Genetic Engineering in Agriculture Few topics in agriculture are more polarizing than genetic engineering (GE), the process of manipulating an organism s genetic material—usually using genes from other species—in an effort to produce desired traits such as higher yield or drought tolerance. GE has been hailed by some as an indispensable tool for solving the world s food problems, and denounced by others as an example of human overreaching fraught with unknown, potentially catastrophic dangers. UCS experts analyze the applications of genetic engineering in agriculture—particularly in comparison to other options—and offer practical recommendations based on that analysis. Benefits of GE: Promise vs. Performance Supporters of GE in agriculture point to a multitude of potential benefits of engineered crops, including increased yield, tolerance of drought, reduced pesticide use, more efficient use of fertilizers, and ability to produce drugs or other useful chemicals. UCS analysis shows that actual benefits have often fallen far short of expectations. Health and Environmental Risks While the risks of genetic engineering have sometimes been exaggerated or misrepresented, GE crops do have the potential to cause a variety of health problems and environmental impacts. For instance, they may produce new allergens and toxins, spread harmful traits to weeds and non-GE crops, or harm animals that consume them. At least one major environmental impact of genetic engineering has already reached critical proportions: overuse of herbicide-tolerant GE crops has spurred an increase in herbicide use and an epidemic of herbicide-resistant "superweeds," which will lead to even more herbicide use. How likely are other harmful GE impacts to occur? This is a difficult question to answer. Each crop-gene combination poses its own set of risks. While risk assessments are conducted as part of GE product approval, the data are generally supplied by the company seeking approval, and GE companies use their patent rights to exercise tight control over research on their products. In short, there is a lot we don't know about the risks of GE—which is no reason for panic, but a good reason for caution. What Other Choices Do We Have? All technologies have risks and shortcomings, so critics must always address the question: what are the alternatives? In the case of GE, there are two main answers: crop breeding, which produces traits through the organism s reproductive process; and agroecological farm management, which seeks to make the most of a plant s existing traits by optimizing its growing environment. These approaches are generally far less expensive than GE, and often more effective. The biotechnology industry has acknowledged the value of breeding as a complement to GE. But at the same time, the industry has used its formidable marketing and lobbying resources to ensure that its products—and the industrial methods those products are designed to support—continue to dominat ...

1. Genetic Engineering in Agriculture
Few topics in agriculture are more polarizing than genetic
engineering (GE), the process of manipulating an organism s
genetic material—usually using genes from other species—in an
effort to produce desired traits such as higher yield or drought
tolerance.
GE has been hailed by some as an indispensable tool for solving
the world s food problems, and denounced by others as an
example of human overreaching fraught with unknown,
potentially catastrophic dangers. UCS experts analyze the
applications of genetic engineering in agriculture—particularly
in comparison to other options—and offer practical
recommendations based on that analysis.
Benefits of GE: Promise vs. Performance
Supporters of GE in agriculture point to a multitude of potential
benefits of engineered crops, including increased yield,
tolerance of drought, reduced pesticide use, more efficient use
of fertilizers, and ability to produce drugs or other useful
chemicals. UCS analysis shows that actual benefits have often
fallen far short of expectations.
Health and Environmental Risks
While the risks of genetic engineering have sometimes been
exaggerated or misrepresented, GE crops do have the potential
to cause a variety of health problems and environmental
impacts. For instance, they may produce new allergens and
toxins, spread harmful traits to weeds and non-GE crops, or
harm animals that consume them.
At least one major environmental impact of genetic engineering
has already reached critical proportions: overuse of herbicide-
tolerant GE crops has spurred an increase in herbicide use and
an epidemic of herbicide-resistant "superweeds," which will
lead to even more herbicide use.

2. How likely are other harmful GE impacts to occur? This is a
difficult question to answer. Each crop-gene combination poses
its own set of risks. While risk assessments are conducted as
part of GE product approval, the data are generally supplied by
the company seeking approval, and GE companies use their
patent rights to exercise tight control over research on their
products. In short, there is a lot we don't know about the risks
of GE—which is no reason for panic, but a good reason for
caution.
What Other Choices Do We Have?
All technologies have risks and shortcomings, so critics must
always address the question: what are the alternatives? In the
case of GE, there are two main answers: crop breeding, which
produces traits through the organism s reproductive process;
and agroecological farm management, which seeks to make the
most of a plant s existing traits by optimizing its growing
environment. These approaches are generally far less expensive
than GE, and often more effective.
The biotechnology industry has acknowledged the value of
breeding as a complement to GE. But at the same time, the
industry has used its formidable marketing and lobbying
resources to ensure that its products—and the industrial
methods those products are designed to support—continue to
dominate both the seed marketplace and the policy
conversation, at the expense of ecologically based, diverse
farming systems.
Does UCS Have a Position On GE?
Yes. We see that the technology has potential benefits, but we
are critics of its commercial application and regulation to date.
GE has proved valuable in some areas (as in the contained use
of engineered bacteria in pharmaceutical development), and
some GE applications could turn out to play a useful role in
food production.

