Looking Back on Biotechnology’s First Decade
When the first genetically modified crops were introduced to the world ten years ago, the advancement was seen as the beginning of a new time that could help struggling farmers, the environment, and reduce hunger around the world, according to reports. Today, genetically modified beans, cotton, corn, and canola are driving profits at companies like Monsanto and Dow Agrosciences, LLC. However, I was not surprised to learn that as the biotechnology industry celebrated its 10th Anniversary, the early promises of genetically modified foods remain largely unrealized (Biotech Crops mark First Decade with Wins, Losses, CNETNews.com, 12/29/05).
Genetically modified products have not lived up to their early expectations, according to Joel Cohen, senior research fellow at the International Food Policy Research Institute.
"We now have a series of dependable, reliable crops using this technology, but there is still a large precautionary perspective,” Cohen said.
According to the article, for every step forward in biotechnology, there is always a step back that the technology has taken. In late 2005, cereal giant Kellogg’s announced that it would start using a healthy low linolenic oil derived only from Monsanto’s biotech soybean in its cookies, crackers and other food products. Less than two weeks later, however, Kraft Foods said it would stop supplying all genetically engineered food products, including additives, to China due to a lack of market acceptance. PepsiCo and Coca-Cola have made similar pledges.
The author writes of other recent setbacks, including a decision in November 2005 by Swiss voters to ban planting of biotech crops for five years and the recent revelation in Australia that a biotech pea caused health problems in research mice, forcing the cancellation of that project. Also, Monsanto was forced to withdraw a biotech wheat it planned to sell in the United States and Canada in 2004 because of strong market opposition.
“Genetic engineering has not delivered on any of its promises for human health benefits,” said Margaret Mellon, director of the Agriculture and Biotechnology Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “There are a lot of failures scattered at the side of the road.”
According to the article, backers of biotechnology say the crops are good for the environment because they can reduce the amount of chemicals needed to grow healthy crops, but opponents say chemical use many times increases because of weed resistance and other problems. Critics also say that farmer profits tied to better yields get eaten up by the higher prices they pay for biotech seeds and that biotechnology has not eased hunger because many poor countries are unable or are unwilling to adopt the technology.
Still, according to the article, more growth and acceptance of the technology is on the horizon. The author states that an industry report due in January 2006 is expected to show good growth not only in the United States, but in many other countries and barriers in Europe are slowly lowering and new products in the pipelines should help to improve acceptance.
The author writes that according to Michael Fernandez, executive director of the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, there is currently an “enormous investment” in agricultural biotechnology in China, Argentina, Chile, and other countries, and genetically modified rice was likely to gain approval in China in the near future, a move that could shift acceptance globally in favor of biotech food.
Despite opposition, biotechnology and the acceptance of genetically modified foods is certainly moving in the right direction. Here’s to more advancement and breakthroughs in the industry in 2006 and the next ten years.
