C O M M E N TA R Y

The debate on the virtues and perils ofbiotechnology in the production of trans-

genic crops that started in 1983 has intensi-fied and become quite contentious with thecommercialization of transgenic foods inrecent years. It has become political and emo-tional to the extent that it is now delayingand/or preventing the worldwide adoption ofthis important technology in addressing criti-cal and urgent problems of food security andthe environment. The following is my per-spective on the science and politics of plantbiotechnology.

Having considered all of the technologiesknown to us today, and the various argumentsof the anti-biotechnology lobby, I remainmore convinced than ever that plant biotech-nology is still the best hope not only for meet-ing the food needs of the ever-growinghuman population, but also for conservingour precious but dwindling land and waterresources and preventing or even reversingenvironmental degradation. Food productionwill have to be tripled to meet the demand forfood of the nearly 12 billion expected inhabi-tants of the Earth in 20501,2, including thehundreds of millions of people in China andIndia whose dietary requirements are chang-ing as a result of their improved buyingpower. The international agricultural com-munity faces this challenge at a time whenpopulation is growing faster than increases infood productivity, when the quality andquantity of fresh water supplies are declin-ing3, when there is less land per capita avail-able for food production, when more than42% of crop productivity is lost owing to var-ious biotic/abiotic factors4, and when thewidespread use of agro-chemicals is causingsignificant soil and water pollution (Table 1).The increasing demand for food, therefore,will have to be met primarily by increasing

productivity on land already under cultiva-tion, with less water and under worseningenvironmental conditions.

The sciencePlant biotechnology came of age with thefirst-ever large scale commercial planting oftransgenic crops in 1996. This milestone wasachieved after years of intensive work devotedto the development of efficient and reliablesystems for the regeneration of normal fertileplants from cultured cells, and of methods forthe introduction and stable integration ofalien genes into cultured plant cells. The firstgeneration of transgenic crops now beinggrown has been engineered for resistance toherbicides (soybeans, canola), insects (cotton,maize) and viruses (papaya and squash)1. Byeliminating, or significantly reducing, thelosses caused by weeds, pests and pathogens,transgenic crops increase productivity andthus help to conserve land, water, energy andother resources that would be needed other-wise to produce the same amount of foodwith nontransgenic plants. The worldwideacreage devoted to these crops has grownsteadily from only about 5 million acres in1996 to nearly 200 million acres in 2003. Thistrend is likely to continue with increasedplanting of transgenic crops in China, Indiaand several other countries. In the UnitedStates, 80% of soybeans, 70% of cotton and38% of maize planted in 2003 were trans-genic. The total market for transgenic seednow exceeds $3 billion.

Plant biotechnology is thus no longer anabstract science with only promise andpotential, but rather a powerful agriculturaltechnology that is beginning to increase pro-

ductivity by reducing or eliminating lossescaused by weeds, pests and pathogens. It isalso having a positive impact on humanhealth and the environment by reducing theuse of agro-chemicals—nearly 5,000 peopledie each year because of pesticide poisoning,a number that is already being significantlyreduced in China, South Africa and othercountries with the introduction of insect-resistant cotton and accompanying decreasein pesticide use—and by contributing to theconservation of biodiversity, arable land,water and energy sources.

A wide variety of useful genes have beenintroduced into many food and fiber cropsin the past few years in order to improvetheir overall quality and/or nutritional valueand resistance to a variety of biotic and abi-otic stresses1,5,6 (Table 2). More than 50 suchcrops have been approved for commercialplantings, and at least 100 more are under-going field trials and/or regulatory review.This second generation of transgenic plantsis expected to be released for commercialproduction and human use during the nextten years.

Biopharming (molecular pharming) is oneof the most promising emerging areas ofresearch and development that uses trans-genic plants for the production of vaccines,human therapeutic and prophylactic pro-teins and pharmaceuticals1. These includedrugs for the treatment of cystic fibrosis,hepatitis B, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, diar-rhea, cholera, diabetes and other diseases.Most of these drugs and vaccines are cur-rently being produced in maize and tobacco,and some in potato, tomato and banana.Biopharming is very attractive to the phar-

NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY VOLUME 21 NUMBER 8 AUGUST 2003 849

The science and politics of plantbiotechnology—a personal perspectiveIndra K Vasil

Indra K. Vasil is at the University of Florida,Box 110690, Gainesville, Florida 32611-0690,USA. This commentary is adapted from hispresidential address to the 10th Congress of theInternational Association for Plant TissueCulture & Biotechnology (IAPTC&B), held June 23–28, 2002.e-mail: ikv@mail.ifas.ufl.edu

