MLT Newsletter
May, 1988
The May issue of the Newsletter is concerned with Biotechnology, its
relation to and its effects upon agriculture and land use. The first
two articles are written by Ron Klein and Don Katz, the third by Ken
Dahlberg.
Ron Klein has had a varied academic career begin— fling with
a
double major in English and Religion at WMU, to completing his PhD in
Molecular Biology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and spending
a year as Post Doctoral Fellow at the Massachusetts Institute
of
Technology Chemistry Department. His work experience is also varied-a
little farm with goats outside Lawton to a research position with
Phillips Petroleum Co., and now in Molecular Biology Research at the
Upjohn Co. Don Katz spent the summer of 1976 at the School of
Homesteading followed by a year in a Zen monastery in New York State.
The decision to study horticulture took him to the University of
Wisconsin, Madison, where he is completing his PhD in Molecular
Biology. Don has worked for Ferry-Morse Seed Co., at the Chicage
Botanic Garden, and as an advisor for gardeners with the Extension
Service. Ken Dahlberg is a Professor of Political Science at WMLT,
author of Beyond
the Green Revolution and New Directions for
Agriculture and Agricultural Research.
BIOTECHNOLOGY:
A SOLUTION TO AGRICULTURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS?
—
Ronald D. Klein
In the broadest sense “biotechnology” is any
technical
manipulation that employs living organisms or parts of organisms to
produce or modify products, improve strains of plants or animals, or
develop micoorganisms (bacteria, yeast, fungi or algae) for particular
uses. In this sense, biotechnology has been employed by Mankind for
thousands of years for food production such as genetic improvement of
grasses (teosinti to hybrid corn), the fermentation of milk to produce
yogurts and cheeses and the production of beers, ales, and other
spirits. Many of the most significant advances of the agricultural
revolution (beginning in neolithic tomes) took place before the
elucidation of the principles of basic genetics. Farmers and breeders
through observation and trial and error, purposefully bred, by
selection, desirable traits into domesticated stock. The most visible
legacy today of these trial and error breeding, is the great diversity
of recognized “breeds” of domestic dogs!
A revolution on selective breeding took place soon after the widespread
acceptance of Mendelian genetics by which specific rules for the
inheritance of traits could be employed for breeding purposes. These
developments spawned another agricultural
“revolution”
beginning early in this century, resulting in
“improved”
cultivars, hybrids and, in a few cases, new species of plants. Animal
husbandry has also witnessed newer and improved breeds of domesticated
animals. The use of mutagenic agents and stressful laboratory
environments (for selection purposes) has been used to introduce
mutations in plant (via tissue culture) and microorganisms to create
desirable traits. In the latter case microbes have been developed for
the production of fine chemicals,vitamins, biodegradable plastics and
amino acids. Specialized microorganisms have been developed to
metabolize and detoxify organic and chemicl wastes. A prime example of
the use of random mutation and selection to create desirable traits,
was the development of microbes for the large scale production of
penicillin during the Second World War.
The ability to transfer genes from one organism to another by means of
recombinant DNA methods has added a novel dimension to biotechnology.
In fact, the term “Biotechnology” is virtually
synonymous
with recombinant DNA or genetic engineering in the popular press. While
selective breeding by traditional methods and even chemical mutagenesis
is random and unpredictable, the new recombinant DNA technology permits
the isolation of a given gene, which can then be modified in a specific
manner. Thus, scientists and breeders can cause specific and precise
genetic changes. Isolated genes can be introduced into microbes and the
gene products produced in quantity. Products for
“therapeutic” veterinary use such as porcine and
bovine
growth hormone are now available. Alternatively, a gene, such as a
growth hormone, can be modified to overproduce its gene produce. The
modified gene can be introduced into the germ line of the host such
that the modified gene is passed to its progeny as an integral part of
the animal’s genetic material. In the case of growth
hormones,
this means that animals containing the modified gene exhibit faster
growth and more efficient feed utilization. The results of this
approach are indistinguishable from those obtained by traditional
breeding programs with the exception that a specific trait is acquired
in a single generation. There are several examples of natural -genetic
engineering in plant and animal symbiosis and parasitic infections. For
example, the larval form of the tapeworm, Spirometra mansonides, has a
growth promoting effect on the host. The parasite makes a chemical
identical to pituitary growth hormone except that it has a far longer
half-life in the blood stream. Infection with just a few larvae can
result in weight gain four times greater than that of non-infected
animals. There are many other examples of such phenomena where growth
factors are introduced into a host plant or animal.
