Date: Sat, 8 Mar 1997 11:36:53 -0500
To: richard@ottawa.com X-UIDL: 857844103.009
From: rwolfson@concentric.net (Richard Wolfson)
Subject: GE News-Dr. Rissler article
GLOBAL PESTICIDE CAMPAIGNER
The Quarterly Newsletter of the Pesticide Action Network
North America Regional Center
January 1991
Biotechnology and Pest Control: Quick Fix vs. Sustainable
Control
by Jane Rissler
Biotechnology promoters argue that new biological and genetic approaches
to boost agricultural yields will end world hunger and solve problems created
by chemically intensive farming. Is this new technology a solution for
the problems of agriculture? The answer is not a simple yes or no. Biotechnology
could be part of a solution, but thus far it is being pushed in the wrong
direction. It is being touted as the successor to chemicals as a miracle
technology , a quick fix, rather than an integral part of a shift to sustainable
agriculture. One of the best examples of this trajectory in agricultural
biotechnology can be seen in current trends in the genetic engineering
of organisms to control pests.
Chemical Pesticides: The First Quick Fix
Agricultural chemicals are the backbone of an effort that has produced
stunning increases in productivity over the last forty years. The synthetic
chemical pesticide industry that emerged from World War II offered farmers
what appeared to be miracle chemical compounds to control pests and enhance
yield. In their book Integrated Pest Management, Flint and van den Bosch
described the subsequent transformation of agriculture:
Their success was immediate. [Chemical pesticides] were cheap, effective
in small quantities, easy to apply, and widely toxic. They seemed to be
truly "miracle" insecticides. The effect of the new pesticides
on the attitude of those who controlled pest organisms was revolutionary.
Where farmers had formerly talked of "controlling" pests, expecting
to have to tolerate certain levels of the noxious species, they now talked
of "eradicating" pests. People envisioned the extermination of
entire species of pest insects, plant pathogenic organisms, and weeds and
expected 100% kill from their pest control actions.
With such dramatic success, it is easy to understand why the use of pesticides
caught on so quickly. Indeed, in the decades after the war, pest control
became predominantly a matter of chemistry. Where management of pest problems
previously relied on ecological principles, farmers were now encouraged
to abandon many preventative pest control measures like rotating crops,
simultaneous cropping, and encouraging natural enemies of pests.
Not only farmers were transformed by the chemical revolution. Public agricultural
institutions in the United States, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA), state agricultural institutions, and agricultural universities,
shifted their research and education mission from agriculture as a biological
and ecological activity to one based on chemicals.
The results are well known. Widespread adoption of chemical pesticides
contributed to unprecedented increases in crop yields, but also resulted
in the poisoning of farmworkers and rural residents, contamination of food
and drinking water, destruction of wildlife habitats, and decimation of
wildlife. From the long-term perspective, agricultural chemicals have turned
out to be less than miraculous.
Choosing a Path for Biotechnology
Now biotechnology, the new "miracle" technology, is being adapted
for use in agriculture. The developers of biotechnology face a spectrum
of choices. It could be used to support an agricultural system based on
the principles of ecology, stability, and sustainability. Or, at the other
end of the spectrum, it can serve as another "quick fix" in conventional,
industrial-style agriculture. A look at the major promoters and the first
products of the technology shows that the choice, thus far, is well toward
the "quick fix," industrial end of the spectrum.
Biotechnology is being shaped within the same social context and value
system that led to chemical dependence. The same institutions that developed
and promoted chemical-style farming, agrochemical giants such as Monsanto,
DuPont, and Ciba-Geigy, and the USDA, are now proclaiming biotechnol- ogy
as the route to sustaining high yields, while reducing our dependence on
chemicals and the problems created by that dependence. Agrochemical companies
are investing millions of dollars in biotechnology research to create genetically
engineered plants, animals, and microorganisms to repel pests, make fertilizers,
and enhance yield. The USDA, following the lead of agribusiness, is also
a major promoter of biotechnology, placing it high among its research priorities
and investing millions of taxpayer dollars in research. USDA officials
even distribute promotional buttons that read: "Biotechnology the
Future of Agriculture." Biotechnology is being developed with the
same vision that promoted chemicals to meet the single, short-term goals
of enhanced yields and profit margins. This vision embraces a view of the
world characterized by beliefs that nature should be dominated, exploited,
and forced to yield more; by preferences for simple, quick, immediately
profitable "solutions" to complex ecological problems; by "reductionist"
thinking that analyzes complex systems like farming in terms of component
parts, rather than as an integrated system; and by a conviction that agricultural
success means short-term productivity gains, rather than long-term sustainability.
