Introduction
Agricultural biotechnology’s debut in commercial markets in the mid-1990s was followed by stops and starts. Some products were not successful in the consumer market or did not give farmers the edge they were predicted to have over traditional crops or their preexisting planting and harvesting techniques. Other products proved to be commercial successes, and some even became blockbusters in terms of market share. The term GMO stands for “genetically modified organism.” It can apply to bacteria, viruses, plants, or animals. Other terms—such as transgenic crops or genetically engineered (GE) crops—are used specifically for plants. Some subsets of GMOs consist of GE crops. Other GMOs were developed for agriculture but are not crops, such as genetically engineered microorganisms. When the first GE crops were introduced, the seeds or plant parts (such as root cuttings for asexual reproduction) were patented and thus became protected intellectual property. The value of the first-generation GE crops to farmers was largely in producing greater yields and in reducing the dependency on chemical insecticides.
American science and technology has provided modern civilization with a vast cornucopia of consumer products and industrial innovations in manufacturing, energy production, transportation, and more recently digital technology. Rarely has a technological innovation sustained decades of public skepticism, opposition, and opprobrium across advanced economies. But this has been the fate of genetically modified crops and the processed foods derived from them. The United States agricultural sector has largely welcomed the innovations, but in the public mind, there remains oppositional thinking and skepticism. Even the terminology is in dispute.
At the very time that genetically modified crops and other GMOs were being developed for agriculture and the first field tests were being performed in preparation for commercialization, test plots in the United States, Europe, and Asia were destroyed by anti-GMO activists. Those opposed to GMOs were not interested in waiting for the test results. They believed that the entire enterprise of redesigning the germplasm of plants by the new techniques in molecular biology would result, at the very least, in poorer-quality food and, at most, in a dystopian agriculture leading to illness, nutritional deficiency, or environmental harm.
The idea of redesigning the biotic world was anticipated well before genes were discovered. Francis Bacon, the English polymath philosopher, scientist, and statesman, writing on the threshold of a new era of experimental science, constructed a fable about how the new sciences could create a world order of unimagined gifts. In his 1642 essay “The New Atlantis,” Bacon’s futuristic world consists of majestic architectural towers that are about a half mile in height (a precursor to Le Corbusier’s “Radiant City” urban design), desalinization of sea water, and horticulture of unusual beauty and variation. He writes, “And we make by art … trees and flowers, to come up earlier or later than their seasons, and to come up and bear more speedily than by their natural course they do. We make them also by art greater much than their nature; and fruit greater and sweeter, and of different taste, smell, colour, and of figure, from their nature.”1 For Bacon, the existing biotic world represented the basic raw material or feedstock for transforming plants into more functional utilitarian objects. His vision was realized three hundred years later when gene splicing was discovered, and its applications in agriculture were set in motion. Although there are many examples throughout history of human modification of biological life, for the first time it could be done at the molecular level by moving genes across taxonomic systems.
Beginning in the mid-1970s, stakeholder groups established divisions well before there was credible risk assessment. Greenpeace launched an international campaign against field trials of genetically modified soybeans. Through books, blogs, white papers, and lobbying, other nongovernmental organizations met the prospect of genetically modified crops with different degrees of skepticism. The Union of Concerned Scientists set up a Washington, D.C., office run by two scientists who lobbied for better regulations against the unanticipated effects of releasing genetically modified crops into the environment. Groups like the Environmental Defense Fund questioned the U.S. decision to treat bioengineered crops similar to those produced by traditional breeding. The Foundation on Economic Trends opposed plant and human genetic modification as “playing God” with natural processes. Meanwhile, the National Academy of Sciences (currently the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, NASEM) issued several reports stating that the use of recombinant DNA technology, whether for bacteria or plants, does not introduce any unique hazards.
In 1984, during the administration of President Ronald Reagan, an interagency working group called the Domestic Policy Council Working Group on Biotechnology, chaired by presidential science adviser George Keyworth, sought to provide “a sensible regulatory review process that will minimize the uncertainties and inefficiencies that can stifle innovation, and impair the competitiveness of U.S. industry.”2 The Biotechnology Working Group released its regulatory framework for biotechnology in December 1984. Its report provided the foundations for the oversight of biotechnology for decades to come. The key ideas were science-based regulations, the fostering of U.S. global competitive leadership, and internal and international harmonization of oversight, consistency, ease of regulatory burdens.