3. However, its applications in agriculture so far have fallen short
of expectations, and in some cases have caused serious
problems. Rather than supporting a more sustainable agriculture
and food system with broad societal benefits, the technology
has been employed in ways that reinforce problematic industrial
approaches to agriculture. Policy decisions about the use of GE
have too often been driven by biotech industry PR campaigns,
rather than by what science tells us about the most cost-
effective ways to produce abundant food and preserve the health
of our farmland.
These are a few things policy makers should do to best serve the
public interest:
1. Expand research funding for public crop breeding programs,
so that a broad range of non-GE as well as GE crop varieties
will remain available.
2. Expand public research funding and incentives to further
develop and adopt agroecologically based farming systems.
3. Take steps—such as changes in patent law—to facilitate
independent scientific research on GE risks and benefits.
4. Take a more rigorous, conservative approach to GE product
approvals, so that products do not come to market until their
risks and benefits are well understood.
5. Support food labeling laws that require foods containing GE
crops to be clearly identified as such, so that consumers can
make informed decisions about buying GE products.
Ref: This article courtesy of:The Union of Concerned
Scientists Last Revised: 11/07/12
UCS Mission Statement
The UCS puts rigorous, independent science to work to solve
our planet's most pressing problems. Joining with citizens
across the country, we combine technical analysis and effective
advocacy to create innovative, practical solutions for a healthy,
safe, and sustainable future.

4. "All medicine is about interfering with nature"
Editorial, The Times (London, England), Jan 20, 2012.
The nature of biotechnology has undergone a dramatic change
in the last half century. That change has come about with the
discovery of the role of deoxyribosenucleic acid, DNA, in living
organisms. DNA is a complex molecule that occurs in many
different forms. The many forms that DNA can take allow it to
store a large amount of information. That information provides
cells with the direction they need to carry out all the functions
they have to perform in a living organism. It also provides a
mechanism by which that information is transmitted efficiently
from one generation to the next.
As scientists learned more about the structure of the DNA
molecule, they discovered precisely and in chemical terms how
genetic information is stored and transmitted. With that
knowledge, they have also developed the ability to modify
DNA, creating new instructions that direct cells to perform new
and unusual functions. The process of DNA modification has
come to be known as genetic engineering. Since genetic
engineering normally involves combining two different DNA
molecules, it is also referred to as recombinant DNA research.
There is little doubt that genetic engineering is the best known
form of biotechnology today. Indeed, it is easy to confuse the
two terms and to speak of one when it is the other that is meant.
However, the two terms are different in the respect that genetic
engineering is only one type of biotechnology.
In theory, the steps involved in genetic engineering are
relatively simple. First, scientists decide what kind of changes
they want to make in a specific DNA molecule. They might, in
some cases, want to alter a human DNA molecule to correct
some error that results in a disease such as diabetes. In other
cases, a researcher might want to add instructions to a DNA

5. molecule that it does not normally carry. He or she might, for
example, want to include instructions for the manufacture of a
chemical such as insulin in the DNA of bacteria that normally
lack the ability to make insulin.
Second, scientists find a way to modify existing DNA to correct
errors or add new information. Such methods are now well
developed. In one approach, enzymes that "recognize" certain
specific parts of a DNA molecule are used to cut open the
molecule and then insert the new portion.
Third, scientists look for a way to insert the "correct" DNA
molecule into the organisms in which it is to function. Once
inside the organism, the new DNA molecule may give correct
instructions to cells in humans (to avoid genetic disorders), in
bacteria (resulting in the production of new chemicals), or in
other types of cells for other purposes.
Accomplishing these steps in practice is not always easy. One
major problem is to get an altered DNA molecule to express
itself in the new host cells. That the molecule is able to enter a
cell does not mean that it will begin to operate and function
(express itself) as scientists hope and plan. This means that
many of the expectations held for genetic engineering may not
be realized for many years.
In spite of problems, genetic engineering has already resulted in
a number of impressive accomplishments. Dozens of products
that were once available only from natural sources and in
limited amounts are now manufactured in abundance by
genetically engineered microorganisms at relatively low cost.
Insulin, human growth hormone, tissue plasminogen activator,
and alpha interferon are examples. In addition, the first trials
with the alteration of human DNA to cure a genetic disorder
were begun in 1991.

