The Green Revolution of 40 years ago was the last great scientific contribution to food production. High yielding varieties (HYVs) of rice and wheat were developed through selective plant breeding, but without genetic modification, in the Philippines and Mexico respectively and spread rapidly all over the world. In spite of universal objection to the bland taste of International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) or "miracle rice," governments and farmers alike enthusiastically took up its cultivation because of a dramatic increase in yields. Though it took a long time for IRRI rice to spread extensively in Bangladesh (because of the expense of irrigation water in the dry season and increased amounts of chemical fertilisers), HYVs of wheat spread immediately. Before independence in 1971 little wheat was grown and it was all low-yielding local varieties. Because of fear of famine after the war much relief wheat was imported and people became accustomed to eating it, especially for breakfast. Cultivation of wheat spread rapidly in the dry season because it did not require irrigation or large amounts of chemical fertiliser. "Sonalika", an HYV variety developed in India, quickly became a popular favourite.

Even before the Green Revolution, which affected mainly the densely populated countries of the southern hemisphere, hybrid plants were widely developed through plant breeding and artificial selection in western countries in the 1930s and '40s. Such plants have "hybrid vigour" and produce significantly greater yields. Maize or corn is the main example. Hybrid plants may also have some other desirable characteristic, such as dwarf maize for storm resistance. By 1969 in the U.S.A. 71% of all maize was made up of only six hybrid varieties.¹ Villa states that "for the first time in agricultural history, farmers [who plant genetically modified or GM crops] risk losing their right to save seeds," since they are under contract not to save, sell or reuse the GM seeds. But for almost 70 years hybrid maize has been grown successfully, even though it requires purchase of new hybrid seeds from the seed companies every year. If second generation seeds are planted, much of the hybrid vigour is lost. Here is a case of "genetic erosion," which is another of the scientific criticisms against the GM organisms (GMOs). Many of the same concerns were voiced over hybrids in their early days that are now being unleashed against the GMOs today.

None of the criticisms about IRRI rice cultivation were applied to HYV wheat cultivation except one. Monoculture - or almost exclusive cultivation of one variety only - eliminates agricultural diversity. It could result in disaster if diseases or predators appeared which severely damaged or wiped out the single variety crop. The fear of this possibility was real enough, but the condition has never materialised anywhere in the world. The Green Revolution saved millions of lives because it came on the scene at a time when there were actual famines or famines in the offing due to population growth outstripping food production, at least in several countries.

The safeguards against disaster striking a major monoculture crop through loss of agricultural diversity, leaving both the farmers and consumers subject to starvation, are little known. In Bangladesh, for example, the Bangladesh Rice Research Institute maintains a "rice bank" of more than 9,000 varieties of rice grown in the country. If a monoculture crop were hard hit or wiped out by disease or predators, old varieties could be quickly multiplied on seed farms. New GMOs against the new disease or predator could also be produced rapidly, since the techniques are now well-known.

The spectre of possible harmful effects from new scientific advances is again being raised today. The Green Revolution is being followed by the Gene Revolution. Plant biotechnology or "genetic engineering" has produced "a stunning array of seemingly hardier plants, growing in more climates and producing more and better fruits."² The newest technology for dramatically increasing the yield of many crops is the genetic modification of plants by splicing together, inserting or eliminating certain genes that have helpful or harmful effects. It was as late as 1986 that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) approved the first living genetically altered organism - a virus - from which a single gene had been cut.³ Since 1986 several hundred patents have been granted for GMOs.

GMOs, or transgenic organisms, are being produced by large corporate businesses and are being promoted throughout the world as the most important advance since the HYVs of rice and wheat. Monsanto, a U.S. chemical company, is the leader in the Gene Revolution. In 1999 it controlled 80% of the market for GMOs.⁴ The USA is the strongest supporter of GM crops. According to USDA figures, the percentage of GM corn acreage in 2002 will rise from 26% to 32% (down from a high of 37% due to bans by other countries), GM cotton from 69% to 71% and GM soybeans from 68% to 74%.⁵ But as rapidly as the GMOs have spread, opposition to them has developed as well, much of it uninformed. "A vocal minority of detractors has hyped the risks of crop engineering all out of proportion to reality and blocked the new technology's greatest potential contribution: advancing the welfare of poor farmers and consumers around the world through publicly funded crop programs."⁶ For example, "golden" rice that incorporates a gene for producing a high content of beta-carotene was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation but was not marketed due to growing public objection to GM plants.

