Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
BIOTECHNOLOGY: ITS POTENTIAL IMPACT ON INTERRELATIONSHIPS AMONG AGRICULTURE, INDUSTRY, AND SOCIETY Lawrence Busch and William B. Lacy The last several years have witnessed the beginning of a major change in world agriculture. For the first time in history, patents or patentlike protection have been accorded to plants and even microorganisms. The large agrochemical and pharmaceutical firms have bought many of the worId's largest seed companies and have begun to integrate them into their larger plans. Computer tech- nologies and robots have begun to enter into the agri- cultural sector, changing significantly the ways in which agriculture is managed. Finally, the new biotechnologies have opened new vistas in agriculture, making possible for the first time the engineering of improved plants and animals and promising to make the food processing indus- tries more efficient than ever before. Together, these as yet unrealized technical changes are likely to dwarf the so-called Green Revolution of the 1970s. In the United States, farmers and the general public tend to view the new biotechnologies favorably. A recent article in American Vegetable Grower is indicative: "The promises of the new developments for agriculture have been widely publicized. For example, the potential and eco- nomic impact of new varieties of crops requiring little or no input of costly fertilizer is obvious. Similarly, the development of varieties with better resistance to disease and insects would benefit the production of many crops" (Boyer, 1984, p. 51~. Unfortunately, our review of the 75
literature~and interviews with scientists suggest that the author's enthusiasm is at best likely to be short-lived. In this paper we review these changes with specific emphasis on biotechnology. Of concern here is how the new biotechnologies, and the social and scientific changes that they engender, are likely to be used by powerful interests to change what we eat. In the past, agriculture has been different from manufacturing, in part because of its need for land and its dependence upon seasonal changes. Lenin noted that "agriculture possesses certain features which cannot possibly be removed (if we leave aside the extremely problematical possibility of producing albumen and foods by artificial processes)" (Lenin, 1938, p. 85~. Yet, it appears that just such a possibility is upon the horizon. Is it possible that biotechnology will create a world of superabundant food? Is hunger to be finally eliminated as a part of the human condition? Or are there other forces that will shape the biotechnology revolution to other ends? SAVING THE METAPHOR Plant biology has, until recently, rarely descended below the level of the plant organ or part. This was in part a result of lower levels of funding, but was also due to the greater difficulties of working with plant cells and the strong applied character of the plant sciences! Conventional plant breeding--what we may refer to as the old biotechnologies--has proceeded with some help from Mendelian genletics, but with a heavy and necessary dose of empiricism. It has five basic steps: (1) the dis- covery or creation of genetically stable variation for the desired traits; (2) selection of individuals best express- ing those traits; (3) incorporation of the traits into a desirable agronomic background; (4) testing over a wide range of habitats and several seasons; and (5) the release of the new variety. In the last decade, however, it has become possible to apply techniques developed for molecular biology to plant improvement. These techniques can be divided into two . For a more detailed review of both conventional and new techniques of plant improvement, see Hansen et al. (1986~. 76
broad classes: culturing and genetic transfer. Culturing involves the regeneration of plants from protoplasts (plant cells with the cell wall removed), single cells, or plant parts. These culturing techniques have three advantages over conventional approaches: (1) One can grow an enormous number of different cells, each a potential plant, in a small area. (2) The process of sexual reproduction can be more easily bypassed, thereby allowing access to genetic material that is inaccessible through the propagation of gametes and eliminating the delay necessary for multigenerational change. (3) The mass screening of plant material can be accomplished in a very short time; for example, a harmful substance can be added to the culture so that only resistant cells grow. There is a problem with these techniques, however: What is expressed at the level of the single cell may not be expressed at the level of the whole plant. In addition, only those traits for which a cellular analog exists can be selected with these techniques; important traits such as root strength, resistance to lodging, and other whole plant characteristics are not amenable to these selection procedures. In contrast to culture techniques, genetic transfer techniques operate at the single cell, subcellular, or molecular levels. Transfer may be either general or specific. General transfer involves fusion of protoplasts or transfer of specific organelles. Specific transfer depends upon the recombinant DNA technologies. A speci- fic piece of genetic information is transferred and expressed in the host. For example, the genetic material conferring herbicide tolerance has been transferred and expressed in a crop plant. This permits spraying for weeds without damaging the crop. Widespread use of this technique offers precision and control that is simply unavailable through culture techniques. In principle, breeders could transfer just the genes that they desire. The major limitation on recombinant techniques is the lack of information on the location and function of the genes of higher plants. Moreover, the most agronomically interesting techniques are multigenic; it is not yet clear just how these traits are expressed. Most of these difficulties went unrecognized by early proponents of plant molecular biology. They often per- ceived plants as the same as microorganisms. As Chaleff 77
explains: "With recognition of the similarities between cultured plant cells and microorganisms came the expectation that all the extraordinary feats of genetic experimentation accomplished with microbes would soon be realized with plants. But because of the many ways in which cultured plant cells are unlike microbes, these expectations thus far have not been well-fulfilled" (Chaleff, 1983, p. 679; see also Schaeffer and Sharpe, 1983~. In short, early proponents of plant molecular biology took their own metaphor literally. That is, they believed that the metaphorical equivalence (plant = microorganism) was actually the case. Despite this confusion, plant molecular biology has been a growth industry. Large sums of money have been invested by various public authorities, by large petro- chemical and pharmaceutical firms, and, especially in the United States where laws are particularly favorable, by many small venture capital firms. Moreover, since the venture capital firms could survive only by attract- ing large sums of capital, they soon became the greatest defenders of the metaphor. The hype found in their prospectuses succeeded not only in attracting capital, but also convinced many in the public sector of the validity of the metaphor. . _ _ ,, Although no major breakthroughs have occurred, great progress has been made in developing plants tolerant to glyphosate (a major herbicide). This is of enormous commercial potential to the companies involved. On the other hand, many of the venture capital firms have gone bankrupt, while others have been bought by the petro- chemical or pharmaceutical giants. Only a handful have been able to generate some salable product and thereby also generate additional capital. Our story does not end here, however. Although whole plants are much more complicated than microorganisms and pose many problems for molecular biologists, the metaphor might yet be saved if the focus of research were to change. Instead of centering on the improvement of plants in the field, plant cells could be treated as if they were microorganisms. The techniques of growth and fermentation of bacteria, already well known to certain segments of the food processing industry (especially cheese and bread . 78