The use of the “new” biotechnology has included the
development of organisms for secondary oil recovery, waste management,
the production of high cost pharmaceuticals and the conversion of waste
from various industries into single celled protein (SCP) and fuel grade
alcohols. Examples of the application of this technology to agriculture
include on—going research in the development of:
“bio-pesticides”; crops with enhanced resistance to
environmental stress (e.g. drought, salt, cold, insects, herbicides,
pesticides and frost); bacteria for more efficient silage degradation;
inexpensive vaccines to combat intractable diseases; microbes that
attack pathogenic soil nematodes; and microorganisms and plants that
directly fix atmospheric nitrogen. One very important aspect of
applying biotechnology to agriculture and waste management is to
minimize environmental damage. Examples of this include microorganisms
that have been developed to degrade toxic wastes and oil spills and
metabolize heavy metals during water purification.
Biotechnology offers many alternatives to current energy intensive
petrol-chemical farming practices; alternatives that minimize
environmental damage. For example, Bacillus thuringenesis (Bt), has
long been praised by followers of the “organic”
movement as
an environmentally sound method of dealing with various lepidopterous
and coleopterous larval pests. Newer and more potent strains of the
bacterium producing the toxin have been developed for direct
application on susceptible plants. The genes encoding the Bt toxin have
been isolated, cloned into industrial microbes and the purified toxin
produced in quantity. In the future, recombinant plants making the
toxin will be available. Recombinant DNA techniques are being used to
introduce the gene expressing the toxin into the germ line of plants.
Larvae feeding in the plants will ingest the toxin present in the
leaves. As our understanding of the mechanisms of natural resistance of
plants to insects, nematodes and pathogenic fungi (especially
Phytophthora megasperma) increases the production of resistant plants
by recombinant means will increase. For example, when potatoes are
infected by a fungal pathogen, they begin to produce a number of
enzymes (e.g. glucanses and chitinases) that destroy the fungus by
digesting its cell wall. Often there is a delay in the induction of
these enzymes and the plant’s defenses are overwhelmed by the
infection. One way to produce plants that are resistant to fungal
infections is to decrease the response time to enzyme induction or to
increase the levels or potency of protective enzymes.
Molecular biology and recombinant DNA techniques are being used to
elucidate the steps involved in plant pathogenesis, especially the role
of viral diseases. Recently, the specific sites that particular viruses
must recognize and bind to (receptors) in order to infect plants have
been identified. It is interesting that resistance to viral diseases,
such as various ‘mosiac diseases”, in many cases is
due to
a mutated receptor; i.e., the recognition site for the virus on the
susceptible plant is either missing or altered such that the virus
cannot bind and thus cannot infect the plant. In addition, other
“resistance” genes have been identified. It is now
possible
through recombinant DNA techniques to clone resistance genes and
through tissue culture grow an intact and normal virus resistant plant.
All of this without having to go through the tedium and uncertainty of
generations of selective breeding!
Insect pheromones (sexual attractants) have been successfully used in
controlling specific pests. Though phermones are now chemically
synthesized on an industrial scale, their basic biochemistry, genetics
and mode of action, are being studied by recombinant DNA methods.
Instead of widespread spraying of chemicals, attractants are used to
lure specific pests to baits containing toxins. Phermones are also
released during the mating cycle of a given pest causing confusion and
disruption of egg laying and mating behavior. The rational employment
of pheromones is potentially more effective than a broad spectrum
pesticide spraying program and is environmentally compatible. The
species specificity of pheromones assures that the target pest will be
attracted thus eliminating the massive destruction to invertebrate and
vertebrate life due to the “indiscriminate~~ application of
pesticides. The use of pheromones requires a detailed knowledge of.the
target pest’s life cycle and behavior.
