The Use of Genetically Modified Plants in Agriculture: Issues and Concerns

David Toews Harder

November 12, 2001

Goshen College: Senior Seminar

The use of agriculture to grow edible plants is an essential step in the worldwide goal of nations to maintain self-sufficiency. Through agriculture, crops are raised by the cultivation of soils, in conjunction with the biological processes that allow for plant growth. In recent years, genetic engineering has enabled plant scientists to insert genes from one type of plant species, which will express a desired trait, into a different plant species that had not been able to obtain the genes through cross fertilization or other natural pathways.

The possibilities arising from the use of genetically modified (GM) plants seem as an excellent answer to the overwhelming problems of environmental degradation and food instability worldwide, but society is now faced with the possible implications that could occur with an influx of "new" plants. These implications lead to a massive debate ranging from health issues to who owns seeds that are produced by GM plants. Included in this debate as well is the question of how much power should be given to large multinational companies who have developed the new technology.

Farming and agricultural methods have become far more complex, as they have evolved throughout time. Ancient methods allowed for the taming of plants and animals to provide for a transition from nomadic lifestyles of constantly moving in search of food and water, to the agricultural lifestyle of self-sufficiency at a permanent residence. Evolution in the complexity of agricultural methods and techniques has occurred in part due to a search for maximum efficiency by an advancing society. Efficiency has always been a dominant motivational factor for new techniques to be allocated in this field, and in this last century, especially in the last decade, changes unfathomable to farmers past and present have taken place along the lines of efficiency. Along with increased use of fertilizers, high-yielding hybrid seed varieties that have been produced by plant breeding techniques have dramatically increased the average production per land area.

In recent years, the scientific community has developed a process enabling genetic engineers to insert genes expressing a desired trait into crops that had not been able to obtain these genes from other species through cross fertilization methods. These genes can then be passed down to the seeds of the newly recombined plant and will be expressed in the generations following. The Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources better describes how genetic modification technology affects agriculture in the present era:

Agriculture has been suffering from pest and disease infestation since its inception, causing enormous, unpredictable losses in food production. Genetic engineering of transgenic plants for resistance to pests and disease is one of the many tools for increasing food security. It is embedded within the long-standing science of conventional breeding for plant improvement. (BANR 2000, viii)

The breeding of plants to increase efficiency and raise more productive crops is not a technique new to agriculture, brought through the extreme advances in technology of the twentieth century. Plant and animal breeders, who carefully noted the specific characteristics desired to bring about improved productivity, resistance, and quality of their produce, have manipulated genes for thousands of years. Through the domestication, of plants and animals with select traits, agriculture was made possible. Brush (2000, 3) describes this by stating;

Domesticated plants have been fundamentally altered from their wild relatives; these species have been moved into and adapted to new environments; they have become dependant on the tiller's hand; and they have been reshaped to meet human needs and wants. Modern crops are the result of thousands of years of these evolutionary processes.

Therefore, the use of genetic modification in plants for agricultural use stems from a practice that is thousands of years old. It is, however, the technology and the procedures that have changed with the dramatic discovery of gene altering techniques. With this new technology comes a wide spectrum of pros and con's if the plants are in fact used, as is the present case. At Inverizon's website (2001), it can be noted that research and sales of GM products are being lead by large multi-national companies such as Monsanto and Syngenta. (which is composed of the powerful Novartis and Zeneca corporations.) As more genetically modified seeds and products are entering the marketplace, these companies are gaining the power of price control from their products. This is especially evident when the products are patented and the companies display virtually complete control of their distribution and reuse. With increased price control, small farmers become less able to maintain self sufficiency, and lose ground to larger corporate farms with the capital funds adequate to keep in pace with the technology that allows for greater efficiency; Vidal (2000). In view of the fact that genetic modification is unnaturally speeding up evolutionary processes, and that only minimal data from recent application of genetic modification techniques into the natural environment is available, new varieties of plants entering a global marketplace should be tightly regulated and tested before admittance. These regulations should be based on concern for the general health of the global community, any legal concerns that may arise, and towards the discouragement of the monopolization of food production.