There are four main critical reactions against GMOs. The first one is predominantly emotional, based on feeling rather than facts. An example is the rejection of all genetically modified foods by Great Britain and some European Union countries such as France. The Zambian President Levy Mwanawasa said that his people would rather die than eat toxic food. "Something unnatural is being foisted on us" would be the way this reaction can be succinctly stated. Since GM foods suddenly appeared without people's knowledge about them, there is great concern about whether they are safe to eat. People fear that it may take a long time to establish their safety and in the meantime their health is put at risk. Americans more than others have put their faith in GMOs and in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is spending millions of dollars to protect its citizens from being harmed by GMOs.

An advocacy campaign in 2002 of 72 NGOs of Indonesia was directed against the introduction of Bt-cotton, a gene-modified plant developed by Monsanto for protection against the boll weevil, which is the main predator on cotton. Their main contention is that transgenic agriculture is somehow wrong by nature, that it contradicts nature. Long lists of harmful effects were given by the NGOs but they were all said to be only probable. We were asked us to send protests, referring to at least one scientific study, but they themselves did not cite any scientific study.

The experience of India with the same Bt cotton is the exact opposition of the contention of the Indonesian NGOs. Bt cotton, smuggled into India, proved to be a great favorite with the cotton farmers because it gave 20-30 per cent higher yields. Contrary to Indonesian environmental activists, the cotton farmers opposed government's banning the transgenic cotton because through experience they found it highly beneficial. The Indian government lifted its ban on GM production and approved Monsanto's Bt cotton seed for planting in March 2002.

A second reaction is on scientific grounds. "Even though there may be no known harmful effects up to now, scientific proof of the safety of GM foods will take many years to establish" is the way this position could be stated. In the Philippines the Catholic Bishops Conference launched a campaign in early 2003 to collect one million signatures against the import and planting of genetically modified maize or Bt maize. Bt maize is so-called because it carries the insect-resistant Bacillus thuringiensis gene. The bishops' objection is that there has been insufficient testing of GM food to furnish reasonable grounds for using it.⁷

The most reasonable scientific objection is when a GM product fails to live up to its advertised purpose. A variety of GM maize sold as "Starlink" was approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for use in animal feed but not for human consumption because it could possibly cause allergic reactions. But Starlink maize showed up in taco shells and stirred up a furore against all forms of GM corn. The export of American GM corn has lost the European, Chinese and Japanese markets for US farmers. U.S. corn exports had come down 862,000 MT by April 14, 2002 from a year earlier.⁸

Monsanto recalled hundreds of tonnes of Canadian canola (rapeseed), used in hundreds of products, because a GM organism (GT200) was found in trace amounts. The company insisted it was safe to consume but Canada exports large amounts of canola to Japan, which hasn't approved GT200. Monsanto has requested the USDA regulators to forgive any presence of GT200 found in American canola.⁹

In India the Bihar state government plans legal action against the distributors of GM 900 M variety of maize produced by Monsanto. It was cultivated on 150,000 hectares of land by at least 500,000 farmers and grew well, but there were no grains on the corncobs. Local people say that the distributors cheated farmers in selling them "unapproved" seeds that they promised would yield three times what local varieties produce.¹⁰ There was no indication that the seeds distributed had actually been shipped by Monsanto.

As mentioned above, a further scientific objection is the loss of agricultural diversity by excessive dependence on one high yielding variety alone of each GM crop. There is also a fear that there may be a harmful "gene flow" from GM crops to wild plants which will "disrupt delicately balanced ecosystems."¹¹ If herbicide resistance is transferred from GM plants to wild plants they may become "superweeds," resistant to many chemicals.

The third reaction is against unethical or unanticipated business management practices. The U.S. forces countries, especially in Africa, to accept GM maize as relief food. Once a market and tolerance are established for GM foods, the possibility of foreign investment moving in with high-technology agriculture to grow the same foods locally is always strong. The local people would then lose autonomy over their food system.

A fourth reaction is that there are inadequate safeguards. One drawback of the biotechnology is that a new or modified legal infrastructure is needed to allow access to the modern innovations, especially in the developing countries. There is also inadequate regulation of GMOs. "Genetically engineered food is such a sensitive issue that no slip-ups can be tolerated -- and current regulatory systems are so lax that some slip-ups are inevitable."¹²

Many critics of the GMOs write as if the high-technology companies producing them were completely irresponsible. Devinder Sharma states: "For the GM food industry, reeling under a growing rejection of its untested and harmful food products...".¹³ This is unadulterated dishonesty, since no proof whatsoever is offered to back this serious allegation. Even though it is abundantly clear that food is indeed used as a political weapon, Sharma further writes that the biochemical industry uses agricultural economists and Nobel laureates "to promote the unhealthy food to gullible populations." This is an extraordinary insult to top-notch scientists, who can surely be presumed to know more about GMOs than non-scientist journalists and environmental activists who have hopped with enthusiasm on the anti-GM bandwagon. Victor and Runge ¹⁴ contend that "the scientific evidence strongly suggests that these crops are safe - sometimes even safer than conventional ones."

