The transgenic plants grown today are cotton, soybean, corn, canola,
alfalfa, sugar beets and some squash and papaya. They contain mostly genes that
confer resistance against an herbicide, against insects or viruses. Newer
plants contain more than one additional gene, leading to a plant with more than
one resistance (‘stacked-traits’).
1. Could one of these plants be useful in Swiss agriculture?
Corn,
canola, alfalfa, sugar beets and squash are plants, which are commonly grown on
Swiss farming fields. All these plants would in transgenic form offer new
possibilities and promise higher crop yields.
Corn: Especially now that the western corn rootworm (Diabrotica virgifera virgifera) reached Swiss ground and occurs occasionally, it might seem tempting to cultivate BT-corn. This transgenic corn is (supposed to be) vermin- resistant and would therefore prevent the spread of the corn rootworm. But up to now, the corn rootworm has caused no damage in Switzerland, thanks to a well-managed crop rotation. This technique will not lose its effectiveness in the future, considering a wide spectrum of animal pests, and it is the best thing to do for soil fertility and structure anyway (managing the nutrients in the soil instead of using mineral fertilizers is also sustainable and climate friendly). Thus, there isn’t any necessity for Swiss BT- corn at present. What is more, in the USA the corn rootworm already starts to develop a BT- resistance so that even supporters of genetic engineering are now saying, that one should not only plant BT crops (listen broadcast).
Canola: Transgenic canola is usually
herbicide resistant (“roundup-ready”, meaning resistant to Roundup, which is
glyphosate, a broad-spectrum systemic herbicide) and often also modified in
other traits, namely in its components, for instance containing less trans-fats
and more omega-3 fatty acids. A lot of these qualities were also successfully
achieved by conventional breeding methods. Nevertheless, canola is still highly
susceptible to animal pests and diseases and a really strict crop rotation is
essential. In conventional farming herbicides, insecticides, fungicides etc.
are applied. In organic farming there is almost nothing that can be done to
protect canola crops apart from crop rotation. But also transgenic canola does
not solve this problem. There’s only the advantage that the applications of
herbicides can be reduced by using the broad-spectrum herbicide glyphosate
instead of specific herbicides, which ideally also reduces some of the costs.
Alfalfa: Roundup-ready alfalfa is also
resistant to the broad-spectrum herbicide Roundup which therefore also
simplifies weed control in cultivations and may reduce herbicide applications
and costs. However, I do not see why a strict weed control is necessary for
this plant. Alfalfa is primarily grown in big fields as forage plant. Cattle or
other animals do not care if they feed on some other plants along with it. (The
inappropriate forage of cattle is another huge problem itself)
Sugar beet: Sugar
beet is a root crop which demands a good preparation of the soil. Deep
ploughing and a mechanical (and chemical) weed control are necessary
procedures. Here, cultivating glyphosate-resistant transgenic sugar beets would
be more convenient, too. Weed control could be easily done with the application
of glyphosate. But growing sugar beets has a long tradition in Switzerland and
I believe that the methods and equipment for weed control have been optimised
and crop yields cannot be increased significantly growing transgenic sugar beet.
Squash: Transgenic squash is resistant
to infections of two specific viruses. Since there is not much information
available on this subject, I am not sure, if the cultivation of transgenic
squash had really proved successful and if those viruses have actually caused
problems in Switzerland.
Considering
all species, I disagree with the introduction of transgenic plants. Genetic
engineering does not offer the right approach to solving the problems which,
from my point of view, arose from industrial monocultures and intensive
agriculture. In my opinion genetic engineering tries to combat the symptoms but
does not solve the real causes!
Furthermore,
with the widespread cultivation of Roundup- resistant Monsanto products the
development of similar resistances in some weed species is emerging as a
(costly) problem. The same is the case for BT crops as we hear in the broadcast.
And if we
eliminate one pest animal, the next one already starts to invade.
I also do
not believe that genetic engineering can solve the problem of hunger and the
global food crisis.
