| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
411 Borlaug Hall, 1991 Buford Circle, St. Paul, MN 55108, Assistant Scientist, Information Exchange Program Associate, Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture, Department of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota
jewet006{at}umn.edu
Dear Editor:
I would like to comment concerning the Biotechnology Forum that was published in the July–August 2000 issue of Agronomy Journal. I am troubled by a bias that I noticed in the Forum articles. In these articles, most of the statements critical of genetically engineered crops, commonly called GMOs, were referenced to activist entities such as Greenpeace or Jeremy Rifkin. Statements supportive of GMOs were referenced to scientists. Works by scientists critical of GMOs were not used as references, or were mentioned and then dismissed. Thus, the Forum articles gave the appearance of framing the debate in terms of scientists vs. activists, or science vs. emotion.
The third article in the Forum series, "Corporate Control of Biotechnology" (Jordan, 2000), cited three references by "Anonymous." If a citation includes the name of a real person who has published other works, you can check on their credentials and determine whether you think they are trustworthy. "Anonymous" citations are unhelpful in that regard. Citing "Anonymous" also does not make people aware that there are serious arguments on both sides of the issue of corporate control. Criticism of corporate control is put forth in "Consolidation in the Food and Agriculture System," by Dr. William Heffernan, rural sociologist at the University of Missouri (Heffernan et al., 1999). The "Corporate Control of Biotechnology" article also discussed, with an "Anonymous" reference, the emotional issues surrounding free trade and globalization. A better reference could be "Rethinking the Economics of Self-Interests," by Dr. John Ikerd, Professor Emeritus of agricultural economics at the University of Missouri (Ikerd, 1999).
The second article, "Genetically Modified Crops and the Environment" (Barton and Dracup, 2000), included citations of Greenpeace and the Natural Law Party. These are actually very similar to "Anonymous"; it is just a different way of wording the citation. There is no name of an author whose credentials you could check. A reader of this article might assume that no scientists have published criticisms of the environmental impact of GM crops. That assumption would be incorrect. Some examples of relevant works by scientists include "Why is AgBiotech Not Ready for Prime Time," by Dr. E. Ann Clark (Clark, 2000a); or a summary of the International Workshop on the Ecological Impacts of Transgenic Crops (Altieri, 2000).
Also in the second article, a reference was given (Hodgson, 1999) for criticism of the research by Dr. Losey and colleagues that indicated harm to monarch butterflies from GM corn pollen (Losey et al., 1999). No reference was given for criticism of the refuge concept that is relied upon to manage insect pest resistance to the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) protein produced by some GM crops. The omission might suggest to a reader that there is no science-based criticism of the refuge concept, but that is not the case. Some concerns regarding the refuge concept were summarized by Dr. Charles Benbrook in testimony to the Environmental Protection Agency (Benbrook, 1997). An article in Science (Huang et al., 1999) stated that a key assumption of the refuge concept, that of recessive inheritance of Bt resistance genes, is violated in the case of European corn borer, Ostrinia nubilalis (Huber).
The first article, "Food Safety Assessment of Genetically Modified Crops" (Kaeppler, 2000), did not cite "Anonymous" or activist groups as references, but neither did it cite scientists with criticisms of the safety of GM foods. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, for example, has co-written several articles about potential food safety issues arising from use of the cauliflower mosaic viral promoter in gene constructs (Ho et al., 2000). The Food Safety article mentioned the intense criticism of work by Dr. Arpad Pusztai, which involved possible damage to rats fed genetically modified potatoes (Ewen and Pusztai, 1999). The article did not, however, mention that there were also defenders of Dr. Pusztai's work (Ho et al., 2000; Clark, 2000b).
My intent with this letter is not to denigrate the Forum articles, but rather to call attention to what I see as a systemic problem of lack of sufficient, forthright debate on the issues surrounding biotechnology. I think that Agronomy Journal and the Tri-Societies can do better. Please consider giving Forum space to some of the critics of biotechnology. Thank you.
28 June 2001
REFERENCES
Research Supervisor Transformation, DuPont Agricultural Enterprises, P.O. Box 30, Newark, DE 19714-0030
joanne.e.barton{at}usa.dupont.com
Dear Editor:
While not a review article, our paper (Barton and Dracup, 2000) presents the state of the science and policy currently being debated on the environmental risks and benefits of genetically engineered crops. It does not profess to resolve all the issues raised about the efficacy of refuges in resistance management. Individual scientists of various persuasions (pro and con) are trying to get to grips with scientific problems related to the introduction of genetically engineered crops.
Polarizing the issues does not contribute to the debate in a helpful manner. Instead, we need to do two things. First, honestly compare the positive and negative environmental and agronomic impacts of nonbiotechnology and biotechnology crop varieties. Second, we need to anticipate foreseeable and identify unforeseen impacts for any new crop variety adopted. If we collect the appropriate data, it should guide whether we continue to adopt new genetically engineered crops and how to adapt management systems and regulations to provide the best nonbiotechnology and biotechnology options for farming.
Received 16 Aug. 2001
REFERENCES
Cereal Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 195 Dafoe Road, Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2M9, Canada
mcjordan{at}em.agr.ca
Dear Editor:
Jordan, 2000, "The Privatization of Food: Corporate Control of Biotechnology," provides a brief snapshot of the impact that corporate control of basic biotechnology tools has on agriculture. The article was designed not as a comprehensive review or economic treatise, but rather as the initiation of a discussion among Agronomy Journal readers on aspects of why modern biotechnology has become enmeshed in the globalization debate. As is appropriate in a dialog, Jane Jewett raises some points to which I respectfully reply.
I am an experienced agricultural biotechnologist at a public sector plant-breeding institute where I have developed opinions based on the totality of my experience. This should not be confused with a bias toward the role of public and private entities in the continued development of biotechnology alternatives to solve problems. On the contrary, an open discussion on issues such as intellectual property rights, the role of the public sector, the role of the emerging nations, the plight of orphan crops, and impact of corporate control on farmers should encourage the formation of opinions and policy based on information rather than bias.
To facilitate information sharing, I select references that are readily available and provide readers with access or links to other sources and viewpoints. For example, I reference Dr. Marvin Hayenga (1998) of Iowa State University, whose article on seed industry consolidation contains links to other articles discussing the issue. Similarly, following a reference to the Rural Advancement Fund International webpage leads to links and references, which again provide other points of view. I strongly believe that following these references will lead people to see that there are serious arguments on both sides of the issue of corporate control. There are many articles related to these issues on the Internet. The two articles mentioned by Jane Jewett are isolated, individual opinions leading to no other links or references, so focusing solely on the articles recommended by Jewett does a disservice to the many other thoughtful opinions available.
Based on the comments received, I believe that the article served to inform, provoke thought and discussion, and provide a jumping off point for individuals to form their own opinions on these issues.
Received 16 Aug. 2001
REFERENCES
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| The SCI Journals | Crop Science | Vadose Zone Journal | |||
| Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education |
Soil Science Society of America Journal | ||||
| Journal of Plant Registrations | Journal of Environmental Quality |
The Plant Genome | |||
