Agriculture
Online

Some Straight Talk About GMOs -
Interview With Professor Philip Stott

Johan Bakker: Professor Stott, thanks for taking the time to talk with me today.

Professor Stott: Thanks for asking me to comment.

Johan Bakker: Professor Stott, what do you see as the major benefits of GM food crops, economically, politically or environmentally, for the developed world? For the underdeveloped world?

Professor Stott: The first biotech plants, which were developed in 1983, were primarily research tools. The second generation provided a wide range of herbicide-tolerant crops (e.g. those Liberty-resistant to glufosinate ammonium) and pest control crops (e.g. the Bt crops resistant to the European corn borer, cotton bollworm, tobacco budworm, and pink bollworm) that you all know so well in America. These primarily carried benefits for the producer and for the environment, especially with regard to chemical spraying. The real consumer benefits, however, both for the developed and the developing world, will come with the third and fourth generation of crops. These will provide:

(a) food with better health characteristics, such as increased digestibility, less saturated fat, high monounsaturated fat, zero trans fats, and cholesterol-reducing properties, such as soybeans (e.g. high oleic soybeans and high stearic/high oleic soybean margarine) with the potential for heart and cancer health benefits;

(b) high-performance cooking oils that will maintain texture at raised temperatures, reduce processing needs, and again create healthier products from peanuts, soybeans, and sunflowers;

(c) edible crops that will carry vaccines (e.g. bananas, potatoes, and tomatoes ) against some of the world's worst diseases (e.g. cholera, hepatitis, malaria) and crops in which vaccines are developed and produced (e.g. tobacco and a vaccine against cervical cancer - what an irony: tobacco to fight cancer!);

(d) crops which will carry important nutritional and health additives (even now, and free for humanitarian purposes, 'golden rice' is being developed with enough beta-carotene to satisfy the daily requirements for Vitamin A in as little as 300 g of cooked rice, as well as providing added iron. This will help to combat two of the very worst nutritional deficiencies in the developing world);

(e) crops with reduced allergenicity (e.g. peanuts);

(f) crops with better sto rage and transport characteristics through delayed ripening and fungus/pest protection ( e.g. bananas, pineapples, raspberries, strawberries, and tomatoes); and, especially important for the developing world;

(g) new subsistence crops that will extend agriculture into ecologically marginal areas, such as saline soils, soils poor in nutrients, and drought-affected regions. So great are the possibilities that I am horrified that unfounded hysteria may set back the development of these third and fourth generation products. The key point about biotechnology is its ability to keep humanity, yet again, ahead of pests and diseases, environmental change (including climate change), and population growth.

Johan Bakker: What do you see as the major drawbacks of GM food crops, economically, politically or environmentally, for the developed world? For the underdeveloped world?

Professor Stott: I can see few drawbacks for the developed world. In fact, because they will continue the process of efficient intensification -- and more safely than with chemical spraying -- they should help to prevent the need to extend agriculture further into 'wilderness.' Their role in the developing world, however, is more problematic, and care will be needed to ensure that crops are produced which genuinely assist agricultural development in ecologically, politically, and economically marginal areas. Mind you, we must remember that the developing world is itself already at the forefront of the development of biotech crops, in China (1 million acres in 1999), India (which just ratified Bt cotton), Argentina (14 million acres in 1999!), Cuba (some famous labs), Mexico, and elsewhere. I would also like to see biotech crops working with, rather than against, 'organic' processes. One of the very worst features of the current debate is the misleading attempt to drive an ideological wedge between the two by some very self-indulgent 'organic' purists. Their hype could back fire very badly.

Johan Bakker: Much of the furor among farmers in the US about GM food crops has centered upon the issue of the patenting of genetic variations, the charging of "tech fees", and the prohibition on "seed saving." Would you comment on this and how this has been handled in Europe?

Professor Stott: The answer with regard to Europe is simple: these arguments are being used by opponents as an excuse to stop any development whatsoever. In America, the problem is much more down-to-earth: who pays for the development of biotech crops? We need a much fuller democratic discussion over how research is to be funded and to be paid for. Who pays for testing? But be careful about 'seed saving'; this, in many cases, is in reality seed quality protection and preservation (also remember seedless grapes, bananas, roses etc). Something which has always gone on. And, with regard to the developing world, remember that all crops developed with the support of the Rockefeller Foundation, (the world famous philanthropic Foundation dedicated to the development of science and knowledge, especially for the disadvantaged), for example, must be free for humanitarian purposes.

Johan Bakker: The resistance of consumers to GM foodstuffs has been much greater in Europe than it has in the US, to this point at least. Please comment on this, and describe what moves are being made to educate consumers more fully about the benefits and the risks of GM foods.

