faq
Frequently Asked Questions about Biotechnology
- Is biotechnology necessary for the world to feed itself?
- Isn't biotechnology just a minor extension of traditional breeding technologies?
- Is biotechnology more dangerous than other gene transfer technologies?
- Are the currently available genetically engineered crops a major environmental step forward for US agriculture?
- What is UCS's stance on biotechnology and genetic engineering?
1. Is biotechnology necessary for the world to feed itself? No. Today there is abundant food, yet an eighth of the world's population is chronically undernourished. In the next 20 years, the global population is likely to double. To keep even, the food supply would also have to double, but to feed people adequately it would have to come closer to tripling. This will not be easy: the limits of arable land and productivity are approaching and, at the same time, current agricultural practices are destroying the soil's fertility. Some believe biotechnology will enable this larger population to feed itself. But biotechnology--especially when taken to mean genetically engineered crops--is not essential to the meeting the challenge. It could play a minor part in developing new agricultural products, but other factors--including traditional breeding technologies and infrastructure improvements--will be much more important. Thus it is important not to pour all resources into developing genetic engineering while neglecting other necessary actions and technology that will do more to address this problem.
2. Isn't biotechnology just a minor extension of traditional breeding technologies? No. Some biotechnologies, for example marker-assisted breeding, in which breeders take advantage of information about what variety of a species carries which genes, might be considered an extension of traditional breeding technology. But other biotechnologies, such as genetic engineering, would not. Genetic engineering is a radically new technology for altering the traits of living organisms by adding genetic material that has been manipulated outside of cells. No version of traditional plant breeding can add genes from oak trees to wheat, much less genes from horses. Only genetic engineering can accomplish such transfers because only genetic engineering transfers genes by artificial means that disregard natural boundaries. The artificial nature of the technology also allows scientists to rearrange and modify genetic material before transfer and may one day encompass the addition of novel genes that have been wholly synthesized in the laboratory.
3. Is biotechnology more dangerous than other gene transfer technologies? Not necessarily. So far, we know of no generic harms associated with genetically engineered organisms. For example, it is not true that all genetically engineered foods are toxic or that all released engineered organisms are likely to proliferate in the environment. But specific engineered organisms may be harmful by virtue of the novel combinations of traits they possess. This means the risks of genetically engineered organisms can differ greatly, depending on the particular gene-organism combination, and must therefore be assessed case by case. In general, of the risks currently associated with genetically engineered organisms, some appear to be unique to such organisms (for example, added allergens in foods) and some overlap those posed by non-engineered organisms (for example, creation of new weeds). Because genetic engineering is a radically new technology, unknown risks may be possible. Lists of potential risks can be generated simply by trying to imagine what could go wrong. It is hard to believe that any current list is complete.
4. Are the currently available genetically engineered crops a major environmental step forward for US agriculture? No. Genetically engineered crops are currently planted on something like 12 to 15 million acres of US crop land. The most widely planted engineered crops have been developed for two purposes: insect tolerance and herbicide tolerance. Although industry has touted both kinds of crops as having major environmental benefits, a hard look at the products reveals that such benefits are minor at best and likely to be short lived. At bottom, these genetically engineered crops have not put us on a fundamentally different pathway in agriculture and have produced only minor reductions and substitutions in pesticide use in an agriculture that continues to be pesticide-dependent.
5. What is UCS's stance on biotechnology and genetic engineering? The Union of Concerned Scientists does not support or oppose genetic engineering per se. With respect to some applications, such as the production of pharmaceuticals by genetically engineered bacteria, the benefits are clear and compelling. In the food system, however, we find the risk-benefit calculus more difficult. For example, while it is possible that the planting of genetically engineered crops might reduce some pesticide use over the short term, it is also possible that a new breed of super-resistant weeds will develop, compounding the already difficult task of controlling invasive species. Because the technology is new, data from field research are scarce. Thus, there is little certainty about either the risks or the benefits from many of the agricultural biotechnology products now entering the marketplace. (For a comprehensive assessment of the current state of research, see “The Ecological Risks and Benefits of Genetically Engineered Plants,” Science, 15 December 2000.) And yet, the technology is being commercialized at a rapid pace and on a large scale. We believe that the federal government must strengthen the regulatory system governing genetically engineered microorganisms, plants, and animals, so that the risks and benefits can be evaluated carefully, case by case, before they come to market. That is the fundamental goal of our program on Food and the Environment, and we are working hard to achieve it. We also believe that we need better opportunities for civil society to debate the appropriateness of agricultural biotechnology and direct its course. Regulatory programs provide one such opportunity; food labeling represents another. Not only do consumers have the right to know what they are eating, but with labeling they can use purchasing decisions to influence the extent to which producers rely on the technology. Until much more is known about the risks and benefits, this is clearly a prudent course. Furthermore, we believe in asking whether genetic engineering will enhance or detract from a broader effort that is needed to reduce the harm to our environment caused by modern agriculture. In particular, we believe practices that move agriculture toward greater biological diversity, fewer chemical inputs, and better designed agroecosystems deserve greater attention and more research support. |