In a society where progression of technology seems to be perceived as the answer towards bettering any predicament that comes our way, we must still analyze what the outcome of leniency towards introducing genetically modified crops into the environment and marketplace could hold. A positive outlook towards GMO use leads to the following statements of support: A hungry world depends on the promise of genetic engineering. Genetic engineering will produce benefits for farmers and consumers. Genetic engineering is safe, and you can't put the science back into the bottle and hide it away. (Miller 2001)

As is the case with any discussion, a better understanding of the controversial process involved will lead to a stronger argument. A broad definition for genetic engineering explains it as the technique used to alter or move genetic material (genes) of living cells, while a narrower definition is given by the USDA's (United States Department of Agriculture) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service as "the genetic modification of organisms by recombinant DNA techniques. (Cornajo 2000) Various techniques of genetic alteration enhance the ability of plants to protect themselves from the inhibiting effects of either pest insects or weeds, and are given the following names by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):

Pest protected plant or genetically modified pest-protected (GMPP) plant: refers to any plant that has been genetically modified to express a pesticidal trait, regardless of the technique used.

Transgenic pest-protected plants: refers to any plant that has been genetically modified with modern molecular techniques (rDNA technology, commonly referred to as genetic engineering) to express a pesticidal trait.

Conventional pest-protected plants: refers to any plant that has been genetically modified by classical or cellular plant breeding techniques (such as hybridization or tissue culture) to express a pesticidal trait. BANR (2000, 4)

It should be noted however, that various plants have evolved to form a natural protection against pests, and are labeled as naturally pest-protected plants. Another note is that the EPA definitions for pest-protected plants did not descriptively include the herbicide tolerant plants developed to survive the application of post-emergence herbicides that would have initially destroyed a non-altered crop. (In addition to the weeds that were targeted during application.) The most common crops that are altered to become tolerant to herbicide application include; corn, soybeans, canola, and cotton.(BANR 2000) Glyphosate is the primary agent found in Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, and is effective in killing a broad range of different species of grasses, broadleaf plants, and sedges. Crops labeled Roundup Ready have been genetically engineered to be unaffected by the glyphosate, allowing the herbicide to be safely applied to an entire field without harming the desired crop, and thus killing any other nutrient-robbing weed species present. Other herbicide- tolerant crops have also been genetically engineered to be resistant to bromoxynil and the glufosinate-ammonium herbicide Liberty, which is produced by the AgrEvo corporation. (Inverizon 2001) Application of these herbicides would normally kill or inhibit plant growth, but genetic alteration allows these "new" plants to flourish in their presence. It should be noted, however, that many plants grown as crops are naturally resistant to different types of small-spectrum herbicides, but the broad spectrum of species that are affected by products such as Roundup and Liberty makes resistance quite effective for weed control. (BANR 2000)

Transgenic plants are derived by the insertion of genetic material from another organism, (using recombinant DNA techniques) in order that the host plant exhibits the desired trait from the inserted gene. In Cornajo (2000) an example of this is seen in (Bt) crops that have been engineered for protection against Lepidopteran insects. These plants have been engineered to carry a gene from the bacterium (Bt) Bacillus thuringiensis, which produces a protein that is toxic to Lepidopteran insects. This toxin then incorporates resistance, from the damaging insects, throughout the whole plant. A variety of different possibilities stem from transgenic gene alteration as seed contents and different forms of resistance can be obtained by the incorporation of new genes into these plants. Corn grown in the Midwestern United States has been greatly affected through the incorporation of the Bt gene to provide protection against the devastating effects of the stalk-digesting European corn borer.

The use of genetic modification in agricultural plants has been quite effective. Farmers using varieties of crop seed that produce plants resistant to the effects of herbicides such as Roundup and Liberty, have extensively cut back on the use of many other herbicides. Gordon Harder, a corn/soybean farmer from Mountain Lake, MN feels that there are some very important features that the new technology brings to agriculture. Harder states the following; "I use some Roundup Ready beans that I buy from various seed companies. What I like most about these beans is that the amounts of field passes I need to make are reduced. I can no-till drill these plants to eliminate the pre-plant tillage, as well as not have to cultivate them once they are out of the ground." Harder also favors the fact that , "I don't need to use many other herbicides, and the two applications of Roundup that I use are fairly inexpensive." (Interview November 2, 2001).

It is then evident that by cutting back on the amount of herbicides used by farmers needing only one type of chemical for weed control, less runoff and filtration into streams, lakes, and groundwater would occur and would be beneficial to the environment. Along with the above benefits, GM crops would also allow for less need to cultivate and till soils in attempts to rid it of nutrient-robbing weeds. Less cultivation / tillage cut down the amounts of passes that tractors make in fields and result in less soil and wind erosion, as well as reduced fossil fuel consumption and soil compaction. With the incorporation of Bt genes into crops, fewer pesticides are applied, and the results of less surface runoff into the water system help maintain a cleaner environment. According to Harder, his corn is often harvested early to minimize stalk breakage that occurs due to corn-borer insects, but with Bt protection; plants are allowed to fully mature and increase yields. Corn that is harvested early has a higher moisture content in the kernels and needs to be dried in petroleum and natural gas burning dryer systems to reduce spoilage during storage. However, if allowed to dry in the field, much less energy is required for drying, and results in further reduced costs and air pollution.