Table 1 Increasing population and declining resources

• Population is growing faster than increases in food productivity

• Food production per capita, based on cereal grains, has been declining for nearly two decades

• Per capita arable land will decline from 0.26 hectare in 1997 to 0.15 in 2050

• Water covers 70% of the Earth’s surface, yet fresh water comprises only 2.5% of Earth’s water.Most of it lies frozen in polar ice caps and glaciers. Less than 1% of total water is available forhuman use, including agriculture, which accounts for more than 70% of human use of water

• It is estimated that over the next two decades the average supply of water per person will drop bya third, and as many as 7 billion people in 60 countries may face water scarcity by 2050

©20

03 N

atu

re P

ub

lish

ing

Gro

up

h

ttp

://w

ww

.nat

ure

.co

m/n

atu

reb

iote

chn

olo

gy

C O M M E N TA R Y

maceutical industry as it significantly reducesthe cost and time for the production ofdrugs. A large number of drugs produced intransgenic plants are now in various states offield and human clinical trials.

Rapid progress has been made during thepast decade in the sequencing of plantgenomes, and in understanding the structure,function and regulation of genes. These stud-ies are contributing greatly to our under-standing of the molecular basis of the growthand development of plants. This is particu-larly important because most of our majorcrops have reached the physiological limits ofproductivity. It is no longer possible to signif-icantly increase the yield in these cropsby conventional breeding methods. Theintroduction and manipulation of genesinvolved in tillering, flowering, size andnumber of seeds, nutrient assimilationand photosynthetic efficiency, by genetictransformation have been shown toresult in a significant increase inyield7–12. The third generation of trans-genic plants that will be better adapted toa variety of biotic and abiotic stresses,that will provide increased yields andmore nutritious and healthful food, andthat will produce a variety of drugs andpharmaceuticals for the treatment ofhuman and animal diseases is expectedto be available for human use after 2015(ref. 1; Box 1).

Ongoing research shows clearly that manynovel transgenic crops and products for avariety of uses—including food, humanhealth, and environment—will be availablein the future (Tables 1–3). Clearly, the impactof plant biotechnology on human health andthe environment is just beginning; the best isyet to come.

The science behind transgenic plants issound, precise and predictable. Once a gene ofinterest has been identified, it is isolated andsequenced. Its function and the protein codedby it are determined. It is then introducedinto a crop variety that has been found to besuitable for genetic transformation andregeneration. Scores of independently trans-formed lines are rigorously tested and evalu-ated in the laboratory, greenhouse and in thefield for several generations for genetic uni-formity and agronomic performance.Selected lines are then backcrossed into elitebreeding stock for variety development andundergo further exhaustive testing for yieldand overall performance, environmental/eco-logical effects, nutritional value, allergenicityand other qualities. Only then, after regula-tory approval, are they released for commer-cial production. This level of testing is far in

excess of the testing to which similar plantvarieties developed by breeding and selectionare ever subjected.

I do not subscribe to the view that plantbiotechnology is a magic bullet that will solvethe problems of food security and the envi-ronment. New varieties will continue to bedeveloped by traditional breeding and selec-tion. Biotechnology’s contribution will be toimprove these varieties further by the intro-duction of characteristics, such as those listedin Tables 2 and 3, that cannot be manipulatedor transferred with conventional methods.Molecular and traditional breeding shouldcomplement and supplement each other.

The politicsTransgenic crops/products are among themost exhaustively tested, characterized andregulated plants in history. There have beentens of thousands of field trials of transgeniccrops in the past two decades. Since 1996,transgenic crops have been grown on morethan 400 million acres, and have providedfood for hundreds of millions of humans inmany countries. Yet, there is not a single doc-umented instance of ‘damage’ to the environ-ment (despite some instances of outcrossing)or of ill effects on human or animalhealth13–16. Based on these facts, and onextensive published scientific evidence, it isthe consensus of the international scientificcommunity, the regulatory authorities inmany countries, several of the most respectedand well-known national scientific academiesand medical societies, various organs of theUnited Nations, and others that transgeniccrops and their products are at least as safe forhumans and the environment as crops devel-oped by conventional methods.