The traditional approach to combating plant pests has been deep plowing
and the application of broad spectrum herbicides. A very active area of
biotechnology research has involved cloning into selective cultivars
genes that encode resistance to specific herbicides. For example, the
gene resposible for the detoxification of atrazine has been cloned from
at-razine resistant pigweed and introduced into rape; conferring
resistance to the herbicide. Cultivation of atrazine resistant rape
consists of planting the seed, and after germination, treating the crop
with the herbicide the crop is resistant to. This scheme eliminates the
need for deep plowing and cultivation for weed control. Such an
approach would be very attractive if genes conferring resistance to the
more benign herbicides, such as the glypgosphates (Roundup and
Touchdown) that have a short half life, could be used in this
“no-till” approach.
Other important areas of applied biotechnology have evolved from plant
recombinant DNA and tissue culture work. These include the ongoing
development of nitrogen fixing plants, eliminating a major use of
chemical fertilizers, and the development of artificial seed. In the
latter case plant embryos are mass produced from plant tissue by the
application of specific hormones. The embryos are placed in special
capsules with required nutrients and planted using standard equipment.
Artificial seeds have been developed for carrot, grape and potato.
Artificial garlic seeds have been developed in order to circumvent the
use of cloves, which are often contaminated by pathogenic soil
netnatodes. Novel plants can be created by cell fusion and cloning
techniques in the laboratory, unfortunately these chimeric
forms
are often sterile, but embryos can be generated from the cultured
cells. Artificial seeds provide a means to introduce novel plants with
unique properties, giving a new meaning to “hybrid
variety”.
Frost damage is another major agricultural problem. Recently a
bacterium was isolated from the leaves of strawberry and potato that
possesses a cell surface protein that serves as the nucleation site for
frost formation. Plants lacking this bacterium do not suffer as
extensive frost damage as those that do. A mutated form of this
bacterium has been developed lacking this protein. Field tests have
shown that the application of this “ice minus" bacterium
diminishes frost damage.
As our skills in genetic engineering are perfected and access to a
greater number of unique genes increases, doors will be opened for the
rational treatment of what appear to be intractable problems. This is
especially true regarding the development of environmentally compatible
programs so essential for survival of the biosphere. Access to
Nature’s tools through biotechnology provide a benign means
with
which to combat many of the problems that have been fought with (and
created by) a vast arsenal of highly toxic chemical weapons.
Biotechnology provides a means to address many agricultural problems
and the research tools to further our understanding the interdependence
of all living things. With this potential it is crucial that persons be
well informed, and aggressive in acquiring the knowledge essential for
the rational use of this powerful collection of techniques. Recombinant
DNA and genetic engineering will have an impact that may rival the
major developments in agriculture that have occurred since Neolithic
times.
WHAT IS BIOTECHNOLOGY?
—
Don Katz
Biotechnology is the application of modern laboratory methods to the
commercial production of biological products. Quite likely, every
single biological product, from beer to wheat, from vaccines to
perfumes, will have its production processes affected by biotechnology.
The two principal laboratory methods which are being applied right now
are the test-tube manipulation of DNA and the ability to grow animal
cells and plants in culture in laboratory dishes.
DNA is the chemical material which contains the genes in every
organism. All of the observable characteristics of the animals and
plants around us, and of our own selves, are governed by these genes.
However, though the patterns of growth of a plant, for example, are
governed by genes, and can be changed by altering its DNA, yet a plant
still cannot grow productively without a proper environment; water,
soil, fertilizer, and sun.
With new techniques, one can take DNA from any organism, alter it to
change its characteristics, and integrate this DNA into cells of the
species which one wishes to change. In principle, the results obtained
by using these techniques are not that different from the results
obtained by the traditional breeding of plants and animals; the new
techniques simply extend the scope and extent of the changes which one
can make. Although the current DNA techniques are very powerful, yet
putting the DNA into a particular species, and getting it to function
in the way one has in mind, is difficult. How well the new gene
operates in a species depends on where in the totality of the DNA
already in each cell the test tube DNA is placed, and for most species
that location cannot by controlled. In addition, the behavior and
interactions of genes in complex organisms is not well understood, so
getting exactly the results one intends is unlikely.