6. The prospects offered by genetic engineering have not been
greeted with unanimous enthusiasm by everyone. Many people
believe that the hope of curing or avoiding genetic disorders is a
positive advance. But they question the wisdom of making
genetic changes that are not related to life-threatening
disorders.
Should such procedures be used for helping short children
become taller or for making new kinds of tomatoes? Indeed,
there are some critics who oppose all forms of genetic
engineering, arguing that humans never have the moral right to
"play God" with any organism for any reason. As the technology
available for genetic engineering continues to improve, debates
over the use of these techniques in practical settings are almost
certainly going to continue—and to escalate—in the future
Source Citation:
Newton, David E. "Biotechnology." Environmental
Encyclopedia. Ed. Marci Bortman, et al. 3rd ed. Vol. 1.
Farmington Hills, MI: Gale, 2003. 157-159.Global Issues In
Context. Web. 20 Nov. 2013.
Biotechnology Myths (An editorial)
Myth #1: Biotechnology will benefit US farmers
Reality
· Biotechnology seeks to "industrialize agriculture" even
further, converting agriculture into a branch of industry.
· Biotechnology is capital intensive and increases concentration
of agriculture production in the hands of large - corporate
farms.
· As with other labor saving technology, by increasing
productivity biotechnology tends to reduce commodity prices
and set in motion a technology treadmill that forces out of
business a significant number of farmers, especially small scale.
· Given that time and labor saving technology have been
substituted for farmers and farm workers for over 200 years, the
most probable outcome is that US farmers will be displaced by

7. biotechnology.
· Removal of constraints to growing the same crop in the same
field every year and eliminating need for mechanical weed
control will enable a given number of people to farm more acres
and thereby facilitate a system of bigger and fewer farms.
· Biotechnology will further concentrate power in the hands of
few MNCs, which in turn will enhance farmers dependence and
force them to pay inflated prices for seed-chemical packages.
Myth #2: Biotechnology will benefit Third World farmers
Reality
· If green revolution technology bypassed small and resource-
poor farmers, biotechnology will exacerbate marginalization
even more as such technologies are under corporate control and
protected by patents, are expensive and inappropriate to the
needs and circumstance of indigenous people.
· Biotechnology products will undermine exports from Third
World countries especially from small-scale producers.
· 70,000 farmers in Madagascar growing vanilla were ruined
when a Texas farm produced vanilla in biotech labs.
· Fructose produced by biotechnology captured over 10% of the
world sugar market and caused sugar prices to fall, throwing
tens of thousands of sugar workers in the Third World out of
work.
· Nearly 10 million sugar farmers in the Third World may face a
loss of livelihood as laboratory-produced sweeteners begin
invading world markets.
· Expansion of Unilever-cloned oil palms will substantially
increase palm-oil production with dramatic consequences for
farmers producing other vegetable oils (groundnut in Senegal
and coconut in Philippines).
· The Third World should worry that the massive penetration of
transgenic crops will not only pose environmental risks and
foreclose rural employment opportunities, but will doom
traditional agriculture and its native genetic diversity.

8. Myth #3: Biotechnology production promises will be a blessing
for the poor and hungry of the Third World.
Reality
· Biotechnology is profit driven rather than science and need
driven.
· Biotechnology research serves the desires of the rich rather
than the needs of humanity, especially the poor.
· Biotechnology is primarily a commercial activity, a reality
that determines priorities of what is investigated, how it is
applied and who is to benefit. While the world may lack food
and suffer pesticide pollution, the focus of MNCs is profit, not
philanthropy.
· Investors design GMOs for new marketable quality or for
import substitution,rather then for greater food production.
· Biotechnology companies are emphasizing a limited range of
crops for which there are large and secure markets, targeted to
relatively capital-intensive production systems. It is difficult to
conceive how such technology will be introduced in Third
World countries to favor masses of poor farmers.
· The thrust of the biotech industry is not to solve agricultural
problems, as much as it to create profitability. Why aren't HRCs
being develop for parasitic weeds (Striga) in Africa? Instead
HRC corn and cotton is being produced although there are
myriad herbicides available to control weeds in these crops.
· Why isn't the scientific genius of biotechnology turned to
develop varieties of crops more tolerant to weeds rather than
herbicides? or why aren't more promising products of
biotechnology, such as N fixing and tolerant plants being
developed?
Myth #4 : Biotechnology will not attempt against the ecological
sovereignty of the Third World.
Reality