making and alcohol production), combined with the newer techniques of cell culture could be used to transform the production of certain agricultural commodities into indus- trial processes. In principle, any commodity that is consumed in an undifferentiated or highly processed form could be produced in this manner. Similarly, though with greater difficulty, tissue culture techniques could be used to produce edible plant parts In vitro. In short, agricul- tural production in the field would be supplanted by cell and tissue culture factories. Lenin's (1938) dream of the complete elimination of agriculture and its replacement with continuous process factory production would at last be fulfilled! Of course, the transformation we have just described is not likely to take place within the next year or even the next decade. Indeed, it is difficult to say which research trajectories will be developed and which will be abandoned. Undoubtedly, the ways in which markets for food products and processes are organized, the regulatory requirements imposed on the industry, and the scope of patent laws will play a major role in determining just how and how much the food system is reorganized. However, the scientific foundations for change are now being laid. Consider the following: · Markets for certain tropical commodities have already been restructured. Sugar, once an extremely important tropical commodity, has already been hard hit by the development of corn sweeteners and sugar substi- tutes such as aspartame (Nutrasweet). It is unlikely that the sugar market will recover from its current state of overproduction and depression. It has been estimated that the livelihood of ~ million to 10 million people in the Third World has been threatened as a result (van den Doe! and Junne, 1986~. A similar change has occurred with respect to the production of cooking oils; corn oil has become a major ingredient in prepared foods in developed countries. In addition, food processing techniques have been modified to make it possible to substitute oils in processing if desirable because of relative market prices. Thus, it is 79
now common in the United States to see notes on bread packages indicating that one or more different oils may be used in the manufacturing process. In economic terms, the cross-elasticities of cooking oils have increased. One of the first crops to be affected by tissue cul- ture research was of] palm. The multinational Unilever Corporation, owner of large of! palm plantations in Malaysia and elsewhere, realized in the 1960s the poten- tial for tissue culture of oil palm (Iames, 1984~. Unlike many other tropical commodities, there had been little work to improve of! palm; at the same time, there was great genetic variation among trees. The actual research was conducted in Britain in greenhouses. Palm oil production was increased 30% by using tissue culture techniques to clone high-yielding trees. As of 1984, 12,000 improved trees had been planted. In addition, "more uniform, shorter trees facilitate mechanization of harvesting, reducing labor costs" (van den Doel and Junne, 1986, p. All. Given that approximately 30 million trees must be replanted annually, there is likely to be a steady market for the clones. Moreover, since palm oil producers now compete with producers of other oils such as coconut, soy, olive, and cottonseed oils, the increased production of palm oil has had the effect of reducing demand for these other oils. American soybean producers are painfully aware of this. Similarly, in the Philippines where fully 25% of the population is at least partially dependent upon coconut production for their livelihood, of! production and export has dropped precipitously in recent years (Bijman et al., 1986~. Although estimates of labor displacment in that country are virtually unobtainable, it is clear that it has been extensive. Furthermore, as more countries adopt the higher yielding palm clones, it is likely that the price will be depressed to near or below production costs. Still another area of important scientific advance is the production of what food technologists call fabricated 2In contrast, little work has been done to improve coconut oil production, in part because the 60 million persons worldwide involved in this industry are largely smallholders (Bijman et al., 1986~. 80
foods. Such foods (often developed from soybeans) "differ from conventional foods in that their basic components-- proteins, fats, and carbohydrates--may be derived from many sources and combined, along with the necessary micro-nutrients, flavors, and colors, to form an attractive product" (Stanley, 1986, p. 65~. The consumer may not even be able to identify the origin of these foods. · Work is currently under way to produce the flavor components of expensive fragrances, spices, and flavoring agents through tissue culture (see Table I). As Collin and Watts (1983) stated: Many of the compounds are obtained from plants that are not grown under large-scale or controlled cultivation. This instability, combined with cli- matic, harvesting, transport difficulties, and possible political problems in the country of origin, often leads to considerable fluctuations in the price of the compound. With each of these compounds there is interest in a more stable and easily controlled source (Collie and Watts, 1983, pp. 731-732~. As one proponent put it, "The research and development effort required is well worth the effort to achieve the In vitro production of not only specialty biochemicals, but potentially, food, spices, and industrial commodities" (Staba, 1985, p. 203~. Wheat (1986) reported that a number of major corporations and biotechnology companies are currently using this approach to create products such as fruit-based flavors, mint oil, quinine, and saffron. In addition, work is apparently in progress to produce coffee, cocoa, rubber, and tea In vitro (Clairmonte and Cavanagh, 1986; Heinstein, 1985; Staba, 1985; Tsai and Kinsella, 1981~. Citrus pulp vesicles have also been produced In vitro, thereby presenting the possibility that fresh orange juice could be produced daily (Rogoff and Rawlins, 1987~. These flavor components would be identical biochemically to the compounds naturally found in these products; hence, they would not be artificial in the sense now understood but would be true equivalents. Also important is the factory production of pharma- ceuticals and industrial chemicals using tissue culture techniques (e.g., Anderson et al., 1985; Breuling et al., 1985; Dixon, 1984; Misawa, 1985; Rosevear and Lambe, 1985; 81
TABLE 1 Markets for Selected Plant Productsa Wholesale Estimated World Plant or Price,Demand, millions Compound Use/Product U.S.$/kgof U.S. $ Vinblastine Medication for 5,000 18-20b leukemia Jasmine Flavor; 5,000 0.5b fragrance Catharanthus Vincristine 5,000 18 20b Lithospermum Shikonin 4,500 c Digitalis Medication for 3,000 20-55b heart disorders Rose Otto Rose oil 2,800 12 Ajmalicine Medication for 1,500 5.25 circulatory problems Papaver Codeine 650 50b Pyrethrins Insecticide 300 20b Buchu Buchu of! 220 153 Cinnamon Flavor 195 3 2 Quinine Medication for 100 5-10b malaria; flavor Ginger Flavor 100 33 Spearmint Flavor; 30 85-90 fragrance Sapota Chicle c c Cinchona Quinine c 20-55b Coffee Beverage 12 2,210 Cocoa Beverage; 4 891 flavor Tea Beverage 2 2,917 Rubber Tires and 1 3,565 other products aFrom Collin and Watts, 1983; Curtin, 1983; FAO, 1985; bKenney et al., 1984. U.S. market only. CNot known. ~2