Transgenic canola:
Organic
canola cultivation:
Transgenic alfalfa:
Broadcast
on BT- resistant Corn Rootworm (Diabrotica virgifera virgifera):
Articles
on transgenic food and hunger:
2. Today, the safety of GM plants in not an issue in the public discussion anymore. Social, economic and ethical arguments are more important.
A lot of
the following arguments are also valid arguments against conventional
monoculture systems!
Social:
-
Dependency on multinational
companies such as Monsanto
-
Dependency on world market
-
Farmers have little to no
relation to the plants they grow and loose the knowledge about natural
interactions etc.
-
Do farmers in third world
countries have a real option or choice?
-
Higher production rates rarely
empower farmers of third world countries and do not guarantee a better life for
them (-> dependency). The distribution of food is the problem, not the
quantities that are produced worldwide. (Or as some see it, there are too many
people on this planet)
Pros:
-
Higher production rates
augment food security (?)
-
Higher salary for farmers (?)
-
Side-effect: According to the
NFP results BT-corn is healthier because it contains less mycotoxins.
Ethical:
Cons:
-
Modifying the gene of any
living organism is an interference that goes further than any breeding method
or selection that has been done so far. Genes of different organisms are mixed
up. The gene-cocktails we produce show how little respect we have towards life.
-
Are patents on plants (and
animals) or on DNA-sequences ethical?
-
The latest research showed
that plants are able to communicate and even to remember. Therefore we should
treat plants accordingly and even speak about and respect the dignity of plants.
-
Is the way pesticides function
and attack the metabolism of plants and animals and eradicate them at once
ethically correct? It is a tightrope walk how much influence humans should
exert. Alternative methods are crop rotation and biocontrol.
-
Weeds are living beings! Pest
animals are living beings! The web of life is very complex and we cannot
compensate the loss of species. Humans rely on the diversity of life!
Pros:
-
We bear responsibility for the
wellbeing of human beings we rely on. So food security in third world countries
should be increased or rather guaranteed (though really with GMO’s?)
-
Plants can be modified to
cover the needs of humans, e.g. golden rice. (-> Attempt to combat symptoms?
Will this ensure a balanced nutrition? Farmers should not only be producing for
the world market, but for a diverse self-supply)
Economic:
Cons:
-
According to the results of
the NFP 59 the acceptance of GMO’s is not given among the Swiss people. The
attitude is rather sceptical and seems to be durable. Therefore the farmers’
Union doesn’t see much potential for products from GMO’s at present.
-
The
results of the NFP also show, that a lot of costs would arise, if GMO’s were to
be cultivated in Switzerland next to conventional and organic crops.
Profitability is not given.
-
On an international
basis: Will the costs really drop? Will third world countries really be
on the winning side? (I assume multinational companies will make sure to
increase profits…)
Pros:
-
Lower costs due to fewer
applications of pesticides (but won’t the expenses stay high through the
dependency on products from those huge companies?)
-
Higher salary for farmers
thanks to higher crop yields (will farmers really be the ones that profit?)
Results
from the national research program NFP 59:
Opinion
of the farmer’s union:
The
rights of plants:
Ethics
and plants:
Hey Juliana
ReplyDeleteIt looks like, you are really into this subject, and that you are really interested in it (so do I). I agree with you regarding to Canola, Alfalfa, Sugar beet and Squash, as well as the pros and cons.
But think planting BT-Corn in Switzerland could even be a chance for the soil, cause less herbicide and plowing is needed. Plowing harms soil organisms and herbicid –use reduced biodiversity(as an example). Yields is getting higher, without higher (maybe even less) intensity of cultivation.
I neither believe that GM-plants solve hunger, but I believe, some GM-plants (round-up-ready-crops do not belong to them in my opinion) can be a chance for crop-cultivation. Especially in Switzerland, where the crop-yields are limited and wages are high. The economic advantages in industrail countries with high wages and high revenue is probably bigger than in developing and emerging countries.