9. · The Third World is now witnessing a "gene rush" as
governments and multinational corporation aggressively scour
forests, crop fields and coasts in search of the new genetic gold.
· Indigenous people and their biodiversity are viewed as raw
material for the MNCs.
· Corporations have made billions of dollars on seeds developed
in US labs from germ plasm that farmers in the Third World had
carefully bred over generations.
· Peasant farmers go unrewarded for their millenary knowledge
of what to grow, while MNCs stand to harvest royalties from
Third World countries estimated at billions of dollars.
· Patenting laws prevent farmers from freely reproducing
patented livestock and seeds. Biotech companies offer no
concrete provisions to pay Third World farmers for the seeds
they take and use.
· Patenting of plants and animals means that farmers must pay
royalties to the patent holder each time they breed their stock
(saving seed is not possible with hybrid crops; farmers must buy
fresh patented seed each year).
· Indigenous farmers can lose rights to their own original seeds
and not be allowed under GATT to market or use them.
· As bans and regulations delay tests and marketing in the
North, GMOs will increasingly be tested in the South to bypass
public control (Vaccine application program in India). The
Third World will evolve from chemical and nuclear waste
disposal to genetic dump sites.
Myth #5: Biotechnology will lead to Biodiversity Conservation
Reality
· Although biotechnology has the capacity to create a greater
variety of commercial plants and thus contribute to biodiversity,
this is unlikely to happen. MNCs strategy is to create broad
international markets for a single product. The tendency is
towards uniform international seed markets.
· The agricultural systems developed with transgenic crops will

10. favor monocultures characterized by dangerously high levels of
genetic homogeneity leading to higher vulnerability of
agriculture to biotic and abiotic stresses.
· As the new bioengineered seeds replace the old traditional
varieties and their wild relatives, genetic erosion will accelerate
in the Third World.
· The push for uniformity will not only destroy the diversity of
genetic resources, but will also disrupt the biological
complexity that underlies the sustainability of traditional
farming systems.
Myth #6 : Biotechnology is ecologically safe, offering softer
technologies and will launch a period of chemical-free
agriculture
Reality
· We can be more sure of the economic outcomes of
biotechnology (especially for MNCs) than we can about its
health or environmental outcomes.
· There are many unanswered ecological questions regarding the
impact of the release of transgenic plants and microbes into the
environment. Approaches must be developed and employed for
assessing and monitoring future predictable risks.
· Biotechnology will exacerbate the problems of conventional
agriculture and will also undermine ecological methods of
farming such as rotation and polycultures.
· Transgenic crops are likely to increase the use of pesticides
and to accelerate the evolution of "super weeds" and resistant
insect pest strains.
· Major environmental risks associated with genetically
engineered plants are the unintended transfer to plant relatives
of the "trangenes" and the unpredictable ecological effects.
Myth #7: Biotechnology will enhance the use of molecular
biology for the benefit of all society

11. Reality
· The demand for the new biotechnology has emerged out of the
change in plant laws and the profit interests of chemical
companies of linking seeds and pesticides. The supply emerged
out of breakthroughs in molecular biology and the availability
of venture capital as a result of favorable tax laws.
· Plant breeding research is shifting form the public to the
private sector. As more universities enter into partnerships with
corporations, serious ethical questions emerge about who owns
the results of research and which research gets done.
· A great deal of the basic knowledge underlying biotechnology
was developed using public funding.
· The trend to secrecy by publicly-funded scientists in
government and universities is not in the public interest.
· A professor's ability to attract private investments is often
more important than academic qualifications. Applied and
alternative agricultural sciences such as biological pest control
which do not attract corporate sponsorship are being phased out.
· The economic and political domination of the agricultural
development agenda has thrived at the expense of interest of
consumers, farm workers, small family farms, wildlife and the
environment.
· Citizens should have earlier entry points and broader
participation in technological decisions.
· The domination of scientific research by corporate interest
must be dealt with more stringent public control.
· It is not biotechnological science that needs scrutiny; it is its
exploitation by narrow business interests.
· CGIAR will have to carefully monitor and control the
provision of applied non-proprietary knowledge to the private
sector, so as to protect that such knowledge will continue in the
public domain for the benefit of the rural poor.
· Mechanisms should be in place to reverse the privatization of
biotechnology and challenge the direction of current privately
led research. The CGIAR could assume the historic and ethical
responsibility in the development and deployment of