Yamada, 1984; Yamada and Fujita, 1983). Many of these are secondary metabolites of plants, which are extremely expensive--often selling for more than $2,000 per kilo- gram. They are used in various processes to produce dyes, astringents, pharmaceuticals (more than 25% of the pre- scriptions filled in the United States are for drugs derived from plants [Balandrin et al., 19851), and other rare but essential industrial or consumer goods. Balandrin and colleagues link In vitro production with political instabilities: As the natural habitats for wild plants dis- appear and environmental and political in- stabilities make it difficult to acquire plant derived chemicals, it may become necessary to develop alternative sources for important plant products. There has been considerable interest in plant cell culture as a potential alternative to traditional agriculture for the industrial production of secondary plant metabolites. This has given rise to consid- erable research in Japan, West Germany, and Canada (Balandrin et al., 1985, p. 1158~. Misawa (1985) makes a similar case, while noting the similarity between tissue culture and microbial fermentations. He also observed that such In vitro techniques permit production "in any place or season" (Misawa, 1985, p. 60~. According to him, four types of products are of interest: alkaloids and steroids for pharmaceuticals, terpenoids as antitumor compounds, and quinones as drugs against heart disease. Systems as large as 20,000 liters--large by scientific, but still small by industrial, standards--have been built (Fowler, 1984~. Production costs are still too high for the use of these techniques with foodstuffs. This interest has given rise to tissue culture-based manufacturing plants in both West Germany and Japan. Balandrin et al. (1985) estimated that such processes are economical when cultures produce one gram of the desired compound per liter of culture and the selling price is between $500 and $1,000 per kilogram. Among the advan- tages for culture techniques are standard growth condi- tions, less complex organization than the entire plant, and ease of purifying the desired product (Anderson et al., 1985~. Moreover, the heterogeneity of cultured plant cells 83
makes possible the selection and multiplication of those with the highest yield. Culture techniques also offer the potential to create entirely new products either through the collection of newly discovered, naturally occurring compounds or through the manipulation of cells to make them produce entirely new compounds. Consider the claim made by Yamada and Fujita (1983) for a dye/astringent currently being produced in Japan: Compared with shikon requiring 2-3 years for harvest of the plant, cultured cells permit harvesting within about three weeks, thereby greatly shortening the production period. The content of the shikonin derivatives in the cultured cells was about 14%, which was extreme- ly high compared with 1-29/0 in the normal field grown shikon (Yamada and Fujita, 1983, p. 726~. Shikonin is now selling for more than $4,000 per kilogram. One ironic note is that the In vitro production may actually drive the price down too rapidly, given the fact that the market is small and easy to saturate (Curtin, 1983~. There are persistent, but unconfirmed rumors within the genetic engineering community that at least one U.S. company has mounted a program to produce tomato pulp In vitro. This technique would be used to produce an array of canned tomato products, including sauce, paste, catsup, and puree. Similarly, there are rumors that a French company has already produced apple sauce In vitro and is now attempting to scale up the process for industrial production. · As noted above, the final stage of biotechnology involves the replacement of agricultural processes with industrial processes. Here, too, much initial work has been accomplished. Cotton fibers have been grown directly from cotton cells. Unlike those produced in the field, test tube fibers can grow from both ends. Although it is ~Shikonin is the chemical product derived from the shikon plant. 84
unlikely that field production will be replaced id, the near future, the potential is there (Anonymous, 1986~. Similarly, the Japan Salt and Tobacco Public Corporation and Plant Science Limited of the United Kingdom are both investigating the in vitro production of tobacco biomass ,, %, _ , for cigarettes (Curtin, 1983~. Thus far, the processes have proved too expensive for commercial use. · Perhaps the most far-reaching proposal to replace agriculture is that found in a paper by Rogoff and Rawlins (1987~. They propose a system in which most fields are planted with perennial crops grown for biomass. These crops would be harvested as needed and turned into sugar by using enzymes at the point of harvest. The sugar solution is then piped to production plants in metropolitan areas. Finally, food is produced through massively scaled-up tissue cultures by using sugar solution as a medium and nutrient source for the plant material. As they put it, "In this strategy, edible products are synthesized from separately manufactured food components, plant (and animal) parts, or biological derivatives manufactured in vitro" (Rogoff and Rawlins, 1987, p. 801~. Under this system, processing would be a year-round activity in which only that actually needed would be produced on a given day. Canning and freezing would be largely eliminated as would most spoilage, since food would be produced and consumed in the same general vicinity. In fact, the same production facility could be shifted from the production of one commodity to another in response to changing demand. Rogoff and Rawlins argue that such a system would have other added benefits in terms of reduced need of mono- cropping, lowered soil erosion, less use of agrichemicals, reduced energy inputs, and minimal transportation costs. They go on to note that the work necessary to realize this 4Wittwer (1985) has noted that pyretur~n--tne nature' . · . ~, . ~ , insecticidal component of some plants--can, as a result of plant improvement using the methods of tissue culture, now be grown more cheaply in the field than by synthesis in the laboratory. This should give us cause to withhold any simplistic generalizations about the role of tissue cul- ture in replacing crops in the field. 85
scenario is already under way but that it is currently uncoordinated, and they suggest a number of ways to bring about a more coordinated strategy. The major stumbling block to such a transformation of the world food system is the production costs involved (Zenk, 1978~. For example, the sugar solution would have to be produced at a considerably lower cost than now possible before this technology could be reasonably adopted on a large scale. Yet, Rogoff and Rawlins (1987) point out that transport costs would decline so much that production costs could double without significantly altering the final price. Moreover, it is unlikely that the switch to such a system would take place all at once. It takes little imagination to realize that costs are likely to become competitive with conventional production methods when the product is a luxury good available only in limited quantities or when it is heavy and produced far from its point of consumption. In both instances, cell and tissue culture techniques offer significant advantages. On the other hand, there are forces that will inhibit the rapid development of in vitro production. In particular, it appears likely that large, multinational enterprises will resist the rapid demise of the lucrative markets that they now dominate. In these instances, they will intervene by defensive patenting, by purchasing potential biotechno- logical competitors, or by supporting government regulation of the competition. Indeed, Bye and Mounier (1984) suggested that this is precisely why the otherwise desirable In vitro production of proteins (largely for animal production) has not become feasible. Since Third World nations rarely own large shares of multinational companies, products that they produce and that cannot be produced in the field in more developed countries are likely to become targets of biotechnological research. In addition, Third World countries are much more vulnerable to these production shifts than are those of the First or Second Worlds. FROM INSTRUMENTS TO PRODUCTION TECHNIQUES Before the probable impacts of such changes can be examined, it is important to clarify the central role played by science and technology. Traditionally, 86