Third-World countries could also benefit from genetically modified crops, due to a reduction in the need for technology to apply pesticides properly and furthermore the contamination of often-vital water supplies. The Rockefeller Foundation is a major supporter of GM crop use in third-world countries, arguing that developing countries have a serious need for the technology in food supply maintenance. In view of the fact that the world will see an approximate increase of 1.5 billion people in the next twenty years, the foundation believes that GM food, seeds, and other agricultural products present the best way to feed the increased population. The foundation states its goal at www. rockfound.org, (2001) as being; "To help broaden the benefits and reduce the negative impacts of globalization on vulnerable communities, families and individuals around the world."

According to Callahan (2000), the Rockefeller Foundation brings some credibility to its contention since it led the "green revolution" in many developing countries, and through its research efforts greatly increased the yields of rice crops in particular. Callahan (2000, 8) states that; "It (Rockefeller Foundation) now says a second revolution is needed, to raise the flagging yields from the first revolution and to increase the nutrient and vitamin content of various crops. Pest-resistant crops, pesticides that kill weeds and not the food crops, and foods with enhanced nutrients would be a blessing if safely and equitably achieved."

Although there is strong support for the continuation of research and the continuation of companies to supply GM products, the possible benefits have a strong argument countering them as well. More conservative groups state that maldistribution of food is the major source of starving and inadequate nutrition in lesser-developed countries. Corrupt governing powers, disorganization and unequal food distribution are all seen as the problems underlining food shortages in lesser-developed countries. (Vidal 1999). Further conclusions are that small farmers, who had been originally relied on for food in such countries, would become reliant on large multinational corporations such as Monsanto and Syngenta who would provide the GM seeds. Vidal believes that farmers, at the mercy of these large companies, would be under contract to meet certain quotas and thus entitled to keep producing for the benefits of the company, rather than meet their own food demands.

Rev. Canon Eric B. Beresford, of the Anglican Church of Canada, sums up the feelings of fear towards the incorporation of GM farming techniques into starving populations with the following statement;

We are promised adequate food for the human population. However, the problem at present is not food production, and there is considerable evidence that the biotechnology revolution will in fact worsen food distribution problems because it will put so much control of food production into the hands of a very small number of multinational companies that own the seed and own the chemicals to which the seed is resistant. TCCR (2000: 46)

Concerns are also raised due to the "pollution" that could occur in regular plant varieties by pollen from transgenic and hybridized plant varieties, as well as the allergic reactions by humans consuming GM food products. In the case of allergic reactions, StarLink (Aventis) corn has caused a major cause for controversy at local U.S. and international market levels. According to the Associated Press (Dec.4, 2001), StarLink corn has the Cry9C (Bt) protein incorporated, but has not been approved for human food use since the EPA has determined that it does not digest effectively in the human body, and could be a source of allergies. StarLink was, however, approved to be used for animal food and was to be kept separate in grain elevators and during the shipment process. This however wasn't the case and the Associated Press (Dec,4, 2000) reported that in September of 2000, traces of StarLink corn were found in human food sources and thus resulted in paralysis of, "A whole sector of American agriculture, diverting grain shipments from their destinations, jeopardizing exports of U.S. corn and threatening consumer confidence in the safety of genetically modified foods."

During pollination of the corn plants, a neighboring field that contained Bt corn could pollinate a field containing regular corn plants. This causes a great amount of concern for farmers, and raises the following concerns in Miller (2001); "While the USDA has aggressively promoted biotechnology, they have done virtually nothing to address farmer liability issues or to ensure that farmers are adequately protected under current industry contracts." Therefore, it is seen that concern is raised over farmer to farmer legal issues that may result in, "A wronged neighbor who could bring a case demanding redress for his neighbor's 'trespass' or compensation for the 'nuisance' created when cross-pollination caused him to be docked at the elevator." (Miller 2001). None-the-less, the problem at hand stems from the potential allergic reactions that humans may have towards the StarLink corn if consumed, and the inability to completely separate regular corn from the altered corn at elevators and shipment ports.

