A genie called gene

Kuljit Bains takes a look at genetic engineering,
which has scientists, big business men and
environmentalists at loggerheads.

THE Green Revolution is now passe. Gene revolution is in. While the earlier revolution had mild critics, in the gene revolution the greens are seeing a terrible shade of red.

The population boom since the 1970s till date, and its consequent hunger for more food, was met more or less successfully by the Green Revolution that relied heavily on synthetic fertilisers and other resources. But it has now been exploited as far as it could be. Mother earth’s limited resources are not likely to expand significantly unless we resort to techniques that lead to irreversible damage. The need is to produce more for the rising population from the existing resource base (6 million square miles of productive land worldwide) itself. According to an estimate, this base will have to give us 60-100 per cent more in the next 30 years.

Where to get this. Well, the new brigade of microbiologists working for multinational corporations (mostly US) claim to have the solution — genetic engineering. The promise is wonder foods that sound almost like designer goods from factories. Tomatoes that don’t go soft, cotton plants that knock off pests, herbicide-resistant crops that can be sprayed with wide-spectrum herbicides without harm — these are a few products that have already been delivered. In the coming could be drought-resistant crops, foods with enhanced nutritional, caloric and sensory profiles, and more. A solution is offered for virtually every problem of the farmer, and the consumer.

Achieving all this is not easy. The very basic code of life — the genes — has to be altered. When doing this, one is playing with a living system and the consequences, at best, are not known.

Researchers developed the first commercial application of this process when, in 1982, they produced human insulin for the treatment of diabetes. They isolated the gene that produces human insulin and transferred it to bacteria. The bacteria produce the protein insulin as they live and grow. The insulin is then purified for the treatment of diabetes.

That was only the beginning. The real applications came in field of agriculture; from which has also come a raging debate.

"Terminator" seeds

Unfortunately, the debate started in India only when the word "terminator" was mentioned. The word was used not for the hunk Schwarzenegger, but seeds, ones that could kill their own fertility the moment they reached maturity. You could use them for food but not put away for resowing — the practice much in use in India and the rest of the world, particularly the Third World. For the next crop the farmer would have to go back to the producer for a fresh lot of seeds, thus leading to subjugation to the producer.

"Terminator seeds" came to be the centre of all debate on microbiology — that is the unfortunate part. The developments that preceded the "terminator" are the ones that could have mind-boggling implications, but have been entirely ignored in India and also to a large extent in the USA, the country of their origin. Only Europe, specifically the UK, has raised the issue, apart from, of course, the environmental organisations, which have launched major campaigns against genetic engineering.

"Terminator" technology is being developed only for financial gains to pay for the other advances in biotechnology. Thus, the arguments around the "terminator" can only be economic, whereas the rest of the developments in biotechnology could lead to either doom or a solution for all food problems for the generations to come. This is what the debate needs to focus on in an objective manner, for there are too many extremist and vested interests going around twisting public opinion.

Good and bad

Lets first take up a few specific creations of the revolutionary science. Monsanto, a US company that is one of the pioneers in the field and is in the eye of the storm, has produced most of the currently available new seeds.

There is a cotton variety it has produced that has built-in protection from insects, including the bollworm and budworm. These insects have been a scourge in India, too, leading to many a tragic story among the poor farmers of Andhra Pradesh as well as in the cotton belt of Punjab. Traditionally, a protein produced by common soil bacteria is used against these pests. This family of proteins, or "Bt," has been used successfully for decades and is harmless to animals and non-target insects. Up until now, however, it had to be applied over the top of plants, where it is subject to degradation by light and water. As a result, multiple applications could be necessary.

Now, through biotechnology, plants can have the Bt defence system within them, producing this protein at very low levels to protect them from specific insects. As a result, the need for insecticide sprays to control target insects is reduced and, in many cases, eliminated. In addition, beneficial insects, which could be harmed by broad-spectrum insecticides, are spared.

