthew Morse.; Food Fights : How History Matters to
Contemporary Food Debates
Account: s3890005
https://irri.org/golden-rice

The Opal apple: no browning, naturally!

The Opal apple: no browning, naturally!

The Truth about Genetically Engineered Agriculture 35
52. Comment on EPA’s Proposal to Improve Corn Rootworm Management, Docket ID
# EPA-HQ-OPP-2014 (25 March 2015).
53. Heriberto Cerutti and J. Armando Casas-Mollano, “On the Origin and Functions
of RNA-Mediated Silencing: From Protists to Man,” Current Genetics 50, no. 2 (August
2006): 81–99.
54. Jonathan G. Lundgren and Jian J. Duan, “RNAi-Based Insecticidal Crops: Potential
Effects on Nontarget Species,” BioScience 63, no. 8 (1 August 2013): 657–65.
55. T. Gaj, C. A. Gerschback, and C. F. Barbas, “ZFN, TALEN, and CRISPR/Cas-Based
Methods for Genome Engineering,” Trends in Biotechnology 31, no. 7 (2013): 397–405.
56. Yuriy Federov, Emily M. Anderson, Amanda Birmingham, Angela Reynolds, Jon
Karpilow, Kathryn Robinson, Devin Leake, William S. Marshall, and Anastasia Khvorova,
“Off-Target Effect by siRNA Can Induce Toxic Phenotype,” RNA 12 (2006): 1188–96.
57. Heidi Ledford, “CRISPR , the Disruptor,” Nature 522 (2015): 20–24.
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
9.
T
he
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
of
N
or
th
C
ar
ol
in
a
Pr
es
s.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t
be
r
ep
ro
du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m
wi
th
ou
t
pe
rm
is
si
on
f
ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se
s
pe
rm
it
te
d
un
de
r
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 5/1/2020 2:44 PM via HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC
UNIV
AN: 2240985 ; Ludington, Charles, Booker, Matthew Morse.; Food Fights : How History Matters to
Contemporary Food Debates
Account: s3890005
Keeping it Fresh: Preservatives and the Poison Squad
Gastropod
Gastropod
Podcast
3107432.5
eng – iTunPGAP
0��
eng – iTunNORM
000001FD 00000000 0000448F 00000000 0018BF82 00000000 000081AD 00000000 0023D52A 00000000�
eng – iTunSMPB
00000000 00000210 00000770 00000000082E1000 00000000 0239C8E6 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000