Therefore, the simpler the organism, and/or the simpler the particular
trait that one wants to change, the more likely that these DNA
techniques will be useful. That means that in complex organisms, like
the plants and animals, it is unlikely that anyone will see any large
changes soon. The first agricultural products will most certainly be
things such as improved Rhizobium inoculum, animal vaccines, improved
Bacillus thuringensis preparations, and the like, where it is the
bacteria or the virus that is modified, rather than the more complex
plant or animal.
The new techniques available for growing plants and animals in
laboratory dishes are equally important. With these new techniques, one
can grow large numbers of uniform, disease-free, plants. Orchids have
been started in sterile culture dishes for years, because the seeds are
so tiny and difficult to germinate. Across the hall from me,
researchers are working on techniques to grow tiny potato tubers in
dishes, tubers which are disease-free and small enough to use directly
with mechanical planters.
The new possibilities are exciting, but the driving force behind
technological change is always the same: profit. Although many academic
researchers are concerned about the implications of the technologies we
employ, and about larger issues such as land use, the commercialization
of these technologies can only be done in this country if someone will
make money from the resulting products. So, for example, companies are
working hard to incorporate herbicide—resistance genes into
plants, so that the crops can be grown in the presence of
broad-spectrum herbicides. Such a product allows the sale of both the
patented seed, and the patented herbicide, so there is potential for
large profits.
Because large profits are more easily made by the sale of large amounts
of product to each of a few buyers, rather than the sale of small
amounts of product to many buyers, the products which will
realistically developed first will be those which are of use to large
companies (such as canneries, whose contracts can specify particular
seed varieties), large-scale family and corporate farms, and combines
of smaller farms (such as Ocean Spray).
Jim Hightower’s declaration of Hard Tomatoes, Hard Times
for small farmers is unchanged by the new technologies; the problems he
described (and continues to work on politically) are built into the
profit-based system under which we live. Researchers continue to
develop techniques and processes without a vision of the ultimate
sociological impact of their efforts. I heard a seminar by Jules Janick
of Purdue University, a very well- known horticulturist, in which he
talked about his work to produce cocoa butter directly from cocoa plant
cells in sterile dishes in the laboratory - but if his work succeeds,
what happens to the Latin American countries who produce the cocoa now,
what happens to those farmers?
I personally do not believe that altered microorganisms being produced
in laboratories around the world represent a profound threat to the
ecology. Dangerous organisms can be produced, and I am very concerned
about the potential military uses of biotechnology. But the organisms
produced during commercial exploitation will be modifications of
existing organisms, and the modifications will adapt them to particular
situations for which they are designed. I am sure problems will occur,
but they will not have the broad scope of the nuclear disasters with
which we are threatened by nuclear power plants and nuclear bombs.
Ecosystems are resilient, and have already been changed profoundly by
humans. They will continue to be changed by our interventions, but that
will not endanger us, or the planet.
I see two main positive changes resulting from biotechnology which will
affect those of you who have chosen to live your livesclose to the
land, or are deeply concerned about our relationship with the land.
First, because the manipulations which are now possible allow
improvements in biological organisms, the efficacy and availability of
biological control strategies in agriculture will increase. In the
plant sciences, the three microorganisms which are being tested in the
field so far include a bacteria to be sprayed to reduce freezing damage
to frost—sensitive crops, a new Rhizobium inoculum to help
alfalfa fix nitrogen more efficiently (which could make crop rotation
more attractive to farmers who have abandoned it), and a biological
control for Dutch Elm disease.
Second, plant tissue culture offers some opportunities for cottage
industry. One friend of mine here hopes to produce disease-free potato
seed in sterile culture as a cottage industry. Another person I know
here in Madison, Wisconsin has a small business starting large numbers
of identical ornamental trees in sterile culture. These are low capital
businesses, quite suitable for the small homestead.