As a clear indicator that agricultural biotechnology is headed in the wrong
direction, the first pest-control products (like the chemical pesticides
that preceded them) are designed to support conventional, high-input agricultural
systems. The first three genetically engineered products, herbicide-tolerant
crops, insect-resistant crops and microorganisms, and virus-resistant crops,
were all developed for easy adoption within existing industrial-style agriculture.
Herbicide Resistance
Genetically engineered herbicide-tolerant crops are likely to be the first
commercially available products. They are deeply embedded in the chemical
quick-fix mentality. Herbicide-tolerant crops are engineered to contain
new genes that help plants avoid the harmful effects of particular weed
killers. Currently, a crop's sensitivity to a weed killer limits the amount
of herbicide growers can apply. With herbicide-tolerant crops, farmers
can be persuaded to use more of a particular herbicide to kill weeds without
damaging their crop.
Herbicide-tolerant crops represent a simple strategy for chemical companies
to market more of their herbicides. All eight major transnational pesticide
companies, Bayer, Ciba- Geigy, ICI, Rhone-Poulenc, Dow/Elanco, Monsanto,
Hoechst, and DuPont, are currently funding research to develop a variety
of crops that tolerate their herbicides. Monsanto, for example, has already
field-tested genetically engineered glyphosate -tolerant tomato, cotton,
soybean, flax, and canola.
Rather than help wean U.S. agriculture from its dependence on toxic chemicals,
herbicide-tolerant crops perpetuate and extend the chemical pesticide era
and its attendant human health and environmental toll. The effects of the
nation's massive herbicide useP600 million pounds applied annuallyPare
already alarming. Studies link various weedkillers with cancer, nervous
disorders, behavioral changes, and skin diseases in humans and animals.
In addition to poisoning farmworkers who handle herbicides, weed killers
enter groundwater and other drinking water supplies, contaminate food,
and destroy wildlife and their habitats. Not only do herbicide-tolerant
crops sustain dependence on harmful chemicals, they also have the potential,
in the long run, to exacerbate weed control problems. Widespread use of
these crops and their associated herbicides will exert significant pressure
on populations of weeds to develop tolerance to the herbicides, thus rendering
the herbicides ineffective in controlling the weeds. Already, herbicide-
resistant weeds have arisen in areas where certain weed killers are heavily
used. The larger amounts of particular herbicides applied in association
with herbicide-tolerant crops will only increase the selection pressure
for additional resistant >weeds.
Furthermore, the transfer of genes for herbicide resistance to weedy relatives
could make some weeds more difficult to control in agricultural settings.
For example, oilseed crucifers (rapeseed or canola) that have been engineered
to resist herbicides, are related to wild mustards that are important weeds
in U.S. agriculture. It is virtually certain that herbicide-tolerance genes
would be transferred via cross pollination from the engineered crucifers
to wild, weedy relatives, resulting in weeds resistant to herbicides and
therefore more difficult to control.
Insect Resistance
Reducing crop loss caused by insects is also a major focus of agricultural
biotechnology research. Monsanto, Rohm and Haas, Ciba-Geigy, Agracetus,
Agrigenetics Advanced Sciences, Calgene, the USDA, and the University of
California have developed and field tested tomato, tobacco, cotton, walnut,
and potato plants genetically engineered to contain an insect-killing toxin
from Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.). Sandoz Crop Protection and Crop Genetics
International are genetically engineering microorganisms containing B.t.
toxin to act as biocontrol agents.