Resistance to insects, less application of insecticides, environment-friendly — all this sounds great. But there is the flip side that the detractors would like to bring your notice to. What if the insects develop a resistance to the "Bt" protein and we are landed with a new and sturdier variety of pests. Questions have also been raised about the use of this protein in a potato variety over fears that it may harm humans too. But the company defends this, saying the foods are passed by strict government agencies after thorough tests.

Another revolutionary development is crops on which you can use a wide-spectrum herbicide (glyphosate) without any harm. While this herbicide would kill most of the weeds, the crop would come out unharmed. As a result, farmers do not need to use different types of herbicides for various weeds. The benefit would be simplified weed management. Even the tilling required would be less as it is done to a great extent to remove weeds, a job which could now be done more efficiently with a single herbicide.

Again, this seems good. But there is a particularly strong reaction against this smooth-sounding method. The immediate hazard from herbicide resistant crops is the spread of transgenes (transferred genes) to wild relatives by cross-hybridisation, giving the herbicide-resistant traits of the crop to weeds and, thus, creating super-weeds.

Also, herbicide-resistant crops make it possible to apply powerful herbicides directly onto crops, killing many species of other plants. The use of this non-discriminating herbicide threatens to lead to large-scale elimination of indigenous species and cultivated varieties of plants and affect the animals that eat them, damaging biodiversity. Herbicide-resistant crops can also act as weeds when they germinate from fallen seeds when there is a different crop in the field, so that other herbicides will have to be applied in order to eliminate them, with yet further impact on indigenous biodiversity.

Another charge against these monolithic companies is that they could produce plants resistant to herbicides produced by them alone, making a kill on both the seed as well as the herbicide sales and get a stranglehold on the farmer.

The perception that they are powerful arises from their ability to control a wider range of weeds. The herbicides currently being developed are biodegradable and do not persist in the soil. Furthermore, in those countries that have adopted these new crops, farmers and growers are reporting a reduction in the amount of pesticide being used. This clearly has major environmental benefits.

However, the honeymoon for the industry is showing signs of tarnish after incidents of crop failure; in Mississippi (USA) cotton farmers successfully sued a company for damages when their genetically-altered crop failed in 1997.)

Biodiversity

A term that is brought up as the biggest argument against the advances of genetically modified crops. What is it? Biodiversity, simply put, is just the vast array of life forms on earth — plants, animals, insects, et al. This needs to be protected desperately, says the green brigade, and it fears genetic engineering is a sure way to destroy the rich flora and fauna present today on mother earth.

Why do we need biodiversity? Well, biological diversity and food security are intimately interlinked. Crops that have evolved in a particular place have adapted to the local environmental conditions and would be more resistant to diseases and pests than crops designed at a remote place with characteristics generalised to suit an average field. This would prevent them from unforeseen afflictions. Diversity achieved through crop rotation and mixed cropping ensures soil fertility. All this prevents major outbreaks of diseases and pests.

Balanced nutrition is also achieved through biodiversity. It is obvious that wider the range of food materials, wider would be the range of nutrient intake. A major cause of malnutrition world-wide is the substitution of the traditionally varied diets with ones based on monoculture crops.

With the advent of genetic engineering, there would be limited varieties of each crop. Thus, large areas would be sown with crops of uniform characteristics, which would make them prone to diseases and pests. Although these smart crops can be made resistant to common diseases, they surely cannot be resistant to all.

In one spell of a particular disease or pest that gets better of them an entire area could be wiped clean. This would not happen if there were different varieties in adjoining fields, acting as buffers.

Genetic modification for disease or pest resistance will not solve the problem, as intensive agriculture itself creates the conditions for new pathogens to arise. Thus, not only do new varieties have to be substituted, they require a heavy input of pesticides to keep pests at bay.

Those pushing for genetically modified crops argue farmers would be free to use the seed they want to and also do open pollination for themselves. But there is a fear these MNCs are so big and powerful they can ensure even public-sector breeders may accept their "terminator" technology under licensing agreements for their wonder crops.

