Image: Photograph by Spencer Heyfron
In Brief
- A pioneer in developing genetically modified foods has assumed an influential role as head of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s research agency.
- Roger Beachy continues to advocate for a prominent place for genetic engineering of crops, which he claims provides a basis for chemical-free, sustainable agriculture that will prove more of a boon for the environment than have conventional weed and pest control.
- Detractors of GM foods, meanwhile, have expressed their chagrin at Beachy’s appointment.
- Without GM crops, Beachy contends that farmers would need to return to older practices that would produce lower crop yields, higher prices and an increase in the use of agrochemicals inimical to health.
More In This Article
Roger Beachy grew up in a traditional Amish family on a small farm in Ohio that produced food “in the old ways,” he says, with few insecticides, herbicides or other agrochemicals. He went on to become a renowned expert in plant viruses and sowed the world’s first genetically modified food crop—a tomato plant with a gene that conferred resistance to the devastating tomato mosaic virus. Beachy sees no irony between his rustic, low-tech boyhood and a career spent developing new types of agricultural technologies. For him, genetic manipulation of food plants is a way of helping preserve the traditions of small farms by reducing the amount of chemicals farmers have to apply to their crops.
In 2009 Beachy took the helm of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, a new research arm of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, where he controls a $1.5-billion budget for pursuing his vision of the future of agriculture. In the past year Beachy’s institute has funded ambitious agricultural research, such as a massive genomic study of 5,000 lines of wheat and barley, alongside unexpected projects: a $15-million behavioral study on childhood obesity in rural states, for one.
This article was originally published with the title Food Fight.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
17 Comments
Add CommentThe problem with direct genetic modification of food crops is a matter of an unmanageable accumulation of unintended consequences.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTraditional breeding practices are just as much genetic modification as artificial gene splicing. The difference is that the traditional process is slower, allowing time for consequences to manifest, be evaluated, and either enhanced, mitigated, or eliminated.
Further, direct genetic modification has a tendency to spread into the wild population; especially with wind pollinated crops and crops with close genetic relatives in the wild. What seed companies, like Monsanto, have done to farmers who's neighboring crops were contaminated with their modified genes is a flat out crime against humanity.
There is no real use in developping GM foods when agricultural subsidies force 1,000,000,000 people into permanent starvation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are several MAJOR problems with GM food.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst, to my knowledge, there has been no rigorous testing programme on safety, or any problems that such crops may present.
second, once GM crops get into the environment, it is almost impossible to either remove them, or to mitigate any damage that they may cause.
Illustration.
GM soy is now a major contaminant, so much so that in the USA and china, it is almost impossible to get GM-free produce.
The modification in soy has dramatically INCREASED the use of glysophate as a weed killer. The side effect is to poison the soil, so that subsequent food crops die before they reach harvest. Result, no food at all.
There is already a major scandal in India, where GM crops have been planted without governmental approval. The resultant bad effects now threaten the lives of literally millions of Indian farmers.
Contrary to popular belief, GM crops also need much higher levels of fertiliser. Further, at the second and later generations, yield dramatically DECREASES, so the food chain is that much poorer.
Again, GM crops have been shown to drastically reduce varietal differences in crops.
Well golly gosh Dr. Beachy thinks those opposed to GM food just have it allllll wrong. Now he wouldn't have any reason to be biased on this issue - would he? Of course, he would and Sci Am should be ashamed. He worked for Monsanto (don't argue that the Danforth Plant Science Center is Monsanto until you angels on the head of a pin deal first). I couldn't say it any better than Grist did almost 2 years ago at: http://www.grist.org/article/2009-09-24-usda-obama-monsanto-organic
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome of the meaty parts from the article pasted below --
"And what are we getting with the appointment of Beachy? The Danforth Plant Science Center, nestled in Monsanto's St. Louis home town, is essentially that company's NGO research and PR arm. According to its website, the center "was founded in 1998 through gifts from the St. Louis-based Danforth Foundation, the Monsanto Fund (a philanthropic foundation), and a tax credit from the State of Missouri."
Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant sits on the center's board of trustees, along with execs from defense giant McDonnell Douglas and pharma titan Merck. Another notable board member is Alfonso Romo, a Mexican magnate who cashed in big during his country's notoriously corrupt privatization /liberalization bonanza in the early '90s.
Romo used his connections to build a company called Seminis into the globe's biggest vegetable-seed concern, with dreams (as yet unrealized) of loads of new GMO veggie varieties. Monsanto bought Seminis in 2005. Here's a revealing Wall Street Journal profile of Romo from 1999; and here's what I wrote about him and the Monsanto/Seminis tie up back in 2005. (Interesting tidbit: Romo claims credit for innovating those insipid and ubiquitous "baby carrots"; and for reducing the spiciness of jalepeno peppers.)
On its short list of "partners" we find several research-oriented universities and one corporation: Monsanto. In the Danforth Center's 2007 annual report (PDF), Monsanto is mentioned no fewer than ten times funding this or that project.
So essentially, the public face of Monsanto's research efforts now has his fingers on the USDA's research purse strings. Score a big one for agribusiness!"