In summary, biotechnology will not change our lives immensely the way
that nuclear bombs or computers have. I don’t believe that it
constitutes any threat to the world as we know it. The incremental
changes produced by new products will eventually affect everyone
involved in agriculture. Some of those changes, especially the
increased reliance on biological instead of chemical solutions, will
promote better land use and better stewardship of the land But the
bottom line will still be the bottom line, and so this technological
change, like those preceding it, will continue to drive small farmers
off the land, and increase the alienation of our culture from its
agricultural roots.
FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS
RAISED BY BIOTECHNOLOGY
—
Kenneth A. Dahlberg
The potential benefits and problems of biotechnology have generated
much discussion, primarily among researchers, but increasingly among
the public. The debate is now focusing on agriculture. USDA is placing
much of its new research money into biotechnology hoping to keep up
with the massive amounts of venture capital that has been invested
privately. The main public controversies so far have also been
agricultural:
those over the impacts of bovine growth hormones on the dairy industry,
those over the risks involved in releasing a genetically engineered
bacterium to increase the frost resistance of strawberries, and the
potential for “patented”super cows or pigs, which
would
require the farmer to pay a royalty not only on the original animal,
but on each new generation!
These contoversies involve three fundamental issues which need to be
addressed in public discussions of biotechnology (and other new
technologies as well). These are: 1) the myth of neutrality of
technologies; 2) questions of the structure of agriculture; and 3) the
need for new visions of the future of agriculture. Much of the
excitement of scientists regarding the potential for biotechnology
reflects outmoded beliefs in the neutrality of technologies, as well as
a failure to distinguish between what might be possible in the abstract
and what is likely to be the direction of actual research and what will
be its likely impacts. In his piece, Don Katz gave the example of the
scientists developing cocoa butter in the lab without thinking of the
social consequences for the cocoa farmers should it be mass produced in
factories.
The matter of non—neutrality goes even deeper than social
impacts
alone. Biotechnology is a highly specialized, very knowledge and
capital intensive research effort. It requires high levels of long-term
funding, whether from public or private agencies. This aspect is really
a structural issue and will be discussed later. However, in terms of
science, knowledge, and agriculture, the question boils down to
specialized interventions on the one hand versus holistic, systematic
approaches on the other. The risk with biotechnology - as was
demonstrated earlier with the Green Revolution - is that scientists,
planners, and developers will design their programs and goals in terms
of the new technologies (hybridization in this case) and their current
capabilities, rather than designing technologies to fit the larger
goals of society regarding food and agriculture.
Scientifically, the contrast is between “integrated pest
management” approaches and those which seek to
“target” specific species. The ultimate difference
is
between approaches which seek to work within the larger cycles and
systems of nature-modestly directing and channeling them to human
advantage - and those approaches which seek to control and manipulate
natural systems. Current trends in biotechnology - both scientific and
practical - tend towards the latter. Integrated pest management is
closer to the former, although it - like other research - is still
locked into the “production paradigm” and does not
ask the
larger structural questions that face us. The point is that IPM is
compatible with moving towards mpre sustainable and regenerative
systems, while it is much less likely that biotechnolbgy is.
Biotechnology could be fitted into IPM, which in turn could be fitted
into a sustainable agricultural/food system structure, but that would
take a conscious recognition as biotechnology is not neutral and would
need to be restructured to contribute to a more regenerative Intensive
technologies.
What are the likely structural impacts of biotechnology? Inserting new
biotechnologies into an agricultural system that stresses production
and profits will simply reinforce those trends. Farmers will become
more dependent upon experts and engineered products -whether from
government or corporations. Middle sized farmers will continue to be
squeezed out as the pressures to “get big or get out"
increase.
Notice that many of the immediate applications of biotechnology are
based on assumptions, that the problem in agriculture is the
traditional one of increasing production. It is ironic, but symptomatic
that the two areas currently being tested are for products which are
either in surplus (milk) or are luxury items (strawberries).
The patenting issue is also symptomatic, and much more basic.