Farmer economics

Biodiversity is not all that may be harmed. Farmers and there economics are the next most important factors to be considered. Developments like the "terminator," in which a seed self-destructs after its first crop, would force farmers to return to the manufacturers each season. "The ‘terminator’ seeds turn farmers into junkies," remark the doomsayers. This may seem a little too much to say, but a farmer is going to be reliant on monolithic seed producers if they are allowed to have their way, the claim of the supporters that farmers will not buy the seed that does not bring them benefits notwithstanding.

At present, top 10 companies in the field control 40 per cent of the market for seeds. Even among these, a few are up for sale, with the result the big fish become bigger. A farmer does need to go to a commercial seed producer for quality seeds, and the present large number of small seed producers, whether private or public sector, protects biodiversity. These small operators are now likely to be gobbled up, leaving little choice for the buyer. So much for market forces.

What we might end up with is huge MNCs offering limited varieties, killing the much-needed biodiversity. These crops may even be followed with take-it-or-perish solutions for the new problems that may arise from the genetically engineered crops.

What’s happening

How much God should man play? The question is big and the debate over the point can be as big. A lot of technologies have been introduced earlier that have been declared to be against nature. Medicine is one such field.

Allopathy finds serious resistance in India, but it also the most widely accepted. The reason is simple — need. Dire states need dire solutions. This is what may be the fate of genetic engineering, too — accepted for lack of choice. The pressure from hunger is just too strong and the alternatives being offered, like organic farming, are too nebulous.

There are fears — some confirmed, some not. The problems and dangers that are known and understood can be solved, for once you know the trouble, it can be hit on the head. All that is needed is time and money for further research. The trouble that can arise is from unexpected developments that might take place if the technology gets out of hand; and there is a serious likelihood of that as the material being handled is live.

What may guide the future of this new-age technology is not need alone. Money is another major factor, in fact the more immediate and pressing factor. These big companies have tonnes of money and plenty more at stake. They are tying up with major government agencies worldwide and buying off smaller companies in the business. Their clout may get to be so strong that they may even be able to influence the new regulations being formed in this regard.

It was the United States Department of Agriculture in tie-up with Delta & Pine Land Company (Mississippi, USA) that got the joint patent on the terminator technology in 1998; of course, titled benignly, "Control of plant gene expression." Here was a government department doing something apparently against the common farmer. Monsanto was quick to buy off Delta & Pine Land after that. In India, Monsanto is already in research tie-up with the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore. More such government acceptance of new ideas, although gradual, can be expected as these big MNCs have what the cash-strapped public-sector institutes desperately need — money.

In the USA, the links between this industry and the government have been carefully cultivated.

Its obvious the pressure is strong and so is the real need for this panacea for the food problem. By all realistic assessment, it can be expected to become common quite soon.

What to do

Under the circumstances, the solution would probably be to make the best of what we have. Genetic engineering undoubtedly has loads of benefits along with all its negative points. Putting it simply, we have to make use of the good points while making sure the possible harms are kept at bay or, at least, solutions to them are also found.

How to achieve this?

Currently, a few private (though big) companies are doing most of the research. The small number will mean fewer varieties of whatever they produce. That, in turn, means less biodiversity, the most important thing at stake. This could probably be solved if government agencies took up research in genetic engineering, using public money. No doubt, this is extremely expensive, but there is little choice. With this vested interests can be avoided. Technologies could be evolved for the good of the farmer and not business. Things may be paid for without the "terminator."

The fear of the unknown is also there and it is only to be expected, afterall, it is a new untested science. At present, a lot is not known. For every criticism, the proponents have strong and apparently logical counter-arguments.

What does a common man make of it then? Nothing. The whole thing is a little beyond the common consumer or farmer to comprehend, for their knowledge to base the decisions on is practically nil. Given that, it becomes imperative on all governments to ensure that only reliable and safe products are allowed under the new rules being formed in this regard world over.

The problem is even government agencies are not sure of what is good and what is bad. The UK has a simple solution to this. It has imposed a moratorium on permitting genetically engineered seeds into the country, and sensibly so. When we do not know enough, the best solution is to not take a decision and wait for the science to mature — its not even 20 years since its conception.

India could probably take the same path as the UK — stop, look, and then go.