Since GMOs are costly to research and develop they are patented as the intellectual property of the company that sponsored them. There has been much resentment over the patenting by rich countries of useful herbal drugs and food plants from developing countries under the Intellectual Property Rights provision of the World Trade Agreement. Two examples that are well-known in the Indian sub-continent are basmati rice and the active principle of the neem tree (azadirachtin), which is used as a pesticide. Both have been patented in the USA. These actions have been highly criticised by activists, who say that neem tree extract and basmati rice are public property, a heritage of the ages. But what they do not realise is that only one particular GM variety of basmati rice has been patented and only chemically-synthesized azadirachtin has been patented. Hence, the owners of the patents cannot sue anyone for royalties who is growing other varieties of basmati rice or who is using natural neem extract as a pesticide. The patents would not be infringed by such actions.

One of the main agricultural crops of East Bengal in the 19th century was indigo (nil), from which a purple dye was extracted. But when Sir William Henry Perkin synthesized indigo or aniline dye, patented it in 1856 and started a company to manufacture it, artificial aniline gradually supplanted the natural indigo industry. It is a question of economics and the law of supply and demand. It is those with the superior knowledge and technology who can most easily gain control of new scientific advances such as GM foods, seeds and drugs. The control may be absolute when processes are patented only for profit, or the advances may be beneficial in the public domain if they are freely made available. One has only to think of the introduction of large Dutch potatoes after the war of independence in Bangladesh and of Japanese watermelon, which almost completely replaced local small varieties within a short time.

Professor Enamul Huq of the Department of Soil, Water and Environment Science of Dhaka University on April 6, 2003 revealed his research on genetically modified seeds. He speculated that at least 10 multinational corporations will dominate the world's food system by producing foods and seeds using sophisticated genetic technology.

Prof. Huq claimed to have found that GM foods create an adverse impact on the environment as well as on the human body. He said that taking those foods may cause behavioural changes and some "chemical reactions" were found in the foods. Further, he claimed that GM seeds negatively impact the environment and expedite the pollution of soil and water by excess chemicals.

He did not publish any details, however, so it is difficult to assess the scientific value of his findings. The normal scientific practice is for independent experts to try to duplicate the same results using the same technologies. When that is done, credence may be given to the research.

Many of the charges brought against GMOs can be remedied, some by scientific means, others by management procedures. Due to the need for strict regulatory measures the European Union has adopted new stringent rules for releasing GMOs. This ended a three-year moratorium on commercial use of GMOs that was adopted in 1998 due to a great public outcry over GM crops. Required are: public consultations, public registers of where GM crops are planted, more careful risk assessments before release of GMOs and closer monitoring afterwards.¹⁵ The US Food and Drug Administration, which is one of three agencies which regulate GMOs, is also working on stricter regulations.¹⁶ The vigorous campaigns against GMOs have therefore had a salutary effect in tightening up regulatory mechanisms. They have also brought about a swing from emphasis on producer benefits to a stress on user or consumer benefits. In order for farmers or consumers to be able to make educated decisions, the scientific pros and cons about GMOs must be made widely available to the public.

Gene flows from GM plants to wild ones by cross-pollination could be prevented by adequate spacing between plots. A transgenic salmon which a US company wants to breed commercially could possible escape and breed with natural salmon to produce undesirable effects. The company says it can prevent this by making all the female salmon sterile.

There would be increased expenditures due to remedial measures, both for governments and GM producers. These will be passed on to the users. This makes it unlikely or less likely that the poorer farmers will be able to afford to participate in transgenic agriculture. They would therefore lose out on the higher crop yields, greater resistance to diseases and reduced use of pesticides and thus fall deeper into poverty.

Individual morality is simple to judge in comparison with the ethics of social injustice. The judgements on GM foods, seeds and drugs are extraordinarily complex. Because of the complexity in assessing risks, many insurance companies are not issuing insurance for GM products. The GMOs are basically a scientific problem rather than an ethical problem and protestors do not serve the cause of justice by jumping on every advocacy bandwagon for a joy ride. The protestors have nothing to lose but science has much to lose. The poor people of the world for whom increases in food and cash crop production may be literally a matter of life or death also have a lot to lose.

