Supporters see the biotechnology revolution in agriculture as a Promethean step forward, whereas critics see it as the start down a slope to futuristic disaster. The supporters are right about the potential benefits of genetically engineered crops, but the critics are correct that the situation calls for government regulation. Free markets alone will not suffice to realize the new technology's promise while avoiding its pitfalls.
David G. Victor is Director of the Program on Energy and Sustainable Development at Stanford University and Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. C. Ford Runge is Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Applied Economics and Law at the University of Minnesota. This essay is based on a Council on Foreign Relations study group; for more detailed information see www.cfr.org/GMO.
BRAVE NEW WORLD?
For more than ten thousand years, farmers have improved their crops by letting nature do the breeding and then choosing the tastiest, hardiest, or most productive offspring. This ancient technique was accelerated in the last century through more systematic attempts to oversee the breeding and selection process. Today, however, new scientific techniques are making it possible to design crops with far greater precision and effect than ever before.
The most controversial and important of these techniques are called "transgenic": they allow scientists to engineer new crops by splicing together particular genes rather than relying solely on the uncertain crosses that are the hallmark of traditional crop breeding. For some, the transgenic revolution in biotechnology is a horror. Tinkering with nature's order, they argue, will backfire when engineered genes escape to the wild and disrupt delicately balanced ecosystems. For others, plant engineering is a Promethean step forward that will lead to more nutritious, productive, and disease-resistant crops, which will in turn help alleviate global hunger and reduce the amount of land and pesticides used in agriculture.
The optimists are right about the promise of biotechnology. But in their eagerness to see new crops deployed, the most zealous advocates pretend that genetic engineering is similar to prior agricultural innovations, ignoring the fact that there are indeed substantial differences that call for new types of regulatory oversight. At the other extreme, a vocal minority of detractors has hyped the risks of crop engineering all out of proportion to reality and blocked the new technology's greatest potential contribution: advancing the welfare of poor farmers and consumers around the world through publicly funded crop programs. These divergent factions have made it hard for governments to implement balanced long-term policies for biotechnology.
This is a premium article
You must be a Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you are already a print subscriber, click here to activate your online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
New technologies often provoke strong resistance -- even when, as with genetically modified crops, their benefits vastly outweigh their potential harms. The fact is that transgenic food has no proven downside. Nevertheless, scare-mongering consumer groups in Europe have led a global backlash against this new technology. The battle has thus far pitted rich American farmers against rich European consumers. But the real losers are the poor farmers and underfed citizens of the tropics, who desperately need all the help that gene science can deliver.
Amid all the fuss over genetically modified food, environmentalists and consumer activists have overlooked a vital challenge for the developing world: food security. As the South's population grows, it will need more food, a more varied and nutritious diet, and better access to the North's markets. Rich countries must do their part by slashing trade barriers to developing countries' goods -- especially in agriculture -- and spreading the biotechnology revolution to the poorest farmers who need it most. But the debacle in Seattle showed how difficult this quest will be.
We are on the verge of great changes in the international structures and effects of that most pervasive of mass media, television. We are passing from the era of the low-powered distribution satellite, which transmits programs through the filter of a broadcaster or a cable system, into the era of the Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), with a higher-powered signal which can go straight into the individual home.