The U.S. oversight of biotechnology was placed in the hands of three agencies—the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). No new laws were enacted. The agencies operated within their existing statutes. FDA issued its initial policy in 19923 and reaffirmed it in 2000,4 asserting that transferred genetic material into crops are generally regarded as safe (GRAS): “FDA is not altering its view, as set forth in the 1992 policy, that there is unlikely to be a safety question sufficient to question the presumed GRAS status of the proteins (typically enzymes) produced from the transferred genetic material or of substances produced by the action of the introduced enzymes.”5
Despite the U.S. government’s general approval of genetically modified crops and the extensive planting of a few staples like corn and soybeans, segments of the general public (including members of the scientific community) continued to remain skeptical over the human health and environmental consequences of the new plant products. This skepticism was pitted against the strong affirmation of genetically engineered crops by scientific elites and major professional associations, such as the National Academies.
In industrialized societies, where science has acquired the position as the final authority over claims for generalized empirical knowledge, some segments of society are skeptical or even adversarial over what appears to be a strong scientific consensus among elites over GMOs. In the United States, that consensus covers the safety of genetically modified crops for human and animal health and their environmental impacts. Questions about product risk are largely, if not exclusively, viewed as lying within the purview of science. Although some scientists have declared that the debate over GMOs is over,6 other scientists declare with equal confidence that there is no scientific consensus on GMO safety.7
Social scientists have studied public departures from entrenched scientific claims. A number of explanations can account for these departures. Among them are that not all scientific claims are exclusively fact-based and devoid of normative or value assumptions. When such assumptions or presuppositions form part of the edifice of a scientific explanation, it is neither unreasonable nor irrational for there to exist disagreements because the value judgments are not premised exclusively on scientific authority.
A second explanation that accounts for differences between public views and a scientific plurality is that nonscientists appeal to sources other than science for establishing or reinforcing their beliefs. Folk wisdom, religion, family traditions, alternative news outlets, and new age alternatives to allopathic medicine are among the sources of nonscientific beliefs. Social psychologists have used the term confirmation bias to describe the tendency to see new ideas or established scientific claims as confirming an existing belief.
Third, those individuals who are inclined to follow scientific advice exclusively on matters of risk and health benefits may accept the knowledge claims or statements highlighting uncertainty by outlier scientists who publish articles supporting views that fall outside the mainstream. The history of science teaches us that minority positions sometimes become validated and should not be discarded at the outset, especially when questions remain unresolved.
In this book, I accept as a starting position that in the United States scientists are largely supportive of the GMOs that currently are planted and consumed. Based on published statements from professional societies and the scientific literature, any concerns over the human health or environmental effects of this new generation of agricultural products have not been any greater than those of traditionally bred crops. For example, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s most recent and comprehensive 606-page report on genetically engineered crops finds that “the research that has been conducted in studies with animals and on chemical composition of GE food reveals no differences that would implicate a higher risk to human health from eating GE foods than from eating their non-GE counterparts.”8
But the viewpoints over GMOs cannot be divided into a simple polarity. There is a spectrum of positions. Even some mainstream scientists are not inclined to embrace GMOs uncritically and without some caveats. Moreover, the research is still evolving. In order to give a voice to the wide spectrum of viewpoints, I explore the skepticism over GE crops held by different public groups, nongovernmental organizations, and scientists who do not always share the same views on risk and environmental impacts.
This book addresses the core issues of agricultural biotechnology through topics that have been widely discussed and debated but that remain unresolved in the minds of some and resolved by others. But the resolution of the issues has been contested by different stakeholder groups. This volume explores those differences to determine the extent to which the fault lines of disagreement exist among scientists or between the scientific community and the popular culture. My investigation seeks to understand why GMOs are banned or restricted in some countries and welcomed by others. In the inquiry, I examine the role of science in addressing the risks and benefits of GE crops. Without oversimplifying the science, the book is written to help nonexperts understand disagreements about the potential of GMOs to transform agriculture either favorably or unfavorably. Does it represent progress or peril?
For more than two decades, the GMO debates have centered on a series of recurring questions. The chapters are intended to address and respond to these issues:
Skepticism and ardent support for GMOs can be found across many types of organizations. These groups typically cite the scientific studies or public surveys that support their opinions. This book is not about taking sides. My experience in studying scientific controversies that have public policy implications is that there are often truths, falsehoods, exaggerations, assumptions, fear-mongering, and uncertainties in the claims found on multiple sides of an issue. This book will succeed if it lays out the claims and counterclaims and points to supporting arguments in a manner that demystifies the science and shows where there is consensus, honest disagreement, or unresolved uncertainty. The reader who gains a deeper understanding of the nature of the debate and the fault lines that divide communities will be in a better position to make an informed judgment about the previous questions.