Professor Stott: Absolutely. And the reason for the European hysteria is easy to see.

Firstly, it is a result of the experience with BSE, or "mad cow disease." This, of course, is a totally different case, the feeds involved having been utterly untested and largely hidden. A disgrace. But it has made folk understandably wary. This is a pity, because, by contrast, biotech crops are the most tested crops there have ever been. In the USA, it takes 9-10 years to commercializa tion. To date, the USA alone has held over 24,000 field trials, and the protein products are rigorously scrutinized for allergencity problems.

Secondly, it is a distrust of 'science' in general -- a very different attitude to that in America. You rightly respect your National Academy of Sciences; in the UK, people don't respect our equivalent, the Royal Society, to the same degree.

Thirdly, it is a very poor science education in our schools. Many folk simply cannot cope with the science and feel frightened by it.

Fourthly, 90% of journalists writing about biotechnology are liberal-arts graduates.

Fifthly, being a small country, environmentalists tend to be far more concerned about the environmental impacts than you need to be in the wider spaces of America.

And, finally, despite their limitations (about which I am sure you can all be most eloquent!), your regulatory bodies (the FDA, the EPA, etc) are far better than their equivalents in the UK and in Europe. Europe, especially, is a total mess, and getting any novel crop accepted for all EU countries a positive nightmare (involving, if I remember correctly, over 30 separate bodies!). Nevertheless, we are now trying very hard to counter all the fear and hysteria through groups of scientists being ready to speak on the media, write in the press, debate, and talk to people Your readers might want to visit, for example, the Web site www.cropgen.org, which has been created especially for this purpose, as well as my own little Web site www.probiotech.fsnet.co.uk.

Johan Bakker: How much of the current resistance to GM foods in Europe, do you believe, is being fomented as a political and social reaction to US agribusiness?

Professor Stott: All that having been said, the real reason for the hysteria is indeed the exploitation of the fears I have described above by extreme environmental groups, who often have little interest in the 'science', but who have social agendas of their own. These groups want to 'stop-the-world-and-get-off' and they will abuse and misuse 'science' to achieve their ends. They are avowedly anti-capitalist, anti-development, anti-science, sometimes even anti-farming, and most certainly anti-American, and they want to position America, and its biotech companies, as the 'Great Satan.' Many were at Seattle and Washington DC for the WTO and World Bank protests, and they regularly visit St Louis in small numbers to attack Monsanto, DuPont, etc. You should know that some of the extreme organisations involved are wealthy and are large corporations in their own right! One or two are far more dangerous for humanity than any biotech crop ever will be!

Johan Bakker: Professor, would you please comment on the likelihood and impacts of any gene transfer from GM foodstuffs to human consumers?

Professor Stott: This issue is typical of the kind of 'fears' that can so easily be exploited by those opposed to biotechnology. The simple fact is that we all eat the DNA of other organisms (carrots, lamb, beef) every day of our lives, but it doesn't recombine with our own DNA to produce monsters, a la Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. I'm afraid it goes the way of everything else we gobble down! A few weeks ago, I indulged in my favourite delicacy at a French restaurant in London - frogs' legs! Needless to say, I haven't turned into an amphibian requiring a kiss from a lovely princess (a pity) to return to human form - though I undoubtedly masticated a lot of froggy cells and nuclei! The fact is that we do not get gene transfers from eating. There may be problems with the protein products, of course - hence the need for the careful allergen testing of biotech foods (all foods for that matter). In reality, getting DNA to recombine in new crops has taken some 50 years of research. Sadly, eating wasn't a cost effective alternative! And most of the products of the new DNA are destroyed in the processing before they even get to us.

Johan Bakker: Any other issues or comments you feel are important?

Professor Stott: Biotechnology is an essential tool for humans to keep ahead in evolutionary terms. We cannot afford to ignore its benefits. Yet, it is vital that scientists, both in the government and in the private sector, learn far better how to work with folk -- farmers and consumers -- in presenting and developing these products. They need to be careful about the language they employ (e.g. no 'terminator' genes!) and be far more ready to be democratically accountable. I believe we are beginning to improve -- and it is interesting that, despite all the hype, IFIC recorded, in May, an increase of 3% in consumer confidence for biotech crops in the USA , and the 2000 plantings in the US of biotech cotton and soybeans will be up on those in 1999.

In the future, I am convinced that all 'Successful Farming' must include biotech crops.

Johan Bakker: Professor Stott, thank you very much for taking the time to talk with us today.

Professor Stott: Thanks for asking me to contribute to your outstanding site. I am happy to receive comments and constructive discussion, especially from farmers, and you are welcome to e-mail me at Stott2@compuserve.com. And very best wishes to you all from London.