sociologists, philosophers, and historians of science have viewed science as a quest for new ideas. They have paid scant attention to the central importance of instruments in mociern science (cf. Busch, 1984; Ih~e, 1979; Laudan, l984~. Yet, it is obvious to even the most casual observer of a scientific laboratory that instruments are central to the process of doing science. Moreover, like the rest of us, scientists always work under fiscal constraints. This is true of even the most well-supported scientists. As a result, they are always seeking new ways to cut the costs of their work, so that they might accomplish more with the same amount of money. In this respect, then, scien- tists are much like capitalists; although they seek credit (profits?) in the form of publications and citations, rather than money, they are inexorably driven to reduce the cost of scientific production as surely as the capi- talist is driven to reduce the production cost of goods and services. When this process is applied to plant molecular biology, we can immediately see its importance. Plant molecular biologists are interested in understanding the ways in which plant genetic material is structured. Even if they have little or no interest in the commercial opportunities presented by improved seeds, they need to have rapid, efficient methods for moving from individual protoplasts or cells to tissue to whole plants in order to ensure that what is created at the molecular or cellular level is expressed in the whole plant. The various techniques for plant improvement described above are nested, as illustrated in Figure 1. Recombinant techniques may be used to transfer a specific gene to a plant cell. That cell must then be cultured into a tissue. The tissue in turn must be differentiated into a plantlet (excluding for the moment the possibility of In vitro production). The plant must be tried in the field to learn if the trait incorporated at the molecular level is expressed in a field setting. Finally, the new cultivar must be multiplied and released. If any of the steps in this process are impossible or difficult, they will be a bottleneck to the whole process. 87
rDNA Cell Tissue Plant Field Trial Multiplication Release to Farmers Production of Food and Fiber In Vitro Production of Food and Fiber FIGURE 1 Steps involved in plant improvement and production using conventional techniques and the new biotechnologies. This creates an enormous incentive to improve cultur- ing processes. A recent article appropriately entitled "Assembly Line Plants Take Root" provides an example: The biggest thing keeping costs up--and there- fore holding tissue culture propagation back-- is the amount of labor needed to run a tissue- culture lab.... Automation is one solution to the problem of high labor costs. ARS [Agricultural Research Service] scientists in California have found a way to automate their tissue-culture work and at the same time achieve at least two to four times the growth rate of traditional tissueculture systems. Plant geneticist Brent Tisserat and chemist Car! E. Vandercook use a computer to control the flow of liquid nutrients to plantlets (Comis and Wood, 1986, p. 10) In addition, Daly (1985) has noted that automated DNA synthesizers are already in use in both academia and industry. Elsewhere, similar efforts are under way to make more efficient the plant improvement process. In short, the very development of scientific techniques and equipment 88
for use in the improvement of conventional agriculture makes possible the elimination of agriculture as we know it. The metaphor, plant = microorganisms, can be saved by restructuring the process of plant improvement so that the culturing process produces the final product in terms of food or fiber; the field as a location for food and fiber production would then cease to exist. As one scientist, Don Dougall, put it, "We have to stop thinking of these things as plant cells, and start thinking of them as new microorganisms, with all the potential that implies" (interview quoted in Curtin, 1983, p. 657~. CONSEQUENCES Market Restructuring Even if just a few of the research programs described above were to be brought to fruition, major restructurings would occur. In the United States and Western Europe, the effects would be important but relatively minor, since the farm population is already quite small and other employment opportunities exist for at least some of those displaced. However, it is well known that many Third World countries are dependent upon one or two agricultural com- modities for their continued economic stability. Let us examine the impact of biotechnological replacements for one major tropical commodity--rubber. Chamala (1985) reported that 75°h of the world's rubber comes from Malaysia and Indonesia. In Malaysia, 500,000 smallholders are directly engaged in rubber production and 3 million persons--approximately one-quarter of the total population--are directly or indirectly dependent upon it. In Indonesia, the estimated number of dependent people is ~ million. Smallholder rubber producers are among the poorest inhabitants of both countries. Worldwide, an estimated 22 million people depend on the rubber industry. If In vitro production of rubber or the use of tissue culture to improve guayule (a rubber source that grows in temperate climates) (Fisher, 1986; Radin et al., 1982) were to become a reality, 90 to 95% of these people would find themselves without a cash crop (assuming the other 5 to 10% would continue to grow rubber for domestic and specialized uses). Given that the unemployment rates in Malaysia and Indonesia are already high, it would be unlikely that more 89
than 20°h of those displaced (about 4 million people) would find alternative employment. Some estimated 16 million people, with few or no marketable skills would find themselves without work or reduced to bare subsistence farming. This is a conservative estimate. Similar effects can be expected for other tropical commodities. The market restructurings likely to be caused by significant In vitro production or the collapse of existing markets would be enormous. Not only is it likely that a significant number of farmers and farmworkers would find themselves with no products to sell, even many of the tra- ditional agribusiness giants might discover that their huge investments were no longer profitable. Moreover, although markets may be protected from product competition, little or no protection is provided by new technology (Vergopoulos, 1985~. As In vitro and other substitutes are developed, they are likely to lead to the rapid demise of existing commodity markets, as processors restructure their production toward the new input. Without some international system of regulation and compensation, the effects on particular countries are likely to be just short of catastrophic. The degree of impact can be estimated by looking at past instances of market collapse. For example, Mexico used to grow large quantities of barbasco, a plant from which steroids can be produced. Today, barbasco is no longer grown; the large, pharmaceutical companies have developed a method of producing it chemically, without need for the plant (Dembo et al., 1985~. In the more distant past is the demise of the indigo industry in India. In 1897, 574,000 hectares of indigo were grown. By 1920, with the successful development of a chemically produced indigo, field production had all but ceased. Although the planters attempted to develop a research fund in order to compete with chemically produced indigo, they ultimately failed to do so (Martin-Leake, 1975~. The result, for that region of India, was widespread depression and unemployment (Kenney et al., 1984~. Every time farmers and farmworkers are displaced, they migrate to urban areas in search of work. Men often leave their wives and families behind to engage in subsistence farming. If the scenario developed herein takes place, the 90