B.t. is a soil microorganism that has been used for twenty years as a commercial
biocontrol agent against certain insect pests. Knowing that specific toxins
were responsible for B.t.'s insecticidal activity, genetic engineers have
isolated and removed the genes that produce the toxins, and placed them
in plants and microorganisms. Engineers are designing B.t.-containing crops,
trees, and microbes to combat an array of insect pests: European corn borer,
cotton bollworm, Colorado potato beetle, beet armyworm, tobacco hornworm,
and tomato >fruitworm.
Despite their promise for reducing the use of chemical insecticides, widespread
use of B.t.-containing crops and microbes poses a potentially significant
problem: accelerated evolution of pest resistance to B.t.. If this were
to happen, agriculture would lose one of its safest, most valuable biocontrol
agents.
Already, some insect populations (e.g., diamondback moth) have become resistant
to the B.t. toxin after prolonged exposure. Resistance in a particular
insect pest population means that B.t. would no longer be effective in
controlling that pest. It is generally accepted that the intensive use
of B.t. in genetically engineered organisms will accelerate the selection
pressure on insect populations to develop resistance. In engineered plants
that produce the B.t. toxin throughout the life of the plant, insects will
be exposed more frequently and for longer periods. This intensified selection
pressure contrasts with conventional methods of delivering B.t. where the
toxin is active for only a limited period after application.
Virus Resistance
Viruses cause economically important diseases in most of the major agricultural
crops. Thus far, there are no chemical viricides that do not also harm
crops. Some crops are treated with insecticides to kill insects that carry
viruses from plant to plant.
Plant genetic engineers have suggested a new approach to controlling viruses;
they are engineering plants to contain a virus gene. The plant then produces
a viral protein which enables the plant to resist attack by the same virus.
The result is similar to immunities created by vaccinating people and animals
against diseases. Monsanto, Agrigenetics Advanced Sciences, Pioneer Hi-Bred,
Upjohn, Cornell University, and the University of Kentucky have field-tested
genetically engineered virus-resistant plants including potato, tomato,
tobacco, alfalfa, cucumber, cantaloupe, and squash.
Adoption of virus-resistant plants may, in the short term, reduce the use
of chemical insecticides and losses due to viruses. For the long term,
however, it remains unclear how fast viruses might evolve resistance to
virus genes incorporated into resistant plants, rendering those engineered
plants once again susceptible to virus attack.
Crops genetically engineered to resist herbicides, insects, and virus diseases,
like chemical pesticides, will be sold to farmers as single, simple-to-use
products to control pests and sustain continuous monoculture. They are
being developed to fit immediately and easily into conventional agriculture's
industrialized monoculture, and as such they extend what Jack Doyle has
called "the 'invade and conquer' and 'replacement parts'" approach
to pest management. This kind of farming entrenches farmers' dependence
on successive new products from corporations, new genetically manipulated
organisms to serve as quick fixes for increasingly complex pest control
problems.
Sustainable Agriculture:
A Better Path For Pest Control There is a better approach to pest control
than chemical or genetically engineered products aimed at one or a group
of pests: pest management methods developed in the context of sustainable
agriculture. Also known as alternative agriculture or low-input sustainable
agriculture, these approaches to profitable farming recognize the ecological
nature of agriculture and incorporate responsible stewardship of natural
resources.
What this means for pest control is that growers (and agronomists) need
to change their expectations and methods. In sustainable systems, the goals
are prevention and management, unlike the control or eradication objectives
of chemical farming. Sustainable management strategies emphasize prevention
of pest problems by providing conditions that optimize the effect of natural
mortality factors (e.g., biological enemies and weather) to reduce pest
populations. They depend heavily on large amounts of ecological, biological,
agronomic, and climatic information.
In sustainable systems, farmers use a variety of cultural, biological,
and mechanical methods to avoid or reduce pest problems. Crop rotations,
intercropping, cover crops, altered planting and tilling schedules, new
tillage systems, and natural biocontrol agents are some of the many options
available to growers adopting sustainable strategies.