In the case of Roundup ready beans and corn, Successful Farming (March 2001) reports that in some University of Delaware field trails, a type of weed known as marestail(horseweed) is resistant to the main ingredient glyphosphate found in the herbicides; Roundup (Monsanto), Glyphomax (Dow AgroSciences) and Touchdown (Zeneca). In the test trials, the same field was used three consecutive years, with an application of only gyphosate products. After three years the resistant weeds were spotted, and the testers "applied ten times the recommended rate of glyphosate, which only stunted them," Successful Farming (2001). Cases such as this are what cause concern of GM use, as farmers are afraid resistance to common chemical herbicides may occur. Gordon Harder (Midwest U.S. farmer) expresses his concern as; "I am worried about plants that may develop resistance to Roundup, I have seen this happen in water hemp that has become resistant to the herbicides we used to use for it." Therefore, it is apparent that concerns for mutation of weed species are present and will remain to question the introduction of further GM plant use.

Environmental issues involving pollen drift, or development of resistance to herbicides by weeds are not the only issues to be considered when examining counterarguments. Another major source of doubt towards incorporation of GM use involves the intentional sterilization of seeds. In March 1998, a patent was awarded to the American firm of Delta and Pine Land Company, and the United States Department of Agriculture for a biotechnology that makes it possible to prevent the germination of seeds. In this "Terminator" seed technology, the patent could be applied in a number of ways. But in general, it involves three steps as described by the Virginia Cooperative Extension;

1.) Scientists add terminator genes to a crop.

2.) The seed company initiates the terminator process before selling the seeds by adding an inducer.

3.) Farmers plant seeds, grow plants, and harvest mature, but sterile seeds.

Hagedorn (1999)

The 'terminator' technology consists of three genes, their on/off switches and a recombinase gene controlled by a promoter. A repressor-binding site is placed in Gene 2 through genetic engineering and a repressor produced by Gene 1. will bind and inhibit the production of recombinase proteins. In the presence of an inducer (such as tetracycline), the inducer interferes with the repressor (produced from Gene I) by halting attachment of the repressor to its binding site, so the second gene will produce recombinase. The third gene then contains a toxin gene that is only activated if recombinase, produced by Gene 2, is present to snip out a blocker in front of the toxin. If recombinase is present, it will snip the blocker and a late promoter allows production of the toxin gene that will make the seed sterile. (Hagedorn 1999). In general, the strategy of the patent is to kill only the embryos and then leave behind other important seed components such as oils and proteins. This makes the seeds still useful for processing and food value, but it leaves the farmer unable to replant, and therefore must buy more seed from companies.

In Vidal (1999) the comment is given that; "The attraction of the concept to Monsanto was obvious. Instead of the corporation having to police farmers at great cost to make sure they did not collect their patented GM seeds and sow them for next year's harvest, the plants would do the work themselves." According to Vidal (1999), Monsanto bought out the major cottonseed company Delta and Pine Land and then obtained ownership of U.S. patent No. 5,723,765, which had been developed by the U.S. government, in conjunction with the U.S. military. Monsanto, however, has decided to not commercialize the use of the 'terminator' gene. The commitment came in a letter from Monsanto chairman Robert Shapiro to the, the Rockefeller Foundation in October 1999 in a letter that said: "Though we do not yet own any sterile seed technology, we think it is important to respond to those concerns at this time by making clear our commitment not to commercialize gene protection systems that render seed sterile," BBC (1999). Monsanto did however state that the gene might be used in internal research to help create plants that would allow certain characteristics to be switched on and off.

The statement from Monsanto to not commercialize the sterile seed technology, however still causes doubts among many groups who are concerned with Monsanto's ownership of the controversial patent. Greenpeace of Britain has challenged Monsanto to sell the patent, and stated that, "Nobody will ever trust a biotech company not to use an invention it owns. If they were really committed to not using it, they could sell it to us. This changes nothing. The shadow is still there." (Vidal 1999).

According to Brac de la Perrière (2000, 24), this "Terminator" technology seems enticing to the interests of seed traders but small farmers have reason to be worried. Brac de la Perrière (2000) states that "With Terminator, the agro-chemical giants have finally found a way of forcing farmers to buy new seeds each year, since the seeds they would harvest would be sterile." The author also makes the strong statement that; "The Terminator is just one of many applications of the technology that makes it possible to 'control the expression of genes'. The worst is undoubtedly yet to come." (p.24).