Dear Juliana
ReplyDeleteWow - I'm truly impressed by this detailed and elaborated post! Thank you!
I also see that you were looking for references not just in the more sceptical range (like the Blauen Institut), but also wen to the gene-abc and nfp59.
I agree with your assessment that the current GM plants do not have a lot to offer for Swiss agriculture. The plants were really not made for our type of agriculture. However I know that some farmers would like to grow GM sugar beets. This would (according to personal communication)make their life easier, because they would not need a complicated regime of weed control. This could also benefit the soil, as it would not require an empty field prior to planting.
I'm sure we will discuss some of these arguments in class and Thomas will comment on the ethical parts, so I'll just pick one of your con arguments in the social part. Farmers in India have rapidly adopted GM cotton. This is mostly due to the economic benefit. Studies show that these farmers make more money. Farmers will buy seeds as soon as they can afford it, even if they have to buy from big multinationals!, because these seeds produce higher and more reliable yield. The high adoption rate cannot be due to force on the part of the multinationals, but has to be voluntary. So given the choice these farmers seem to choose GM seeds. Would you want to deny them these seeds to keep them from dependency on multinationals? Because it's true - other seeds will be more difficult to buy because no one asked for them anymore.
I'm sure we'll have lots to discuss once during incubation time in the lab!
Very intresting post, thanks! And just to make me feel better - really, less would still have been more than enough!
best,
Petra
Dear Petra,
DeleteThank you for your feedback! I know that I could (should) have kept it much shorter, but I really wanted to know about the present situation and understand what advantages GM plants could offer. So don't feel bad... ;) I read pretty much all of the NFP results and I understand how some people criticize that these are not written in an unbiased manner, but more from the approving point of view. Anyhow... who can write unbiased?
I believe that you're right about the GM sugar beets and that some farmers are interested in cultivating these. The thing about India I see partly as a lack of information and yes, ok, if they gain more they will naturally choose GM seeds.
But what do you think about the fear of loosing more and more cultivated plant species due to GM plants? (yes, we are inventing "new" ones, but that doesn't compensate it) I don't think that Monsanto would try and make e.g. from all the different rice species an economic GM-version in order to still have it grown...!?
I'd also be curious to hear what you think about the broadcast on BT-resistant corn rootworm.
kind regards,
Juliana
Dear Juliana
DeleteLosing cultivated plant species is a huge problem and gene banks can somehow only solve this on a very 'theoretical' level. Because keeping seeds in the gene bank is one thing, but the experience of how and when this varieties should be grown will eventually be lost. I agree - only in my opinion this problem is not strictly related to GM plants, but to modern agriculture. GM plants are usually crossed into local varieties, so this should not really increase the loss, but of course, as GM plants are usually part of modern agriculture, GM plants are also not used to prevent this loss.
In an ideal world, I still think small companies could actually make their own GM plants and introduce the necessary genes into local cultivars. I guess this sounds a bit scary now...but that's what is more or less being done using conventional breeding in Switzerland. New genes from other areas of the world are introduced into our Swiss wheat varietis, for example, to make them more resistant to fungi!
And we'll get to the BT corn in class....
Petra
Hello Juliana,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote a lot of pros and cons for GM plants. I agree that GM plants are not an all in one solution and that monoculture and intensive agriculture is the reason for most of the occurring problems. With farming humans have an influence on many species and ecosystems get out of balance. Due to this, pests emerge and other species disappear.
In my opinion, it is important that also in Switzerland scientists can do research on GM plants. Even if there never will be GM plants commercially grown in Switzerland, in a lot of countries around the world GM plants are and also will be grown in the future. It is important to have scientific information about what is going on in the still young science of genetically engineering without relying on information from for example companies whose main interest is to sell their products.
I just found a newly published article supporting roughly my point of view:
ReplyDeletehttp://naturschutz.ch/news/20-jahre-und-keine-supergene/62752
There are also more links for articles on the bt-corn problem, the herbicide-resistances and an extemely con-sided article on Monsanto (with tendancies to scare tactics).