Genetic Engineering for Good

A researcher modifies crops to feed the hungry and cut pesticide use

| January-February 2011


Mark Todd /

In the mid-1940s, Norman Borlaug started the Green Revolution on a small farm in Mexico. His idea was simple. As the human population skyrocketed, he would grow a new kind of wheat with a thicker stem and bigger seed heads, thus increasing yield and allowing farmers to grow more wheat—and feed more people—per acre.

The results were staggering. Within two decades, Mexico’s wheat harvest had swollen sixfold, thanks to crops descended from Borlaug’s modified wheat. Borlaug then turned his talents toward rice in the Philippines, and high-yield crops spread into almost every major food staple. All told, Borlaug’s revolution helped feed millions of people in poor and developing countries—an achievement that earned him the 1970 Nobel Peace Prize.

But the Green Revolution wasn’t “green” in the modern sense of the word. In fact, it exacted a huge environmental toll. Its crops require liberal use of fertilizer and pesticides that bleed into the land and sea, poisoning wildlife and creating nitrogen-rich dead zones in the oceans. Now, with climate change threatening to upend many of the world’s crops, a new generation of researchers is poised to correct some of the original revolution’s flaws.

Pam Ronald, a University of California, Davis, researcher, sees a future dominated not by Monsanto-like corporations but by small partnerships between farmers and scientists. By combining genetically modified crops with organic farming and other eco-friendly practices, Ronald believes, we can create a system that slashes pesticide use, insulates crops against floods and drought, and protects the livelihoods of poor farmers in the developing world. Using genetic engineering as a conservation tool sounds like an oxymoron to many people, but the scales may finally be tipping in Ronald’s favor.

Her ideas have become a favorite of opinion makers such as Michael Pollan and Bill Gates. What’s more, they serve as a stark reminder that genetically modified foods are here, whether we like it or not. Which means that, at a time when we need to reinvent the world’s food supply, the critical question may be: Can we get it right?

Ronald is an unlikely genetic-engineering advocate. Pulling into her driveway, I see that her yard looks like that of any eco-foodie. Her pesticide-free garden—a tangled mix of herbs and native plants—has a happy, new age feel. Her barn sports a mural that she describes as “Diego Rivera meets Cesar Chavez.” And her husband, Raoul Adamchak, is an organic farmer.

2/17/2011 10:06:22 PM

sorry, just don't buy it. How many times are we fooled by the well meaning expert, who might really believe what they're doing and then, down the road, whoops, it has severe side affects and we continue to pay for it. Without all the other GMOs from Monsanto out there running havoc, maybe there might have been a chance for Ronald's work, but in addition to theirs, no way do I trust her.

Elizabeth Burns
2/17/2011 3:38:06 PM

The next time my throat closes up from a Chiquita banana (that happened 2 weeks ago and the ER doc said I was the 4th in a month) or a tomato, I'll keep those cheerful thoughts from Ronald in mind. Thank you, John, for also providing the example about gluten proteins - I had countless tests for celiac disease and wheat allergies and they all came up inconclusive - until I did some digging and discovered that my favorite pasta brand used this type of GM wheat. I never had a single problem with fruits and vegetables until about 7 years ago, and I'm sure I'll continue to have them - it's why the ER doctor prescribed an epinephrin pen this time: "You can't starve, and it's just going to get worse out there..." So yes, Ronald is right in that sense. The only saving grace is that most GM plants don't taste as good as something bred naturally, so there will hopefully always be a market for produce that isn't modified. But as long as there are profits to be made by perpetuating the gee-whiz factor that the scientific and agribusinesses have, that possibility becomes less likely, obviously. Yikes.

Kris Johnson
1/27/2011 8:59:01 AM

Genetically engineered is politically correct these days, but completely misguided. Plants grown on truly fertile soil, with balanced mineral content and good biological activity, have little attraction for pests, so why do we need plants laced with pesticides thanks to GE? Such plants are also highly productive and tasty and more nutritious, yet agronomists seem resistant to exploring these ideas, which are being used successfully by ecological farming experts around the world. I take more than compost to attain this excellent fertility - remineralization is key, yet no university seems interested in doing the research to build on these techniques.

1/7/2011 11:00:26 AM

"genetically modified foods are here, whether we like it or not." Not quite-- they are here unlabeled, so we have no chance to decide whether we like them (or the dishonest practice) or not. That and john's perceptive comments should decide, whether Monsanto likes it or not. Taste, as he points out, is crucial; and taste is a surrogate for very subtle biochemical distinctions among food varieties, associated with density of antioxidants among others. Traditionally combined foods also often appear to have nutritive functions: turmeric's curcumin is much better absorbed with a sprinkle of pepper, nor is that the sole function of dietary pepper. Single-gene recombining is pathetically simplstic and naive by comparison. Nor does it feed the world, despite the ads.

john downes
1/7/2011 8:20:34 AM

This argument is typical of all the new foodsciencybabble it just leaps along and ignores the multitude of "lesser" information which moderates the need for such intervention and gives context.The fact that the "green"revolution rice tasted awful is rarely if ever mentioned except by those who had to eat it,the people...not the seemingly benevolent western scientists who only eat it as an amusement really,its not their staple food. To interfere with the inherent quality of a food, which is its sensory edibility is never considered as long as we get more?Was there any mention of the edibility of the Uboatrice from east India? I bet it tastes awful and is rarely used for food in its cultural culinary context.There IS evidence that this type of breeding is harming us.For example the increase in gluten proteins in modern wheat may be the root of coeliac disease and gluten allergy.Old wheats have more water soluble proteins and less of, and a different ratio of glutens.Old wheats tend to taste excellent as well. The modern wheats taste like carboard. Cosidering the USA throws away half its food, shouldnt food action focus more on realities such as this? Asking scientists about food is really a category error, like getting a plumber to fix your car.