When we talk about the genetic alteration of plants and animals, we rehash the arguments of Perdita and Polixenes. Are molecular meddlings—from the man-made pig and the gene-whacked salmon to the genetically modified soy that hundreds of millions of us consume each day in cookies, crackers, candy bars, and sodas—are these transformations condoned by the tools nature itself has given us, or are they freaks and abominations? In producing as much food as possible for as many people as possible by creating superseeds that promise superharvests—seeds laced with DNA from other species of plants and animals—we may be redeeming the world. However, we may also be aiding and abetting the destruction of nature as we know it.
Biochemistry may be destiny. Once food DNA was discovered, perhaps it was only a matter of time before our daily bread would fall victim to our infatuation with technology. But now that we can take apart and put together the chemical puzzle blocks of food, we can't ignore the game. We can't bury molecular biology underground and move on. We have to figure out what to do with the technology. What we do with it matters.
The greatest U.S. food technologist was arguably Luther Burbank, who bred 30,000 new varieties of plums before he came up with his pitless prune and destroyed who knows how many thousands of failed seedlings before unveiling his white blackberry and his spineless cactus. In 1893 Burbank published New Creations in Fruits and Flowers, and few doubted that the book would assure him a place in the scientific pantheon. Journalists dubbed him a "seer," Henry Ford and Thomas Edison came to visit, and Lionel Barrymore portrayed him in the 1947 radio play The Man with Green Fingers. Today, the effects of Burbank's breeding may be appreciated at McDonald's, where every French fry descends from a variety he invented in the 1870s.
It was largely because of Burbank 's extraordinary achievements in food science that the Plant Patent Act of 1930 amended U.S. patent law to provide botanists with a set of financial motivations to create new plant varieties. (Burbank was posthumously awarded U.S. plant patent numbers twelve through sixteen.) All of a sudden, plant breeding promised more than a little fame and a lot of strange new foods. There was money in it.
The Plant Patent Act of 1930 pushed food science forward and helped power agribusiness into the second most gainful enterprise in the nation (after pharmaceuticals). Companies like Dow Chemical, Monsanto, and Syngenta take enormous profits from their food patent operations, but the emergence of a custom-designed corn seed cannot be blamed on the modern world's seed giants. Hybrid corn appeared more than a century ago on the U.S. retail market, and the result back then was the same as the result today: general outrage. The reason: hybrid seeds lose their potency after a single generation.
For 10,000 years of agricultural history, seeds had been free for those who cared to gather them, a gift that ensured next year's harvest. But the newfangled scientific corn seeds of the 1880s and 1890s had to be cross-pollinated, packaged, and purchased anew every year. What farmer in his or her right mind would buy new seeds every year? Seeds could be gathered from the ground. Seeds were free. Seeds wanted to be free. But then the stalks of corn from high-priced hybrid seeds began to take home banners, medals, and ribbons at state fairs, and farmers recognized that these new products were packed with new genetic information and that agricultural information was not free.
See what we're tweeting about
8 Comments
Add CommentNice blog article, but it appears to be apologist in nature for the franken foods created by Monsanto. Yes, modification of food to produce more/better can be a good thing, BUT when you are dealing with a food source for metabolic processes that are not completely understood, or a corporation designing a "food" solely on the profit motive you can and do create un-forseen problems like soy that is resistant to Roundup cross pollinating weeds that also become resistant to Roundup; Or creating corn that is toxic to predator bugs but is ALSO toxic (and carcinogenic) to its intended customer (and worse yet creates a super bug that is no longer affected by B.T.).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Because we can" does NOT equal "It's a good idea".
Well put. I'd add an extension - 'because we [someone else] can make money doing it' does not mean 'it's a good thing to do!'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis comment shows a profound lack of understanding of pretty much everything.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. We understand the metabolic processes we manipulate in genetically modified plants extremely well.
2. All products and foods are designed solely on the profit motive; that's entirely how society works.
3. Weeds becoming resistant to roundup is not in any way related to Roundup Ready plants. It's a natural consequence of herbicide use and applies to any herbicide irrespective of whether it's used on GM plants.
4. There is absolutely no biological reason to think Bt CRY proteins would be carcinogenic in any system. You've completely made that up (or got it from a source that made it up).
5. Bugs becoming resistant to Bt is also not a problem, it's expected with pesticides. When it happens, we switch pesticide strategy.
We don't use molecular engineering technology because we can, we do it because it's the responsible thing to do to feed a growing population in a sustainable way.
Interesting excerpt - I'll definitely read the book.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting, yes, but who is in charge of making decisions about how, why and which technology is applied to agricultural development and production? Are they motivated to magnanimously feed the starving masses or to increase profits this quarter? Sustainability? Nothing to see here - I'll just move along...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisModern wheat is mostly starch. I eat bread made from ancient 'épautre' wheat, rich in protein and requiring little fertiliser or pesticides. Modern starch-rich wheat causes widespread obesity in the USA. Which is the best?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would expect nothing less from a guy with an vested interest in genetically motivating food for human and animal consumption...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisin response to Richard Smith.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. I am 100% in favor of genetically engineering plants to be drought resistant, or root rot resistant, etc... but I am 100% against genetically modifying plants to be resistant to RoundUp so millions of acres of land and food can be soaked in RoundUp. The genetically modified plants may possibly be safe, but what about the safety of RoundUp residue on the plants? Also, there may be long term negative environmental effects of spraying millions of acres of land with Roundup.
2. I believe sometimes it is in the best interest of society NOT to allow big businesses to do whatever makes the most profit, especially when it pollutes the environment.
3. Actually, weeds becoming resistant to Roundup IS related to Roundup Ready plants. It is called horizontal green transfer. Weeds will continue to become resistant to RoundUp and new herbicides will have to be made. I believe farmers should use kura clover, living mulch in corn fields instead of Round Up. Kura clover is a legume and actually makes soil more fertile.
4. True, BT Cry proteins are not carcinogenic. But, inserting the genes from the BT microbe directly into plants has created many super insects which have evolved resistance to them.
5. Bugs becoming resistant to BT IS a problem, as organic farmers use BT to spray on their crops as organic pesticide, and it will soon become useless. True, you can switch pesticide strategy once you have created super insects that no longer are controlled by BT, but it will be a never ending cycle of creating stronger and stronger insects, which I believe is not the best long term strategy.
There are many useful applications for molecular engineering that can be used to feed our growing population in a responsible and sustainable manner. Unfortunately, Monsanto does not operate their business in a responsible or sustainable way.