Watch this location for opinions and commentary
by foreign aid experts and opinion-makers

BIOTECHNOLOGY: THE KEY TO FEEDING THE WORLD'S HUNGRY
By Martina Newell-McGloughlin Director, University of California Biotechnology Program

Biotechnology has received a great deal of attention from environmental and consumer groups around the world. Most scientists working in the field are in total agreement with the stated mission of these groups: feeding and clothing the world's people while minimizing the impact of agriculture on the environment.

But the human population continues to grow while arable land is a finite quantity. So, unless we will accept lower quality of living or placing parks and the Amazon Basin under the plow, there really is no alternative to applying biotechnology to agriculture. As noted by Dr. Norman Borlaug, Nobel Laureate and Father of the Green Revolution, "Biotechnology is a new revolution providing feed, food and industrial products to support a global population increasing at the rate of 100 million per year."

Biotechnology should be looked upon not only as a solution to problems but also as a mechanism to improve the quality of life and the quality of the environment. For example, by reducing dependency on chemicals and tillage through the development of natural fertilizers and of pest-resistant plants, biotechnology has the potential to conserve natural resources, prevent soil erosion and improve environmental quality. Strains of microorganisms could increase the efficiency, capacity and variety of waste treatment.

Bioprocessing using engineered microbes offers new ways to use renewable resources for the production of materials and fuel, and also reduces our dependence on fossil fuels. Biotechnology is, in fact, the low-risk alternative to current practices. The vast majority of scientists who are truly familiar with how crops have been developed through the years, and the processes through which those foods have been evaluated, are amazed by the response of those that seemingly do not want the technology to be adopted. Some of these groups are established to promote protection of the environment, but are opposed to genetically modified crops that require less chemical insecticide, or reduce tillage and soil erosion.

Other groups are truly concerned about the safety of the foods produced by new techniques that they do not understand, but have full confidence in foods produced by classical methods that they also do not understand. By reducing dependency on chemicals and tillage, biotechnology has the potential to conserve natural resources, prevent soil erosion and improve environmental quality. Nearly 40 percent of the world's food crop is lost every year to pests, diseases and spoilage that biotech could help prevent.

The most cost-effective and environmentally sound general method for controlling pests and disease is the use of that totally organic substance -- DNA. This approach already has led to a reduction in the use of sprayed chemical insecticides. The Research Service of the USDA reporting on same-year differences between average pesticide use of adopters and nonadopters of the Bt technologies revealed that adopters of modified corn, soybeans, and cotton combined used 17 million fewer acre-treatments than non-adopters in 1998. An additional advantage is that through Bt protection, mycotoxin contamination was down by 92%.

These deadly toxins produced by fungi have been found, among other things, to cause brain tumors in horses and liver cancer in children. The U.S. National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy study found Roundup Ready soybeans offered several advantages to farmers, including easier weed management, less injury to crops, no restrictions on crop rotations, increase in no till and cheaper costs. U.S. farmers using Roundup Ready soybeans saved an estimated $220 million in 1998 due to lower herbicide costs. The broad spectrum of weeds controlled by glyphosate means that soybean growers no longer need to make as many multiple applications with combinations of herbicides.

There is no evidence that recombinant DNA techniques or rDNA-modified organisms pose any unique or unforeseen environmental or health hazards. In fact, a National Research Council study found that "as the molecular methods are more specific, users of these methods will be more certain about the traits they introduce into plants." Greater certainty means greater precision and safety. The subtly altered products on our plates have been put through more thorough testing than any conventional food ever has been subjected to. Many scientists who worked in the past on crop improvement using much less precise methods of cross breeding, or mutation-induced breeding, or wide species crosses did not undergo the same type of scrutiny or inquiry.

Ironically, many of our daily staples would be banned if subjected to today's rigorous standards. Nevertheless, scientists working on GMOs have used strict scientific principles and thorough analyses to confirm that the genes and techniques used are safe for the consumer and for the environment. Recent research papers have proven that both concern about the impact of Bt protein on monarch butterflies and its potential allergenicity are unfounded. In fact, researchers found that larvae fared better inside Bt corn fields than in wild areas or sprayed fields.

The most that we can ask is that all foods produced by whatever method receive the same level of evaluation both with regard to impact on the environment, and safety to the consumer. Millions of people have already eaten the products of genetic engineering and no adverse effects have been demonstrated. Scientists are confident in the scientific validity of the systems that regulate and oversee the American food supply.

They are equally confident that if we abandon the scientific process in judging the safety of the food supply, we will slow or destroy the advances that will reduce the use of unsafe chemicals and agricultural practices in this country, and we will limit the wonderful potential of improved nutrition and quality that promise to strengthen the agriculture economies in the U.S.A. and around the world.

Biography Martina Newell-McGloughlin, an internationally recognized authority on biotechnology and its social implications, directs the University of California's Systemwide Biotechnology Research and Education Program, Professor Newell-McGloughlin has published two books on biotechnology, edited two and has a third in progress.    For the past 10 years, she has worked with UC Davis Biotechnology Program and has been largely responsible for the program's development and its success. She previously worked for the government and in the public and private sector. Newell-McGloughlin was recently featured in the PBS program "Harvest of Fear", in a wide-ranging interview on the history of plant crossbreeding, fear of genetically modified foods in Europe, US food safety , and how much of human genes are already shared with plants. Newell-McGloughlin earned her Doctor of Science (DSc) degree from the National University of Ireland. Recently, the UC Davis Academic Federation selected Professor Newell-McGloughlin to receive its 2001 James H. Meyer Distinguished Achievement Award.