The published literature on GMOs covers thousands of works, including journal articles, books, government reports, and NGO studies. Any author has to make a selection and connect dots among the vast reservoir of knowledge claims. My approach is to depend foremost on refereed journal articles, academic books that have been vetted by other scholars before publication, and reports from highly recognized journals, government agencies, and professional societies. I do not cherry-pick the science that supports a predetermined position. Science is a meritocracy but one where there is no forced hierarchy of opinion. Where there is honest controversy within the meritocracy, it can be found in the published scientific literature. Lack of published controversy within the canonical scientific literature can be a sign of consensus over a specific question.
We also have to be aware that scientists, even while publishing in the best journals, can carry hidden biases that they hold consciously or unconsciously. These biases can be reflected in financial conflicts of interest that may or may not be disclosed in their published papers. When scientists hold an equity interest in companies that are poised to benefit from a discovery, there is no longer an objective playing field between benefits and risks. The expectation of personal reward can diminish concerns about untoward consequences and can enhance positive interpretations of results. Unconscious biases can drive a weighted interpretation (or misinterpretation) of observational data from well-designed research or a preferential selection of studies on which to ground a preferred conclusion.
After this introduction, I begin by discussing traditional and molecular breeding. Chapter 1, on traditional plant breeding, covers cross-breeding, hybridization, and mutagenesis. Chapter 2 examines the methods for developing bioengineered crops, which I call molecular breeding. Here I explain the composition of “foreign” gene constructs that are transferred into the plant genome and discuss both anticipated and unanticipated outcomes. Chapter 3 discusses the distinctive features of molecular and traditional breeding and the ways that those distinctions in plant breeding affect questions of risks and benefits.
Chapters 4 to 7 examine the early and later commercial products of molecular breeding, including the Flavor Savr tomato and disease-, herbicide-, and insect-resistant crops. The reader is introduced to genetic mechanisms for developing genetically engineered crops and their relevance to risk assessment.
Chapter 8 delves into genetic mechanisms for molecular breeding and the ways that they enter into risk assessment. It contrasts the Lego model with the ecosystem model of the plant genome and the ways that they inform risk assessment of GMOs. In chapter 9, contested scientific viewpoints on the health effects of genetically engineered crops are explored. Whether GE crops should be labeled is examined in chapter 10. A critically important study by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine is discussed and analyzed in chapter 11. Chapter 12 looks at the history, significance, and current status of the first biofortified GMO crop, called Golden Rice.
For chapter 13, I review the literature covering the social studies of science, also called science and technology studies (STS), to investigate how STS scholars understand stakeholder conflicts over GMOs and whether these conflicts can be resolved by a consensus among scientists. My conclusion on the current state of molecular breeding and the social angst over GMOs is the subject of chapter 14, where I return to answer the questions raised in the introduction.
The approach I have taken for exploring the vast body of scientific and policy literature begins by drawing from a representative sample (hundreds of studies and reports) of the tens of thousands of biological and social science publications on genetically engineered crops. A Boolean search of three science databases using the key words [(GMOs) OR (genetically modified organisms) OR (bioengineered crops) OR (genetically engineered crops) OR (genetically modified crops)] yielded 4,920, 5,130, and 49,658 publications in Web of Science, Biological and Agricultural Index, and Pub Med respectively.9 Additional searches were carried out between 2016 and 2017 to capture current publications. My literature search was narrowed by topic areas, and special attention was given to contested findings and viewpoints in areas represented in the book’s chapters, allowing the reader to understand the presuppositions and evidence behind the conclusions drawn. The approach I have chosen will succeed if it allows the readers to understand why there remains disagreement about the health, environmental, political, and social impacts of GMOs.
Notes
1. Francis Bacon, “The New Atlantis,” in Sir Thomas More, The Utopia … 1551, Francis, Lord Bacon, The New Atlantis, 1622, ed. H. Goitein (London: Routledge [1925]).
2. Sheldon Krimsky, Biotechnics and Society (New York: Praeger, 1991), 193.
3. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, “Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties,” Federal Register 57 (May 29, 1992): 22,984.
4. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, “Premarket Notice Concerning Bioengineered Foods: Proposed Rule,” Federal Register 66 (January 18, 2001): 4706–4738.
5. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, “Premarket Notice.”
6. Jon Entine, “The Debate about GMO Safety Is Over, Thanks to a New Trillion-Meal Study,” Forbes, September 17, 2014, https://
7. Angelika Hilbeck, Rosa Binimelis, Nicolas Defarge, et al., “No Scientific Consensus on GMO Safety,” Environmental Sciences Europe 27, no. 4 (2015): 1–6.
8. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2016).
9. The search was carried out on August 27, 2016.