It presents perhaps the ultimate
“commodification” of nature. While there has always
been an
effort to control access to seeds and breeding animals, never before
has it been asserted that a species or variety could be
“owned” so that “royalties” can
be charged for
each succeeding generation. This is perhaps the ultimate expression of
Western Man’s attempt to control and manipulate nature. In
this
view, other species have neither rights nor are due any sort of respect
as fellow creatures of the biosphere. The claims to
"ownership”
are also presumptuous in that only a minute portion of that species
genetic heritage is manipulated in the course of
“creating”
a new variety. As I testified at the hearings on the Plant Variety
Protection Act, it is strange to award ownership when the manipulations
involved represent probably less than a tenth of a percent
of the
evolutionary heritage of a plant. And what about the contributions of
farmers over the millenia in improving varieties?
What is needed much more than new technologies are new visions of the
place and structure of agriculture in the U.S. and the world. My own
view is that agriculture is in crucial need of restructuring along
lines which will make it both more socially just and more regenerative.
The issues of social justice have a long tradition - going back to the
Jeffersonian vision of a democratic society made up small farmers and
artisans.
While there is nostalgia for the “family farm,”
there is
little discussion of how we make both our agriculture, and our society
generally, more democratic and less under the control of large
organizations - whether governmental or private. One of the criteria
for evaluating biotechnology (and other technologies) is: will this
technology contribute to greater individual and local self-reliance and
democracy or will it increase the power of large organizations?
The other basic question relates to the issue of sustainability - or
how to develop regenerative systems. The basic need in agriculture is
to have flexible and adaptive systems. How much will current
biotechnology research help agriculture adjust to potential major
climatic changes over the next couple of decades? How much will it help
to increase the energy efficiency of the food system? (Note that most
applications are for increasing farm production and are not thought of
in terms of the larger food system.) How much will biotechnology help
the Third World countries address the issues of hunger?
(Note that
all the myths about increasing production have little to do with
reducing hunger - which relates to poverty and can be addressed only by
giving people more access to land or more access to employment; i.e.,
development). How much will biotechnology help either First or Third
World farmers deal with a global economic depression? While
biotechnology offers some potential in reducing chemical pesticides,
might it not be better to devote a good portion the monies being spent
on biotechnologies to do research and programs on organic farming?
The overall point of these questions is to suggest that while
biotechnology offers potentially valuable tools, those tools must be
developed and designed in terms of the larger issues facing U.S. and
global agriculture and food systems. Production is not the problem -
even though that paradigm still dominates all forms of agriculture
research, including biotechnology. Specialized tools are genuinely
valuable in the longer term only if they are developed as part or
larger goals and structures. The argument here is that we need much
more work on redefining our goals and restructuring our current
institutions than we do on technologies that reinforce existing
maladaptive goals and structures. We can move in this direction only if
we start asking, the basic questions.
FEEDBACK FROM THE JANUARY ISSUE RE: SPRAYING:
The Citizens for Alternatives to Chemical Contamination wrote us that,
“. . .we have found in our dealings with power companies
thoughout the state, along with road commissions from different areas,
that the steps a homeowner can take to protect his/her property are to
post NO SPRAY signs prominently at all possible entry points; make sure
that the potential sprayer has received notice IN WRITING that such an
application should not be made (including a full property description);
and taking care of unwanted herbaceous plants and foliage by mechanical
means.
MORE: It is a violation of the law governing the application of
pesticides if the spray drifts beyond the target area. Growers or
residents who are sprayed on or who have spray drifting on their
property should report the incident immediately to the Pesticide and
Plant Pest Management Division of Agriculture 517/373-1087, and speak
to Keith Creagh or Robert Mesecher, if possible, and ask for a prompt
inspection from their office. They must come within 24 hours, and must
take legal action if they find any pesticide.
— Maynard Kaufman from the
Michigan Department of Agriculture Pesticide Regulation Meeting
MLT BUSfNESS:
At the January meeting the following officers were
elected: Chairperson: Ken Dahlberg,
Managing Director: Swan Sherman-Huntoon, Secretary: Rhonda
Sherrnan-Huntoon, Treasurer: Lisa Johnson- Phillips.
Discussion of MLT by-laws resulted in the election of four offices
instead of three.
Back to MLT Newsletter Page