Biotechnology could make contributions to sustainable agricultural systems,
but those contributions would have more to do with enhanced understanding
and manipulation of crop/pest/environment interactions than with producing
specific engineered plants or microbes for the marketplace. For example,
modern molecular biology and genetic techniques, in concert with ecological
studies, could be used to dissect the relationship between soybean seedlings
and the charcoal rot fungus as it is influenced by environmental factors.
Under certain environmental conditions in the tropics, charcoal rot can
decimate young soybean plants. If the molecular and biochemical steps in
disease development were characterized, scientists could determine not
only which steps are susceptible to control measures, but what measures
would be successful in interrupting disease development. They could develop
specific, targeted strategies to block critical interactions and prevent
seedling rot. These strategies might employ natural disease suppressive
agents in crops interplanted or rotated with soybeans, incorporate specific
genes for rot resistance, enhance soybean's natural defense mechanisms,
or involve altered cultural conditions and planting dates.
Sustainable agriculture provides an appropriate context for developing
biotechnology. Pest control is only one area in which biotechnology is
on the wrong path. Biotechnology development in general is headed in the
wrong direction. In a recent critique of modern agriculture, Angus Wright
comments on the path taken by agricultural biotechnology:
[Biotechnology promoters] want to remove agricultural research and the
reproduction of crops even farther from the wisdom of practicing farmers
and the slow process of adaptation through natural and cultural evolution.
We need instead to move in the opposite direction, toward the readaptation
of agriculture to the complexity of nature and the requirements of healthy
human beings and healthy human communities.
Genetic engineering techniques could prove useful for analyzing and understanding
the complex and interwoven ecological and biological processes that make
agriculture possible. Yet its proponents circumscribe its potential by
using it to design products that extend a nonsustainable, nonecological
agricultural system.
The development of biotechnology should be shaped within the context of
sustainable agricultural systems, ecologically based systems that reflect
the goals of long-term economic viability, productivity, and natural resource
stability. Rather than invest taxpayer dollars in biotechnology research
that supports conventional agriculture, publicly funded agricultural research
must be directed toward sustainable approaches.
We should reject high-input, industrial-style monoculture; avoid quick-fix,
short-term solutions; and adopt ecologically based, sustainable farming
systems. Biotechnology techniques should only be used within ecological
research to search for innovative and sustainable solutions to agriculture's
economic, social, and environmental problems.
Jane Rissler is Biotechnology Specialist at the National Wildlife Federation,
1400 16th Street N.W., Washington, D.C., USA.
For further reading:
Jack Doyle, "Sustainable agriculture and the other kind of biotechnology,"
In Reform and Innovation of Science and Education: Planning for the 1990
Farm Bill, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, U.S. Senate,
101st Congress, 1st Session, December 1989.
M.L. Flint and R. van den Bosch, Integrated Pest Management, Plenum Press,
NY, 1981.
Rebecca Goldburg, Jane Rissler, Hope Shand, and Chuck Hassebrook. "Biotechnology's
Bitter Harvest: Herbicide- Tolerant Crops and the Threat to Sustainable
Agriculture," Biotechnology Working Group, 1990.
Wes Jackson, "Biotechnology and supply side thinking." The Land
Stewardship Letter, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 10-12, spring 1987..
National Research Council, Alternative Agriculture, National Academy Press,
Washington, DC, 1989.
Angus Wright, The Death of Ramon Gonzalez: the Modern Agricultural Dilemma,
Univ. of Texas Press, Austin, 1990.
John Young, "Bred for the hungry?" World Watch, Vol. 3, No. 1,
pp. 14-22, January/February 1990.
The GLOBAL PESTICIDE CAMPAIGNER is a quarterly publication of the Pesticide
Action Network North America Regional Center (PANNA RC). PAN is an international
coalition of citizens' groups and individuals who oppose the misuse of
pesticides and support reliance on safe, sustainable pest control methods.
PANNA RC,
116 New Montgomery St, #810,
San Francisco, CA 94105 USA.
Tel: (1-415) 541-9140. Fax: (1-415) 541-9253.
E-Mail: panna@igc.apc.org