12. socioeconomically and environmentally desirable
biotechnologies.
Myth #8: Biotechnology is a more environmentally sound
approach to pest management and sustainable agriculture.
Reality
· Biotechnology emerges in an area when there is widespread
concern about the long-term sustainability of our food
production systems. Many scientists raise questions about the
growing dependence of farming on non-renewable resources: the
depletion of soils through erosion and the heavy reliance on
chemicals which are costly, but also raise questions about food
and environmental quality.
· Agroindustrial's model reliance on monoculture and inputs
such as pesticides and fertilizers impacts the environment and
society: topsoil has been lost, biodiversity has eroded, and
toxics have damaged wildlife, soil and water. As biotechnology
requires reliance on monocultures these negative trends will
become exacerbated.
· Worldwide, 2.5 million tons of pesticides are applied each
year with a purchase price of $20 billion.
· In the US, 500,000 tons of 600 different types of pesticides
are used annually at a cost of $4.1 billion.
· The cost to Latin America of chemical pest control is expected
to reach US $ 3.97 billion by the year 2000.
· An investment of $4 billion dollars in pesticide control saves
approximately $16 billions in US crops. But indirect
environmental and public health costs of pesticide use (reaching
$8 billion each year) need to be balanced against these benefits.
· By weight of active ingredients, herbicides now constitute
85% of all pesticides applied to field crops. Monsanto alone
sold $1 billion worth in 1982.
· Biotechnology treats agricultural problems as genetic
deficiencies of organisms, and treats nature as a commodity.
· Biotechnology is being used to pursue to patch up problems

13. that have been caused by previous technologies (pest resistance,
cost of pesticides, pollution, etc.) which were promoted by the
same companies now leading the bio-revolution.
· Transgenic crops for pest control follow closely the pesticide
paradigm of using a single control mechanism which has proven
to fail with insects, pathogens and weeds. As such, they do not
fit into the broad ideals of sustainable agriculture.
· The "one gene - one pest" resistance approach is rather easy to
be overcome by pests which are continuously adapting to new
situations and evolving detoxification mechanisms.
· As with pesticides, biotechnology companies will feel the
impact of environmental, farm labor, animal rights and
consumers lobbies.
Miguel A. Altieri, Ph.D.
University of California,
Introducing Glofish, fish with a brilliant flourescent color by
means of special "breeding", i.e., genetic manipulation.
A true scientific novelty, but what ethical dilemmas are
introduced by such genetic tampering?
What is Biotechnology?
Currently, we are in the Information Age and, over the last few
decades, have witnessed an unparalleled explosion of data being
amassed in what seems to be every field of study. With this
given spate of knowledge, there come nexuses where two more
disciplines converge and become one, being known as
interdisciplinary studies.
This is the rich heritage of biotechnology, for as its name
implies, it is the coalescence of both biological science and its
technological application. The term was first coined by Karl
Ereky in 1919 to describe all manufacturing processes
incorporating the aid of living organisms; however, the term
biotechnology has accrued a more broad application since then.
In a literal sense, biotechnology is the manipulation of

14. biological systems with the primary goal of application through
the conduit of technology. The progenitors of biotechnology are
biology and technology.
Biology is most loosely defined as the study of living organisms
in all their diversity. It encompasses studies ranging from the
microscopic to the macroscopic, and some sub-disciplines of
biology include, physiology, zoology, microbiology,
biochemistry, cellular biology, and genetics. Given the rich
assortment of sub-disciplines of biology, it is no wonder that
when they should be considered in tandem that the scope of
possibilities becomes exponential immediately. As one must
conclude, the biological portion of biotechnology covers a
wonderfully diverse terrain.
Technology is the underlying application of science, and is a
transliteration of the Greek word, technologia meaning
systematic treatment. That is, technology is a tool with which to
manipulate knowledge and parlay it into something novel and
useful.
Some of the applications of biotechnology include alcoholic
fermentation, food preservation, bread-making (yeast-induced
fermentation), pharmaceuticals (e.g. insulin and growth
hormone production by microbes), bioremediation, water
treatment by microbes, cloning (e.g. Dolly), bioengineering,
gene therapy, genetically modified foods, transgenic animals,
and many others. The world s biotechnological quotient
increases with each new publication, and countless new
publications appear every day.
References:
Oxford English Dictionary, Technology - Overview and Brief
History
Available
@ http://www.accessexcellence.org/AB/BC/Overview_and_Brie
f_History.html

15. "As our nation invests in science and innovation and pursues
advances in biomedical research and health care, it's imperative
that we do so in a responsible manner." --President Barack
Obama
Image ref: http://www.artes-
biotechnology.com/rootgif/images/diagramm02.jpg