same pattern could occur on a massive scale. The impact could be particularly hard on women and children, for they are likely to bear the full brunt of market restructuring. Market restructuring affects not only the producers of the primary product but also those engaged in the transport, processing, and even retailing of the final product. Thus, cumulative effects are likely to be much greater than would be the case if changes were somehow limited to farm production. Among the possible effects are geographic shifts in the location of the production process, the demise or growth of secondary industries, secondary effects that result from the inability of the former producing countries to afford importation of various manufactured goods, and the decline of certain consumer goods industries in the Third World as demand declines. Finally, it requires no crystal ball to realize that a very significant effect of the new biotechnologies in agriculture may be a shift in the geographic location of agricultural production from the Third to the First World. This in turn could create an increase in the already high Third World debt and a concomitant deficit in the balance of payments in Third World countries. Its effects are likely to be felt even more strongly in the West. Major bank failures in the West are a possibility and could be triggered by market restructuring. Moreover, we can safely assume that the major banks will not be allowed to fail, but will be bailed out by the national banks of the Western powers. This in turn will tend to raise taxes and national debts in the West. Third World Science In recent years, certain Third World nations--for example, India and Brazil--have succeeded in establishing successful agricultural scientific communities. However, the scientists in those communities have only recently begun to develop products that can make a substantial difference in their respective agricultural economies. They have been aided in this endeavor by the International Agricultural Research Centers and bilateral aid agreements that have provided training and support. Nevertheless, Third World science has often tended to be derivative in character (Chatelin, 1986~. It has not entered uncharted 91
areas but has been content to take care of the details in the well-charted parts of nature (Goonatilake, 1982~. It has avoider! the so-called basic sciences on the grounds-- usually supported by First World donors--that all basic science is an expensive luxury. As Goldstein stated, "Original scientists in underdeveloped countries work in a social vacuum, and their activities are too often regarded as useless" (Goldstein, 1988, p. 322~. According to Chatelin and Arvanitis (1984), the Third World has been characterized by "scientific domination." As a result, even in Third World nations with scien- tific communities, few scientists are capable of pursuing the paths opened by the new biotechnologies. Only a few Third Woricl nations have the critical mass of scientists necessary to engage in genetic engineering; a somewhat larger number may be able to use tissue culture techniques for selected crops. None will be able to mount the broad research campaign needed even to stay abreast of the First World countries. While the International Center for Biotechnology, supported by United Nations Industrial Development Organization, might help in some small ways, it is not likely to be able to assume the role played by the International Agricultural Research Centers in supporting the research that led to the Green Revolution. The rapid worldwide growth of technical personnel in this area is also worthy of note. For example, in 1931 only two persons were working with plant tissue culture; now there are more than 10,000 (Gautheret, 1983), nearly all of whom are located in the developed world. Salaries for such people are high, and training programs are still relatively few. Only a handful of developing countries will be able to afford to create a critical mass of scientists in this area. Access to final products as well as to the processes used to produce them is another concern. The new tech- nologies generated by the Green Revolution were created in the public sector and access to them was relatively unproblematic. In contrast, much of the biorevolution is likely to be shrouded in secrecy or patents. This is particularly true in the United States. As Curtin puts it: "Companies tend to be more close-mouthed about their activities in plant tissue culture than they are about 92
culturing mammalian cells, especially in the United States. Elsewhere--in Western Europe and, most notably in lapan--their interest is more substantial and more obvious" (Curtin, 1983, p. 649~. Even Europeans are concerned about the potential consequences of being cut off from U.S. biotechnology research (European Economic Community, 1986~. This secrecy means that the biorevolution is likely to appear with shocking immediacy as once-stable markets collapse and market shares are suddenly rearranged. Moreover, the Green Revolution was spatially limited by the very nature of the crops involved (Butte! and Barker, 1985~. The biorevolution will not be spatially limited, even if factory production of food remains an elusive goal for some. In principle, recombinant and tissue culture techniques can be used and, in practice, applied to an increasing extent to all crops. Moreover, these same techniques can be used to extend the growing regions of crops, to increase crop substitutability, and to develop crops that have "functional properties" (Moshy, 1986) that make them particularly amenable to certain processing, packaging, nutritional, or aesthetic uses. Bijman and colleagues argued, "Those farms and regions which already have a technological advantage will be the first to benefit from the application of biotechnology. The gap between large and small, rich and poor, and between North and South will thus be widened" (Bijman et al., 1986, p. 22~. In addition, even if the Third World nations are able to develop a cadre of trained scientists, they must also overcome the barriers currently restricting access to the instruments, supplies, and materials needed to do biotechnological research. Without this, at best they can copy some of the less imaginative efforts of the West. As Baltimore (1982) explained: However, the training and the ability to self-define problems were coupled to an infrastructure of supply companies that provided specialized equipment such as centrifuges; enzymes, which are the heart of the technology; fine chemicals; laboratory gadgetry, some of which is crucial to research; specialized chromatography media; and so on. The infrastructure is possibly the most crucial part of the system (Baltimore, 1982, p. 33~. 93
Moreover, no research group can manufacture all the chemicals it needs--or even most of them--by itself. It must depend upon commercial suppliers located far from the site of the research. Many of these materials-- especially the enzymes--are fragile, must be shipped under special conditions, and must be delivered within several days. For example, one large U.S. supplier of enzymes, the Sigma-AIrich Corporation, was able to sell $215 million in chemicals in 1985, almost entirely by mail. The company reported that 97% of their orders are shipped within 24 hours of receipt (Simon, 1986~. Most Third World countries will have great difficulty in linking their scientists to such a supply system. Let us assume, however, that the Third World is success- ful in mounting the expertise necessary to develop its own biotechnology research competence. This might be of some small help in offsetting the collapse of various commodity markets. In some cases, patents developed in the Third World might even prevent developed countries from captur- ing certain markets. Tissue culture might be used to reduce production costs of field-grown crops, thereby making competition from In vitro production that much more difficult. However, although this might slow down the changes, it would in no way prevent the loss of millions of jobs in agricultural production. In short, the development of Third World science is no solution to the destabilizing effects of biotechnology. Political Stability The use of the new biotechnologies in the production of food is very likely to increase political instability. In the Third World, it could dash the hopes of many who yearn for a better life. Although some persons would undoubtedly revert to food crop production on land used for industrial crops, popular upheavals are likely to occur as displaced populations demand that their fragile states provide food and shelter. Political instability could also occur in the First World, as a result of bank failures, higher taxes, and the elimination of certain processing and transport industries. In both the First and Third Worlds, it is likely that the changes forecast here would create additional social stratification, a greater gap between the rich and the poor, and greater possibilities for class conflict. 94
Nutrition and Food SafetY It also appears unlikely that the new biotechnologies will be without effects on both nutrition and food safety. For those who are displaced, the spectre of hunger may loom ever larger. Somehow, there is a continuing failure among scientists to realize that the production of more food does not necessarily lead to the elimination of hunger. Hunger can only be eliminated when everyone has the wherewithal to obtain the means of subsistence, whether through access to land on which to grow food or to money to purchase it. For those in the Third World who do have enough to eat and for those in the First World who become consumers of food modified by the new biotechnologies or produced In vitro. the problem is somewhat different. We now know that human nutrition depends upon the daily ingestion of certain nutrients, although there is some disagreement about the precise quantities needed. In general, we can say with some confidence that we know the quantities of the micronutrients that we need to consume but that we have somewhat greater difficulty determining the levels of macronutrients. Considerable disagreement exists concerning the recommended daily allowances for fats and carbohydrates. This is in part due to the difficulty of conducting tests on human beings as well as to the complex interdependence among nutrients. We know even less about the interactions among foods or between foods and adulterants. This all adds up to a very large question mark. Every time that we eat fresh foods, we ingest unknown quanti- ties of unknown soil bacteria. Do these play a role in our diet? Every plant product that we eat is itself the result of the peculiar circumstances that happen to exist in a particular field. This in turn affects the chemical composition, flavor, and texture of the things we eat. Normally, we eat a variety of foods that derive their nutrient content as a result of these different field conditions. Moreover, we normally ingest small quantities of substances that are toxic in large quantities. We know little about the role these compounds play in nutrition. As Ronk suggested, even "increasing the amount of an essential nutrient in a particular food may be beneficial in theory, but not in practice if it predisposes the food 95
to growth of either pathogenic or spoilage bacteria, or if it interferes with another nutrient" (Ronk, 1986, pp. 30-31~. Food products that incorporate genetic material from exotic sources, or entirely eliminate toxic substances, especially food products produced In vitro, would reduce the diverse range of ingredients in our food supply and perhaps eliminate many of them. Yet, it is highly ques- tionable whether we have the necessary knowledge to construct artificially a large portion of our food supply. Would such a food supply be adequate, not only in the short run but also in the very long run? What effects might it have after several generations? Unfortunately, the present state of science fails in its attempts to answer these questions. Indeed, it appears that they are very difficult if not impossible to raise. Consider the following: · There is a sharp break between the food and nutrition area and that of agricultural production (see Randolph and Sachs, 1981~. This gap extends from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, where food and nutrition are in one board and agriculture in another, to the structure of most universities, where colleges of agriculture are often separate from schools of nutrition. · Both the agricultural and nutrition sciences tend toward reductionism. That is, they tend to assume that the world can be subdivided into a series of discrete problems that can be resolved serially. Without a doubt, for some problems this type of approach can and does work quite well. However, for other problems, such as those raised here, reductionist strategies fail to grasp the problem. ~ Even now the testing of new food products and food additives is a complex and arduous task with which few governments are able to cope adequately. The production of food and drug products with the aid of the new biotech- nologies will undoubtedly put acided stress on a system that is at best a weak one. Will these products be considered the same as food produced in the traditional ways and thus escape government testing? Or will they be considered new and require elaborate test methods? (They are likely to be 96
considered new for the purpose of patenting). If they are to be tested, how stringent should these tests be? Indeed, can tests be devised for potential problems that are chronic rather than acute? · In both nutrition and food science, emphasis is not placed on the development of informed policies. In nutrition, the focus is the clinical diagnosis of problems; in food science, it is the development of new food products and processes. Members of both sciences often studiously avoid food policy questions on the grounds that they lie outside their domains. Yet, de facto, the very products that they develop create a food policy. And who has the expertise in these areas if not those in the scientific community? · An additional problem is the need to protect our food from contamination. Even today, for all food produced in the field, there are occasional documented cases of contamination of food products, either by accident, by a misguided or deranged individual, or even for political reasons. However, the production of food or food ingre- dients In vitro creates much greater security problems. Contamination of large quantities of food--for whatever reason--is easier when there is In vitro production, simply because so much food is produced In so small an area. Moreover, protection of such production facilities would be difficult and would necessitate undemocratic institutional forms. Given that some observers have encouraged In vitro production as a remedy for political turmoil, this problem presents both ironies and contradictions. CONCLUSIONS There is a certain irony in that the technological optimism described above is associated with social pessi- mism. As noted, however, even technological optimism must be examined carefully. Despite impressions to the contrary, this is an extremely difficult task. The only source of information about future directions in biotech- nological research is the scientific community itself. That community is strongly biased in the direction of technological optimism. Some years ago, for example, scientists were infatuated with the prospect of modifying plant materials through irradiation, and a little later 97
we were told that the sea would provide the abundant food supply needed for future generations. Neither of these predictions have come to pass. Current forecasts for In vitro production pay little attention to the intricate and expensive basic scientific research that must still be conducted in order to modify even the simplest plant characteristics (e.g., studies to unravel the plant nutrition process and the relationship of some plant parts to the development of flavor in the edible parts), the complex developmental research necessary to arrive at production prototypes, the difficulties of scale-up (e.g., Senior, 1986), and the economics of large-scale production (Goldstein, 1983~. These are likely to be formidable barriers. However, even though the prognostications provided by scientists may be biased, we can ignore them only at our peril. The possibility exists that a radical restructuring of what we now call agriculture cn~lr1 he O ~ ~ . . ~ . , . · . ~ . . . trlggereo by powert~ul Interests using these technologies. We must examine the likely consequences now and ask whether we wish to pursue this path. Yet at the same time, we must remain skeptics. On the other hand, the new biotechnologies offer us an opportunity to assess new technology before it actually exists. This is particularly desirable in that it per- mits--at least in principle--the avoidance of deleterious effects of proposed technical change through the reorgani- zat~on of markets and the creation of governmental and intergovernmental policies to direct that change. Much still needs to be done, however. A more careful review and monitoring of the scientific literature are essential. In addition, more detailed forecasts of the impact of particular technical changes are needed. . Nevertheless, we can make some fairly strong statements about impacts if we accept the optimistic position that some scientists provide to us. First, we can expect a major transformation of agriculture over the next quarter century. Specifically, we can expect the not-so-gradual breakdown of spatial. temporal and climatic harriers to food and fiber production. ,, substantial social upheavals as the location of production changes. In addition, we can expect the elimination of major portions of the farming enterprise if field crops are grown In vitro. This in turn will displace farmers , , ~ . - , ~ This alone will brine with it 98
and farmworkers on a scale never before possible. More- over, most of these tens or perhaps hundreds of millions of persons will not be able to find work in other sectors of the world economy. Thus, the demise of agriculture would deprive many of the very means of subsistence. Another aspect of the new biotechnologies is the enormous concentration of economic and therefore political power that it is likely to make possible. Linkages between the chemical, pharmaceutical, seed, and food industries have aIreacly been formed. Concentrated production would also bring with it the possibility of deliberate or accidental contamination of the food supply; in a wool, it would actually reduce our food security. We need not believe that the new biotechnologies must inevitably lead us in certain directions and that things could not possibly be otherwise. We have both options and responsibilities. Let us consider some of them. · Although we have spent millions to develop research capacity in the new biotechnologies, we have not supported research on their broader consequences. Yet it appears not unreasonable to ask that scientists assess the potential impact of their work on a project-by-project basis (e.g., Friediand and Kappel, 1979) and that significant sums of money be made available to form interdisciplinary teams to assess the broader social, economic, political, nutri- tional, food safety, environmental, legal, ethical, and technical issues surrounding the new biotechnologies. · Partly because of the search for greater value added, and consumer fascination with the new, we are adding complexity to the food production and processing system. In so doing we are exposing the population to new and unknown risks. A more reasonable approach proposed by Knorr and CIancy (1984) is one that asserts the need for minimal rather than maximal processing. That same argument could easily be extended to the entire food and agricultural system. By creating ever more complex depen- dencies among agriculture and industry, we undermine rather than reinforce our long-term food security both in the United States and throughout the world. · We also have a responsibility to those who will succeed us in the future. Indeed, this is perhaps the most 99
important issue of all. We all share a desire to leave our progeny a world that is better than the one in which we currently live. This is a noble goal, but it can only be fulfilled by treading lightly and by attempting to see how small increments fit into the larger picture. Our food system is too important to all of us and our progeny to make major changes in it without the broad, democratic participation of all. It also appears to be appropriate to remember that the annual worldwide budget for biotechnological research does not equal what the nations of the world spend in a week on what is euphemistically called national security. Sad to say, the current definition of national security does not include people's right to food (cf. Busch and Lacy, 1984~. If it did, the future would look much brighter indeed. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The material in this paper is based on work supported by the National Science Foundation and the National Endowment for the Humanities under grant No. RII-8217306 and the Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station. We thank Glenn Collins, James Christenson, William H. Friedland, Joan Gussow, David Hildebrande, Richard Merritt, and Louis Swanson for their comments on a previous draft of this paper. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommen- dations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station, or the reviewers. REFERENCES Anderson, L.A., I.D. Phillipson, and M.F. Roberts. 1985. Biosynthesis of secondary products by cell cultures of higher plants. Pp. I-36 in Plant Cell Culture. Advances in Biochemical Engineering/Biotechnology Series, Vol. 31. Springer-Verlag, New York. Anonymous. 1986. Cotton fibers grown directly from cells. BOSTID Developments 6~1~:12. Board on Science and Tech- nology for International Development, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. 100
Balandrin, OF., I.A. Klocke, E.S. Wurtele, ant! W.H. Bollinger. 1985. Natural plant chemicals: Sources of industrial and medicinal materials. Science 228:1154- 1160. Baltimore, D. 1982. Priorities in biotechnology. Pp. 30-37 in Priorities in Biotechnology Research for International Development: Proceedings of a Work- shop. Sponsored by the Board on Science and Tech- nology for International Development held in Washington, D.C. and Berkeley Springs, West Virginia, July 26-30, 1982. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. Bijman, I., K. van den Doel, and G. Junne. 1986. The Impact of Biotechnology on Living and Working Condi- tions in Western Europe and the Third World. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Dublin. 67 pp. . . Boyer, C.D. 1984. Genetic engineering: Tomorrow's technology. Am. Veg. Grower 32:51. Breuling, M., A.W. Alfermann, and E. Reinhard. 1985. Cultivation of cell cultures of Berberis wilsonae in 20-1 airlift bioreactors. Plant Cell Rep. 4:220-223. Busch, L. 1984. Science, technology, agriculture, and everyday life. Res. Rural Sociol. Dev. 1:289-314. Busch, L., and W.B. Lacy, eds. 1984. Food Security in the United States. Westview, Boulder, Colo. 452 pp. Buttel, F.H., and R. Barker. 1985. Emerging agricul- tural technologies, public policy, and implications for Third World agriculture: The case of biotechnology. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 67:1170-1175. Bye, P., and A. Mounier. 1984. Les future alimentaires et energetiques des biotechnologies. Economies et Societes. Hors Serie No. 27. 363 pp. Chaleff, R.S. 1983. Isolation of agronomically useful mutants from plant cell cultures. Science 219:676-682. Chamala, S. 1985. Transfer of rubber technology among smallholders in Malaysia and Indonesia: A sociologi- cal analysis. Pp. 20-34 in Smallholder Rubber Produc- tion and Policies. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Canberra, Australia. Chatelin, Y. 1986. La science et le developpement: L'histoire peut-elle recommences? Rev. Tiers Monde 27: 5-24. Chatelin, Y., and R. Arvanitis, eds. 1984. Pratiques et Politiques Scientifiques. Actes du Forum des 6 et 7 Fevrier. Institut Frangais de Recherche Scientifique pour le Developpement en Cooperation (ORSTOM), Paris. 101
