A new advisory panel will help USDA tackle the thorny issues raised by agriculturalbiotechnologyAuthor(s): Beth BakerSource: BioScience, Vol. 49, No. 6 (June 1999), p. 438Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Institute of Biological SciencesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/bisi.1999.49.6.438 .

Accessed: 16/05/2014 00:25

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Oxford University Press and American Institute of Biological Sciences are collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to BioScience.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.105.154.146 on Fri, 16 May 2014 00:25:25 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Washington Watch

A new advisory panel will help USDA tackle the

thorny issues raised by agricultural biotechnology

As the revolution in agricul- tural biotechnology rushes ahead, the US Department of

Agriculture (USDA) is trying to get a handle on what the new technology means for small farmers and con- sumers. In March, USDA Secretary Dan Glickman announced the for- mation of a panel to advise him on issues related to the creation, appli- cation, trade, and use of agricultural biotechnology.

"Agricultural biotechnology pre- sents complex questions and issues that need to be discussed in an active, public dialogue," Glickman said at a March 1999 biotech forum. The new 25-member advisory panel will in- clude "everyone who has a stake in the future of biotech," including re- search and social scientists, farmers, and consumers.

Biotechnology holds tremendous promise for developing improved crops. Farmers can now plant soy- beans that are resistant to specific herbicides, cotton that repels cater- pillars, and corn that resists pests such as the borer. Because of such advances, says Roger Pine, president of the National Corngrowers Asso- ciation, farmers are embracing biotech. "Biotech will help scientists to control important traits such as nutritional value, stress tolerance, and resistance to pests, and...to do this without harming the environ- ment," says Pine, who operates a family farm in Lawrence, Kansas.

The promise of biotech extends far beyond food and fiber production. According to the National Agricul- tural Biotechnology Council (NABC), a consortium of 25 academic institu- tions based in Ithaca, New York, the twenty-first century economy will shift from one that is dependent on fossil fuels to one that is "biobased." Thanks to biotech, farmers will not

only be producing the traditional food, fiber, and feed, but also energy sources, pharmaceuticals and vac- cines, chemicals, and new materials. The result, says NABC president Ralph Hardy, will be a more environmen- tally friendly, sustainable economy.

But troubling issues abound. A major concern is fairness-are the benefits from ag biotech going to the public or to a handful of corpora- tions? The seed industry is rapidly consolidating, with much of the market controlled by giants such as Monsanto, Dow, and Dupont. "Bio- tech promised the moon, but it deliv- ered monopoly," says Margaret Mellon, director of agriculture and biotechnology programs at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washing- ton, DC. "Biotech accelerates the consolidation of control of the food system into the hands of a few, ver- tically-integrated multinational cor- porations."

For example, farmers often must sign contracts that restrict which seeds they can use and that prohibit saving seed to replant the following season. Farmers have already been sued for allegedly violating these contracts. Industry officials main- tain that this course of action is the only way they can recoup their huge investment in research. But many farmers around the world, especially those with marginal livelihoods, ob- ject to these practices.

Glickman suggests that USDA might have to play a role in ensuring fair treatment for farmers. While acknowledging "the legitimate pro- prietary interest of the company that pumped millions of dollars into the research that developed that seed," he said, "I think we're all a little concerned when we read about agribusinesses filing law suits against small farmers."

The new advisory panel, whose members will be appointed later this

year, will tackle this and other thorny problems, including: * Pest resistance. Concerns are mounting that the widespread growth of plants expressing Bt toxin, an in- secticidal protein that allows farm- ers to grow crops without pesticides, will lead to the development of Bt- resistant pests. Researchers are work- ing on strategies to prevent the evo- lution of resistance, but in the meantime, Pine says, "Farmers get different recommendations from dif- ferent companies. We're trying to bring everybody together, so the farmer understands his responsibil- ity and receives training." * Gene escapes. Another concern is that genes from engineered plants will "escape" into wild relatives. In the case of herbicide resistance genes, the result could be "super weeds." And, with the so-called Terminator gene, developed with the aid of USDA researchers and now owned by Monsanto, there are fears that the gene, which causes plant sterility and thus prevents farmers from saving seed for the next season, could wreak havoc if it spread to other plants. * The role of publicly funded re- search. Mellon and other critics charge that USDA's research agenda is insufficiently focused on the pub- lic interest. Mellon suggests that USDA focus greater attention on ar- eas that industry is unlikely to pur- sue, such as preserving genetic diver- sity, improving soil quality, and rotation of crops.

Ultimately, Hardy says, one of the best roles the new advisory panel might play is to build trust among all the players. "There needs to be the building of trust in society about biotechnology," Hardy says. "In my mind, that's the key." L0

Beth Baker is a freelance science writer based in Takoma Park, Maryland. by Beth Baker

438 BioScience Vol. 49 No. 6

University of California Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve, and extend access to

BioSciencewww.jstor.org

®

This content downloaded from 193.105.154.146 on Fri, 16 May 2014 00:25:25 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions