What is biotechnology, particularly the biotechnology that concerns the food we eat?

Sergiu Cealic builds a genetic map of eastern cheatgrass, seeking genes to move into maize. On right, electron microscope image of a nucleus in the mosquito Culex igripalpus. (Scott Bauer, USDA, left; Peggy Greb)

Different people have different answers to that question. The word, “biotechnology,” gives a hint: It involves the use of technology to deal with biology. So by one definition, agricultural biotechnology has been around as long as plant breeding: Scientists have used technology (which can mean paper bags for maize crossing or tweezers and artists' brushes for transferring pollen from one plant to another) to produce plants that might not have grown on their own in nature.

But that’s not what most people mean these days when they talk about “biotechnology.”

Today, the term refers to manipulating the genes of a plant (or anything else) in a laboratory, using technology that’s far removed from farmers’ fields. Sometimes the technique — and this is the one that bothers a lot of people — involves moving genes from organisms that are totally unrelated.

One example frequently used by critics involves taking from an Arctic fish a gene that protects against freezing, and placing it into a strawberry plant. The result would be strawberries that are less likely to suffer from frost, and that could thus bring in more income for the grower.

It is this sort of manipulation — putting a fish gene in a strawberry or making an apple square so it'll be easier to package and ship — that bothers some people. They feel that it is wrong to tinker with life in that way, whether the object of the tinkering is a wheat plant or a sheep. There are other objections to what is called “genetic engineering” or “genetic modification,” or simply “GM” of living organisms. Some of them are:

The new technologies are being used to convert ordinary, everyday food crops — foods that have always been thought of as the property of everyone — into organisms that must be purchased and repurchased from giant seed and chemical companies. This has already happened with maize and rice and many other crops. If a farmer wants to enjoy the benefits of the genetically modified plant (greater yield, perhaps, or resistance to pests), she must buy the seed each year from the company that “created” it. Until now, farmers have saved their own seed from year to year for regenerating their crops. This has been particularly true of farmers in the poorer parts of the world.

The chemical-seed companies respond that genetically modified crops will actually help feed parts of the world that constantly face the threat of starvation. One of the most aggressive of these companies, Monsanto, has claimed: “Genetics Can Feed the Starving Millions.” There is little evidence yet, however, that this is the case.

Often, genetic engineering means inserting genes into plants that enable them to resist pesticides and herbicides that otherwise would kill them. The idea is that when weeds try to take over a field of genetically modified plants, the farmer can spray herbicide that will knock down the weeds but leave the engineered plants unharmed. The pesticides are sold by the same companies that sell the seeds, and the two must be used together.

Genetically engineered crops encourage large-scale farming, which is bad for biodiversity. There is also a chance that genes from engineered crops will invade other, nearby fields. There is a real fear that resistance built into the engineered plants will find its way into non-crops, creating superweeds.

Little is known so far about the eventual effects on people of genetically engineered foods. It is possible, say critics, that a food containing foreign genes can kick off allergic reactions in unwitting consumers. In one famous example, scientists transferred a gene from a Brazil nut to soybeans. Tests showed that people who were allergic to Brazil nuts were affected by the soybeans.

The biotechnology industry doesn't even want its consumers to know what they're eating. The industry has fought hard against proposals that their products be clearly labelled as being genetically engineered. Manufacturers worry that such labelling will cause needless fear and keep consumers away from their products. Others say that people have a right to know what they’re eating, especially if the food is not a product of natural agriculture, and they wonder what the manufacturers are so obsessed with hiding.

When some citizens proposed what they called a truth-in-labelling law in the U.S. state of Oregon, the big manufacturers mounted a $4.6 million campaign against them. The industry won. A consumer might wonder why the manufacturers felt it was so important to keep consumers in the dark about what was in their products.

A losing battle?
Despite vigorous campaigns to force regulation of genetically modified foods, opponents seem to be fighting a losing battle. This is particularly the case in the United States, where not only the industry, but also many university scientists who receive industry research grants and the federal government, have opposed attempts to label, test, or regulate such foods.

In January 2003, a report from the biotechnology industry estimated that 6 million farmers in 16 countries around the world had planted GM foods on 145 million acres of land. The chances are increasing that you cannot get through a day without eating some genetically modified food — without even knowing it.

Conclusion of Agriculture section: Are we reaching a plateau in food production?

Next: A plateau in food? — Agriculture home page — Glossary — Site map
Back to AboutBiodiversity home