Clairmonte, F.F., and I. Cavanagh. 1986. Destruction of the sugar industry. Econ. Polit. Weekly 21:18-19. Collin, H.A., and M: Watts. 1983. Flavor production in culture. Pp. 729-747 in D.A. Evans, W.R. Sharp, P.V. Ammirato, and Y. Yamada, eds. Handbook of Plant Cell Culture, Vol. I: Techniques for Propagation and Breed- ing. Macmillan, New York. Comis, D., and ~ Wood. 1986. Assembly line plants take root. Agric. Res. 34:6-11. Curtin, M:E. 1983. Harvesting profitable products from plant tissue culture. Bio/Technol. 1:649-652, 654, 656-657. Daly, P. 1985. The Biotechnology Business: A Strategic Analysis. Rowman & Allanheld, Totowa, N.J. 155 pp. Dembo, D., C. Dias, and W. Morehouse. 1985. The biorevo- lution and the Third World. Third World Affairs 1:311- 325. Dixon, B. 1984. Chemicals from algae and plant tissue. Bio/Technol. 2:665. European Economic Community. 1986. Synopsis of Hearing of Biotechnology, 14 January 1986. Directorate General for Research, European Economic Community, Brussels. 15 PP FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 1985. FAO Trade Yearbook, 1984. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome. 374 pp. Fisher, A. 1986. Science Newsfront: Rubber plant. Pop. Sci. 228~5~:10. Fowler, M.W. 1984. Large-scale cultures of cells in sus- pension. Pp. 167-174 in I.K. Vasil, ed. Cell Culture and Somatic Cell Genetics of Plants. Academic Press, Orlando, Fla. Friedland, W.H., and T. Kappel. 1979. Production or perish: Changing the inequities of agricultural research priorities. University of California Project on Social Impact Assessment and Values, Santa Cruz, Calif. 40 pp. Gautheret, R.J. 1983. Plant tissue culture: A history. Bot. Mag. 96:393-410. Goldstein, D.J. 1988. Molecular biology and the protec- tion of germplasm: A matter of national security. Pp. 315-337 in I. Kloppenburg, Ir., ed. Seeds and Sovereignty: The Use and Control of Plant Genetic Resources. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, May 25-30,1986. Duke University Press, Durham, N.C. 102
Goldstein, W.E. 1983. Large-scale processing of plant cell culture. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 413:394-408. Goonatilake, S. 1982. Crippled Minds: An Exploration into Colonial Culture! Vikas, New Delhi, Inclia. 350 pp. Hansen, by, L. Busch, I. Burkhardt, W.B. Lacy, and L.R. Lacy. 1986. Plant breeding and biotechnology. Bio- Science 36:29-39. Heinstein, P.F. 1985. Future approaches to the forma- tion of secondary natural products in plant cell sus- pension cultures. ]. Nat. Prod. 48:~-9. Ihcie, D. 1979. Technics and Praxis. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland. Distributed by Kluwer Academic, Norwell, Mass. 151 pp. lames, A.T. 1984. Plant tissue culture: Achievements and prospects. Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. B 222:135-145. Kenney, by, F.H. Buttel, and I. Kloppenburg, Ir. 1984. Impact of industrial applications: Socioeconomic impact of product dislocations. Adv. Technol. Alert Syst. Bull. 1:48-51. Knorr, D., and K.L. CIancy. 1984. Safety aspects of processed foods. Pp. 231-253 in L. Busch and W.B. Lacy, eds. Food Security in the United States. Westview, Boulder, Colo. Laudan, R., ed. 1984. The Nature of Technological KnowI- edge: Are Models of Scientific Change Relevant? D. Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland. Distributed by Kluwer Academic, Norwell, Mass. 145 pp. Lenin, V.I. 1938. Theory of the Agrarian Question. International Publishers, New York. 335 pp. Martin-Leake, H. 1975. An historical memoir of the indigo industry in Bihar. Econ. Bot. 29:361-371. Misawa, ~ 1985. Production of usefu! plant metabo- lites. Pp. 59-~S in Plant Cell Culture. Advances in Biochemical Engineering/Biotechnology Series, Vol. 31. Springer-VerIag, New York. Moshy, R. 1986. Biotechnology: Its potential impact on traditional food processing. Pp. I-14 in S.K. Hariander and T.P. Labuza, eds. Biotechnology in Food Processing. Noyes, Park Ridge, N.~. Radin, D.N., H.~ BehI, P. Proksch, and E. Rodriquez. 1982. Rubber and other hydrocarbons produced in tissue cultures of guayule (Parthenium ar~entatum). Plant Sci. Lett. 26:301-310. 103
Randolph, S.R., and C. Sachs. 1981. The establishment of applied sciences: Medicine and agriculture compared. Pp. 83-~! in L. Busch, ed. Science and Agricultural Development. Allanheld, Osmun, Totowa, N.J. Rogoff, AH., and S.L. Rawlins. 1987. Food security: A technological alternative. BioScience 37:800-807. Ronk, R. 1986. Federal regulation of food biotechnology. Pp. 29-35 in S.K. Harlander and T.P. Labuza, eds. Biotechnology in Food Processing. Noyes, Park Ridge, NJ. Rosevear, A., and C.A. Lambe. 1985. Immobilized plant cells. Pp. 37-58 in Plant Cell Culture. Advances in Biochemical Engineering/Biotechnology Series, Vol. 31. Springer-Veriag, New York. Schaeffer, G.W., and F.T. Sharpe, Ir. 1983. Mutations and cell selections: Genetic variations for improved protein in rice. Pp. 237-254 in L.D. Owens, ed. Genetic Engineering: Applications to Agriculture. Symposium held at the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, Beltsville, Maryland, May 16-19,1982. Spon- sored by the Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Rowman & Allanheld, Totowa, N.J. Senior, P. 1986. Scale-up of a fermentation process. Pp. 249-257 in S.K. Hariander and T.P. Labuza, eds. Bio- technology in Food Processing. Noyes, Park Ridge, N.J. Simon, R. 1986. Mail-order enzymes. Forbes 137:46. Staba, EN 1985. Milestones in plant tissue culture systems for the production of secondary products. J. Nat. Prod. 48:203-209. Stanley, D.W. 1986. Chemical and structural determinants of texture of fabricated foods. Food Technol. 40~3~: 65-6S, 76. Tsai, C.H., and I.E. Kinsella. 1981. Initiation and growth of callus and cell suspensions of Theobroma cacao L. Ann. Bot. 48:549-557. van den Doel, K., and G. Junne. 1986. Product substitu- tion through biotechnology: Impact on the Third World. Trends Biotechnol. 4:~-90. Vergopoulos, K. 1985. The end of agribusiness or the emergence of biotechnology. Int. Soc. Sci. I. 37:285- 299. Wheat, D. 1986. Strategies for commercialization of bio- technology in the food industry. Pp. 279-284 in S.K. Harlander and T.P. Labuza, eds. Biotechnology in Food Processing. Noyes, Park Ridge, N.J. 104
Wittwer, S.H. 1985. New technology needed to sustain increased food production. Pp. I-55 in Food For the Future: The Philadelphia Society for Promoting Agri culture, Bicentennial Forum Proceedings 1785-1985. Philadelphia Society for Promoting Agriculture, Philadelphia. Yamada, Y. 1984. Selection of cell lines for high yields of secondary metabolites. Pp. 629-636 in I.K. Vasil, ed. Cell Culture and Somatic Cell Genetics of Plants. Academic Press, Orlando, Fla. Yamada, Y., and Y. Fujita. 1983. Production of useful compounds in culture. Pp. 717-728 in D.A. Evans, W.R. Sharp, P.V. Ammirato, and Y. Yamada, eds. Handbook of Plant Cell Culture, Vol. 1: Techniques for Propagation ant! Breeding. Macmillan, New York. Zenk, M. 1978. The impact of plant cell culture on indus- try. Pp. 1-13 in T.A. Thorpe, ed. Frontiers of Plant Tissue Culture. International Association for Plant Tissue Culture, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. - 105
