August 22, 1999
WHAT’S NEW DOWN ON THE FARM?
Ever since high-tech agribusiness started tinkering with the DNA of crops, genetically modified foods have been a battleground for environmentalists (who have called them ”frankenfoods”). Americans can buy genetically modified corn, potatoes and papayas, though in Europe, groups like Greenpeace have blocked the importation of some altered produce. But with the latest innovations, producers are betting they can beat the greens at their own game, casting their test-tube advances as the environment’s last, best hope.
TO MAKE PRETTIER PRODUCE?
Like all genetic modifications, these crops are created by either fiddling with a plant’s own genetic material or splicing genes from one into the cells of another. But these latest modifications aren’t just designed to benefit consumers and retailers. According to the claims being made by companies like Monsanto and Novartis, they are actually kinder to the earth than the earth’s own products.
AND WHAT WONDERS HAS THIS YIELDED?
A widely used application is Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), a bacterial insecticide. Scientists plug it into the genes of corn, potatoes and cotton, after which the plants produce it themselves. By altering the genetic composition of aspens, scientists have also developed wood that can be made into paper with fewer harsh chemicals. And Monsanto has developed plants that are resistant to pesticide, allowing farmers to spray it and harm only weeds — so long as they use the pesticide in question, which happens to be Monsanto’s flagship product. ”We obviously see that this is a technology that presents the opportunity to use less pesticides, to farm in a more sustainable way,” says a Monsanto official.
SO WHAT HAS GOT THE GREENS SEEING RED?
For starters, they fear that any kind of genetic manipulation could disrupt the fragile ecosystem in horrible ways. So far in nature, no engineered genes have migrated from cultivated crops to wild plants, but even Vincent Chiang, a professor at Michigan Tech University who developed a genetically modified tree, allows that ”it’s possible.” Second, many scientists are concerned that such widespread use of Bt will cause insects to develop an immunity. Finally, environmentalists are alarmed that a multinational company like Monsanto has the temerity to suggest it is saving the earth. That’s their job.
SOUNDS RATHER CONFUSING?
When environmentalists condemn research that at least claims to reduce pollution and conserve energy, it can get awfully hard to tell who’s on what team. Last month, Gerber baby food — which is owned by Novartis, a leader in high-tech agriculture — announced that it would stop using genetically modified ingredients. And recently, Robert Shapiro, the C.E.O. of Monsanto (which brought us Agent Orange), gave an impassioned pro-ecology speech: ”If the only model for development is the recapitulation of the Industrial Revolution, with all its horrific waste and pollution, there simply is no way that development can occur without doing permanent, irreversible damage to the systems on which life depends.” In thanks, environmentalists threw a tofu cream pie in his face.
© 1999 The New York Times