The reverberations from the shock of Monsanto's patent purchase are still felt even though Monsanto has agreed to not commercialize the technology, but not all response is in opposition. Paul Moyes, who is a spokesman for the European Association of BioIndustries has faith in the technology and believes that the terminator technology isn't a new concept. Moyes feels that plant breeders and farmers have chosen hybrid seeds over regular seeds because they are more productive, and this can be seen in a span of at least thirty years. Farmers had to buy new seeds anyway since hybrid seeds could only be used once. U.S. lawyer Richard Lewis also stated that many U.S. farmers were already under contract with Monsanto in that Roundup Ready crops could not be replanted without legal prosecution. BBC (1999). But still, tensions rise amongst farmer's who are not ready to fully commit themselves to contracts that do not allow for seed re-use, as is the case for Midwestern U.S. farmer Gordon Harder.

Farmers, and organizations involved in aiding economic development of lesser-developed countries, are concerned on a global scale. Genetically modified crops could mean an increase in productivity and allow for growth in extreme conditions, however the implications of allowing large international seed and biotech organizations to control an ancient practice of reusing seeds, as well as speed up the alterations in a naturally occurring environment, cause concern. The twentieth century has brought forth massive changes in agriculture and food production, but now as we enter the new millennium, the questions raised are; how will we feed a growing population and who will regulate it? Genetic modification is based on ancient practice of seed alteration for increased productivity, but when large multinational companies heading a new revolution for a less hungry world are given the power to "own" how food is produced, we are given the problems that we must face in the present day and age. Therefore, as we examine the potentials of GMO use, we must not only think in terms of advancement through technology, but we must also consider whether or not a company is gaining too much power, especially if it relates to the food that we consume. Through concern for general health of the global community, discouragement towards monopolization of food production, and any other legal concerns that arise, genetically altered crops should be tightly regulated and thoroughly examined before being released from the lab and brought into the farmer's fields.

Bibliography

1) Associated Press. (2000). StarLink corn: How it reached the food supply. Associated Press, [World Wide Web] Dec.4, 2000; 1 page. http://archive.showmenews.com/2000/dec/20001204busi011.asp [accessed October 23, 2001].

2) (BANR) Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources ,. (2000). Genetically Modified Pest- Protected Plants: Science and Regulation. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.

3) Beresford, Eric B. (2000). Essay, in Taskforce on the Churches and Corporate Responsibility (TCCR). (pp 43, 51) Ontario: TCCR.

4) BBC. (1999). Terminator gene halt a 'major U-turn'. BBC News, [World Wide Web] October 5, 1999; 1 page. http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_465000/465222.stm [accessed October 23, 2001].

5) Brac de la Perrière (2000) Brave New Seeds: The Threat of Transgenic Crops to Farmers in the South. New York: Zed Books.

6) Brush, Stephen. (2000). Genes in the Field: On-Farm Conservation of Crop Diversity. Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers.

7) Callahan, Daniel. (2000, April 7). Food For Thought. Commonwealth. pp7, 8.

8) Cornajo, Jorge. (2000). Genetically Engineered Crops for Pest Management in U.S. Agriculture. Washington D.C. : U.S. Department of Agriculture.

9) Hagedorn,, (February 1999). Charles. Terminator Technology for Transgenic Crops. [World Wide Web] document]Virginia Cooperative Extension http://www.ext.vt.edu/news/periodicals/cses/1999-02/1999-02-03.html [accessed October 26, 2001].

10) Harder, Gordon. November 2, 2001 interview concerning GM crops at personal level.

11) Inverizon® International Inc. (2001) [World Wide Web]http://www.inverizon.com/ [accessed November 5, 2001].

12) Miller, Dan. (2001, January). Is Genetic Engineering Worth the Cost? Progressive Farmer. pg 22.

13) The Rockefeller Foundation. (2001) [World Wide Web] http://www.rockfound.org/display.asp?context=1&collection=1 [accessed November 10, 2001].

14) Successful Farming (2001) New weed resistance.(soil research). Successful Farming,[World Wide Web] March 2001. 1 page. http://www.findarticles.com/cf_sccfrm/m1204/4_99/72299364/p1/article.jhtml [accessed October 23, 2001].

15) Vidal, John. (1999, June 19). The Seeds of Wrath. Guardian Unlimited, [World Wide Web] 1page. http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/ [accessed November 2, 2001].

16) Vidal, John. (2000, October 6). World Braced For Terminator 2. Guardian Unlimited, [World Wide Web] 1page. http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/ [accessed November 2, 2001].