Many environmentalists and people engaged in the fight against GMO are extreme leftists, in the line of what the chinese called "the gang of four" (the widow of Mao Ze Dong and her fellows). It's not surprising that they attack anything coming from the USA, the capitalism homeland. Its more an anger based policy than one based in facts, so you can wait all kind of angry comments and prejudices, and very few facts in this discussion. It's supposed that government agencies care of consumers health; trying to obtain a banning outside the stablished democratic ways, for example the constitutions, can be an attempt to overcome citicen's vote; however, the right of free expression is granted to everybody, even to the enemmies of progress
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this'Genetically modified' is, perhaps, too broad a category. It includes the laudable yellow rice, which was genetically modified to include vitamin A. But it also includes Monsanto's Round Up Ready genetically modified crops. These latter are designed to encourage the use of Round Up, which is a major public health concern, because it contains an endocrine disruptor. So, we should instead label crops 'modified to enhance nutrition' or 'modified to enhance growability' or 'modified to jeopardize the health of people.' This would also educate the public about the nature of the genetic modification.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe argument against GMOs was quashed years ago. It seems Monsanto, industry practice, and government are the real issues.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere lots of dumb assholes in government as evidenced by this guy! Oh well!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is just bad journalism, it's all from the point of view of a person who has a financial conflict of interest. Come on SciAm, I expect better from this publication.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow can we feed more than 7 billion people if we don't use Genetically modified food.Environmentalists are living fool paradise. They always protest anything only to live in limelight.So called NGO doing this kind of business because their bread and butter depend on protest and they want cheap publicity.Many NGO getting money from some trouble maker western rich people
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe big promises of increased yields from GM have not been realized. There are concerns about the method of using bacteria to carry genes into plant nuclei, as being capable of creating new human disease. For more information visit;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/science/failure-to-yield.html
There's no point in inventing new GM crops when world democracy forces 1,000,000,000 to go hungry through agricultural subsidies which do not respect the free market. There is enough food to feed the world, but whilst we are governed by self-interested politicians we will never live in a world wide commonwealth. And another 1,000,000,000 people live below the poverty line for the same reasons!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI may suggest a book : ¨ Plant Physiological Ecology¨ by Hans Lambers, F. Stuart Chapin III , and Thisjs L. Pons. Because they point out a truth: ¨ For plants there is no alternative but to utilize sunlight and fix carbon and to draw water from soil under a given range of environmental conditions¨!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately, technology would not save us at all! neither how much sustainable energy production we invest nor how many genetic modifications we try!.
Expose plants to more intense episodes of stress than they are able to handle is not convenient!. It´s better to not open Pandora´s Box.
Genetic modifications in vegetation could bring forth a lot of biochemical alterations in our organism.
Technologize either a way, procedure or tool in order to solve this problem...it´s just another 21st century naive mirage!
@Jagadeesh... It sounds to me as if you are saying that the Genetic engineering that is going on inside of the lab is just a manmade way to speed up what would be happening naturally in nature.?? Am I correct in how I understood your comment?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe you may have forgotten to mention that the HGT that is being done probably would not have occured in the wild, since what is being done (in the case of most approved crops) is changing the DNA to accept a manmade (synthetic) chemical. This is NOT nor never would have occurred naturally in nature.
To further complicate matters, I believe all of the FORCED HGT that is happening, in plants & animals alike is actually speeding up the evolutionary process of HGT & in many cases spiraling it forward in a synthetic matter from which there is no return should we ultimately discover we should never have let it escape from the lab. (Medicinal Biotech kept in a lab may prove useful)
The fact that new deadlier strains of e coli are now present also leaves me to wonder if this forced HGt doesnt play an indirect role in their creation. That along with the fact that ruminant animals are being fed more grains than grasses which in turns changes the PH in their stomachs & makes it more hospitable for harmful strains of E coli to thrive.
One last note, While biotechnology seemed to have been a good idea, one that would incorporate more nutrition and more traits favorable to weather, We really havent had much successes there. So far the successes have lain with the use of more pesticides, the patenting of seeds & the herbicides which poor countries cannot afford, or even if they were given them free still cannot compete in the world market due to high subsidies of more developed nations.
Also with all the talk in developed nations about lack of jobs, This technology helps create a lack of jobs. Its what I like to call lazy fast food farming. Previously a farm could be a thriving business, offering jobs for many. Now only few hands are needed and a farmer can even sit inside and press a button to irrigate or fumigate an entire field. The more technology that is used, the more industrialized & consolidated things become, the less jobs there will be.
One last thing to mention is that dandelions & purslane, etc.. considered weeds worthy of death by manmade chemicals, were brought to the USA from Europe as they were highly prized plants. These plants are edible & provide nutrition for humans & livestock alike. What a shame they have lost their status due to technology.
Well, I am certainly NOT a traditional left winger. I am very right wing in regards to many things but I am defintitely not a supporter of GMO foods in any capacity in regards to food. I am not convinced at all that gmo foods are safe. And I highly resent the fact thet Monsanto rolls
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisover opponents using their leverage with the US government supporting their every move hand in hand like a revolving corporate door. A former executive of Monsanto then goes to work for the US Gov in Agriculture policy and so on , and so on. Totally corrupt and it is an outrage! I have had enough frankly and am now devoting large amounts of time,money and energy to combat this fraud! Thank God people in Europe haven't all drunk the Monsanto kook-aid!
With all due respect, Mr. Beachy clearly is tied to the biotech industry and his article is filled with bias and propaganda. He has a right to say what he believes and I strongly disagree with him.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI support science and the incredible progress made in the study of gene transference but the world food supply is not a place to experiment and GMOs are not ready for human consumption.
Organic farming and the farmers themselves are in great peril due to these profit hungry corporations which hide the scientific truths behind their campaigns and government lobbying. The greed is astounding.
The USDA and FDA are acting irresponsibly by allowing GE crops to be planted in environments which cannot be controlled and our total eco system has been threatened. There is no turning back now.
I greatly concerned for our children and our planet.
I would also like to commend the people who are speaking out against Mr. Beachy and corporations like Monsanto, Dupont, and the many sub-companies under which these monsters market their poison.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks to all of you who speak up.
J.