In spite of the overwhelming scientific evi-dence of the safety of transgenic crops/prod-ucts, and the urgency of adopting thistechnology to meet future needs, anti-biotechnology activists continue to call for a

moratorium or outright ban on the plantingand/or use of transgenic crops. Their rhetoricis alarming and frightening to the public butlacks substance. These groups continue toinsist that transgenic crops are unsafe withoutoffering any credible scientific evidence tosupport their allegations. The consumer, thefarmer and the biotechnology industry haveall been ill served, indeed held hostage, by thesustained campaign of misinformation andunsubstantiated claims of dangers to publichealth and the environment. The anti-biotechnology movement is clearly based onpolitical and ideological opposition tobiotechnology and globalization, rather than

any real scientific concerns. The five-yearmoratorium on transgenic crops by theEuropean Union and some other west-ern European countries is a protectionistmaneuver and an appeasement of cer-tain political parties. In my view,obstructing or otherwise impeding theintroduction of transgenic crops, partic-ularly in the most populous and leastdeveloped countries, which not onlyneed but stand to benefit most from thistechnology, is morally and socially irre-sponsible and indefensible, and a dis-service to the peoples of those countries.

The biotechnology community—aca-demia and industry alike—must share atleast some of the blame for the hostility

of the anti-biotechnology groups and the dif-ficulties being faced in the commercializationof transgenic crops. In the early days of thebiotechnology revolution (the 1970s), butparticularly after the production of the firsttransgenic crops in 1983, we deliberately dis-tanced ourselves from plant breeding andgenetics and presented plant biotechnologyand transgenic plants as something entirelynew. Indeed, it was claimed by some that thistechnology would replace traditional plantbreeding. This gave the necessary ammuni-tion to the anti-biotechnology lobby todescribe transgenic plants as unnatural anddangerous, and also alienated plant breeders.

In reality, as has now been demonstrated,transgenic technology is no different frombreeding except that it is inherently more pre-cise and predictable. Furthermore, the firsttransgenic plants that were released for masscultivation were engineered for resistance toherbicides and still are the most widely culti-vated transgenic crops. They do not offer anydirect and immediate benefit to the con-sumer. Rather, they perpetuate the myth thattransgenic technology is largely for the benefitof the agro-chemical industry. Finally, untilabout ten years ago, the biotechnology com-munity had neglected to inform and engage

850 VOLUME 21 NUMBER 8 AUGUST 2003 NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY

Table 2 Second generation of transgenic crops: 2005–2015

• Resistant to herbicides, pests and pathogens

• Tolerant to drought, salt, heavy metals and low/hightemperatures

• Improved nutritional quality (proteins, oils, vitamins,minerals)

• Improved shelf life of fruits and vegetables

• Improved flavors and fragrances

• Elimination of allergens

• Production of vaccines, human therapeutic proteins,pharmaceuticals

• Phytoremediation

©20

03 N

atu

re P

ub

lish

ing

Gro

up

h

ttp

://w

ww

.nat

ure

.co

m/n

atu

reb

iote

chn

olo

gy

C O M M E N TA R Y

the public and the consumer. This hadallowed the opponents of plant biotechnol-ogy to take the initiative in presenting a highlydistorted and misleading account to the pub-lic. These problems are beginning to beresolved by the development of more health-ful and nutritious transgenic crops and prod-ucts that are of immediate interest and benefitto the consumer, and by increased emphasison public information.

The solutionThe enviable and unblemished record oftransgenic crops and their products is thestrongest evidence for their safety and whole-someness. It has been repeatedly shown thatthe risks to human health and the environ-ment from transgenic crops are no differentfrom those of plants developed by conven-tional breeding and selection. Accordingly,risk assessment and regulation of transgeniccrops should not be any different from theprocedures used to evaluate plants developedby conventional methods.

The rules and regulations developed for theevaluation and approval of transgenic cropshave served their purpose well. They haveshown unambiguously that transgenic cropsand foods are safe and do not pose any risk tohuman health and the environment.Continued imposition of expensive (field tri-als of transgenic crops are 10–20 times moreexpensive than those of conventional crops),time-consuming and scientifically unjustifi-able regulations needlessly delays the intro-duction and use of transgenic crops andproducts that promote food security, enhancehuman health and protect the environment.

By crying wolf much too often, the oppo-nents of transgenic crops have not only losttheir credibility, but also the right to be takenseriously. This indictment of the anti-

biotechnology lobby may seem harsh, but it isentirely deserved. Time has come to graduallyrelax and eventually suspend the regulation oftransgenic crops. Regulatory decisions shouldbe made in an open and transparent manner,and be based on science rather than emotionsand perceived risks. A beginning should bemade by removing all restrictions on the cul-tivation and use of transgenic crops that havefulfilled regulatory requirements and havebeen cultivated and/or used for five yearswithout any ill effects on humans or the envi-ronment. These include herbicide-resistantsoybean and canola, insect-resistant maizeand cotton, and virus-resistant squash andpapaya. New transgenic crops with similargenes should not be required to meet the reg-ulatory requirements for more than twoyears, unless there are clear signs of risks.Crops with genes that have not been previ-ously tested under field conditions should bemonitored for a period of two to five years,and then released for unrestricted cultivationunless proven to be harmful. Crops engi-neered for the production of drugs and vac-cines should be physically isolated from allother crops to prevent accidental pollinationof nontransgenic plants.