It is a part of the Church's contribution to world development to provide ethical perspectives on major international issues. Ethical concerns are those most likely to be left out in top-down development. Popes Paul VI and John Paul II are two of the outstanding commentators on development in recent times. They say, in effect: "We are not experts in the social sciences - economists, sociologists, political theorists, anthropologists, etc. - but we are 'experts in humanity'." It is the ethical or moral outlook in development which is the major contribution of the Church. The Churches emphasizes human dignity as the basis of human rights and the human person as the subject of development, rather than a commodity to be peddled in the market like fish or radishes. Mahatma Gandhi said of poverty versus the resources available in the world: "There is enough for everyone's needs, but not enough for everyone's greed." The push for profits cannot be the overriding aim of biochemical industries to the detriment of public health and safety.

A nationwide survey in the USA, based on religious faith, showed that only among Jews did a majority support transgenic biology, i.e., moving genes from one organism or species to another.¹⁷ However, all agreed that there is an ethical responsibility to inform people, so that they can make a responsible choice. An ethical issue related to this is whether or not there should be compulsory labeling of GM products, as has already been adopted by the European Union.

If a new technology is introduced too rapidly before all the risks have been eliminated the results could be disastrous. Indications mentioned above show that several harmful effects are possible from genetically modified plants and foods. For this reason GMOs are a moral concern.

On the one hand the European Union has virtually banned GM foods since 1998. On the other the U.S. opposed the ban as a violation of World Trade Organisation rules. Its Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman stated: "The European Union actions threaten to deny the full develo0pment of a technology that holds enormous potential benefits to both producers and consumers worldwide, while also providing a very significant means to combat hunger and malnutrition that afflict hundreds of millions of people across the developing world."¹⁸

An analysis of the past shows that no disasters to people's health, great or small, have resulted from agricultural innovations like hybridization and miracle rice and wheat. The Gene Revolution so far has not produced any significant disaster and all the valid objections raised against GMOs are being counteracted by scientific responses. Creating strong pressure for such remedial measures seems to be the most appropriate ethical response to a highly sensitive situation.

Rev R.W. Timm, CSC holds a Master of Science and a Doctorate from The Catholic University of America (1949-52) in Biology, specializing in Parasitology, and a further specialty in nematodes (roundworms). He has published 67 scientific papers and monographs on nematodes and described more than 250 new species that he found in Bangladesh and various countries of the world, including Antarctica.

1. Fr Timm compares the development of hybrid plants in the 1930s and 40's, and the 'green revolution' of the 1960s with today's development of genetically modified foods and seeds.
   Do you think that the development of genetically modified organisms is of a different nature to these previous developments? If so, why?
2. In Bangladesh a 'rice bank' is kept by the Bangladesh Rice Research Institute. Fr Timm suggests that if a monoculture crop were badly affected by disease or predators, old varieties of rice could be quickly produced from the 'rice bank'. Does your country have any such mechanisms to protect against the failure of a monoculture crop? What safeguards would you like to see in place?
3. Do you think that genetically modified organisms are contrary to nature? If so, how would you respond to the suggestion that this may be an emotional response?
4. Fr Timm argues that many of the concerns that people have about genetically modified organisms can be remedied - some by scientific means and others by management procedures or legal infrastructure. Do you agree? Why, or why not?
5. Which article, AIF 22 or this one, most closely reflects your country's experience (if any) of genetically modified organisms?

Action Resource for International Earth Day
contains material for reflection and discussion along with a range of action ideas for individuals and groups.

Sustainable Development
contains material for reflection and discussion. It also provides an excellent selection of links to help you find more detailed information.

1. Villa, Juan Lopez 2002. "GMOs threaten biodiversity," Third World Network Features, July.
2. Encyclopedia Britannica 2001 Standard edition CD-ROM, "Biotechnology - blessing or curse?"
3. Ibid., "Genetic engineering."
4. Villa, op. cit.
5. Chemical Week: "USDA figures show rise in GM crop plantings," 10.14.2002
6. Victor, David G. & C. Ford Runge "Farming the genetic frontier," Foreign Affairs 05.01.2002.
7. Asia Focus: "Genetically modified corn rapped," Apr. 11, 2003.
8. PR Newswire, "Proper regulation of unapproved GMO crops a must for US food security," 18.04.2002
9. AFX News-UK: "Pharmacia's Monsanto says canola may contain unapproved GM material," 4.12.2002.
10. Asia Focus, Apr. 11, 2003. "Genetically modified seed fails, Indian farmers burdened."
11. Victor & Runge, op.cit.
12. Victor & Runge, op. cit.
13. Sharma, Devinder 2002. "Famine as commerce and food aid as tool of biotech industry," Third World Network Features, August (emphasis added).
14. Victor & Runge, op. cit.
15. New Scientist, "Battle fields," 13.02.2001.
16. Christian Science Monitor: "Bioengineered food sows ethical concerns," 1.8.2001.
17. Christian Science Monitor, op. cit.
18. The Daily Star, Dhaka, 15.5.03.