Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 75
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
OCR for page 76
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
OCR for page 77
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
OCR for page 78
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
OCR for page 79
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
OCR for page 80
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
OCR for page 81
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
OCR for page 82
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
OCR for page 83
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
OCR for page 84
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
OCR for page 85
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
OCR for page 96
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
OCR for page 97
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
OCR for page 98
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
OCR for page 99
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
OCR for page 100
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
OCR for page 101
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
OCR for page 102
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
OCR for page 103
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
OCR for page 104
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
OCR for page 105
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
OCR for page 106
Representative terms from entire chapter:
tissue culture