Two decades ago the United States pio-neered the rules and regulations governingthe development, testing, field release and useof transgenic plants and their products. Itshould now lead similarly by gradually relax-ing and eventually eliminating the regulatoryoversight of transgenic plants, except in thoseinstances where there is a likelihood of risk tohuman health and the environment. Like allother foods, let the future of transgenic cropsbe determined by the farmer, the consumerand the marketplace.

Transgenic crops rightly deserve to be anintegral part of international agriculture in the

twenty-first century. Let us not delay theapplication of this very useful and indeedhumanitarian technology for political reasons.My own confidence in plant biotechnologycomes from knowing that the science behindit is sound, that it is well tested and proven,that it benefits the consumer, the farmer andthe industry, and that it protects and conservesthe environment. It is for these reasons that Iam convinced that the many needless obsta-cles being placed in the way of this technologywill be overcome and that it will within thenext two decades become an integral part ofthe international agricultural system. WithChina, India and the United States, the threemost populous countries in the world, servingas examples, we have taken the first decisivesteps toward achieving that objective.

1. Vasil, I.K. (ed.). Plant Biotechnology 2002 and Beyond(Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, TheNetherlands, 2003).

2. Population Reference Bureau, Washington, DC.(2002).

3. United Nations. Vital Water Graphics. Water Use andManagement (United Nations Educational Scientific &Cultural Organization, Paris, 2002).

4. Oerke, E.-C., Dehne, H.-W., Schöbeck, F. & Weber, A.Crop Production and Crop Protection (Elsevier,Amsterdam, 1994).

5. Herman, E.M., Helm, R.M., Jung, R. & Kinney, A.J.Plant Physiol. 132, 36–43 (2003).

6. Horvath, H. et al. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 100,364–369 (2003).

7. Li, X. et al. Nature 422, 618–621 (2003).8. Hayama, R., Yokoi, S., Tamaki, S., Yano, M. &

Shimamoto, K. Nature 422, 719–722 (2003).9. Ku, M.S.B. et al. Novartis Foundation Symposium

236, 100–111 (2001).10. Ku, M.S.B. et al. Nat. Biotechnol. 17, 76–80

(1999).11. Hedden, P. Trends Genet. 19, 5–9 (2003).12. Jenner, H.L. Trends Biotechnol. 21, 190–192 (2003).13. Kuiper, H.A., Kleter, G.A., Noteborn, H.P.J.M. & Kok,

E.J. The Plant J. 27, 503–528 (2001).14. Nap, J.-P., Metz, P.L.J., Escaler, M. & Conner, A.J. The

Plant J. 33, 1–18 (2003).15. Conner, A.J., Glare, T.R. & Nap, J.-P. The Plant J. 33,

19–46 (2003).16. Qaim, M. & Zilberman, D. Science 299, 900–902

(2003).

NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY VOLUME 21 NUMBER 8 AUGUST 2003 851

Box 1 The third generation of transgenic crops—2015 and beyond

Sequencing of Arabidopsis thaliana and rice genomes has beencompleted; others in various stages of sequencing are Lotus,Brassica, maize, Medicago, poplar, barley, wheat, tomato,potato, soybean and pine. This information, coupled withfunctional genomics, will be of direct benefit to plant breeding.Synteny discovered in cereal genomes will be of significantvalue in the search for important genes. The discovery andcharacterization of dwarfing/green revolution genes (e.g., Rht inwheat, sd1 in rice, and gibberellin-insensitive in A. thaliana)and tillering genes in rice will be of much help in manipulatingfruit, and seed size and number affecting productivity. Recentwork has shown that photosynthetic efficiency and the numberof grains produced can be significantly increased by the

introduction of some of the key maize genes involved in C4photosynthesis into rice; such plants are also more tolerant toabiotic conditions (see Table 3).

Table 3 Traits of third-generation crops

• Genome sequencing/Functional genomics/Molecular breeding

• Altered plant architecture

• Manipulation of flowering time

• Manipulation of fruit and seed quality, size and number

• Improved photosynthetic efficiency

• Improved nutrient assimilation

• Exploiting and manipulating heterosis and apomixis

©20

03 N

atu

re P

ub

lish

ing

Gro

up

h

ttp

://w

ww

.nat

ure

.co

m/n

atu

reb

iote

chn

olo

gy