A History of Plant Tampering

Scientific American Classics for May looks back at various articles the magazine has featured over the years dealing with the evolution of plant improvements, from hybrids and grafting to gene-splicing.  In their introduction, they discuss the controversy these technologies have engendered:

For 10,000 years, in fact, we have altered the genetic makeup of our crops. For example, the ancient ancestor of modern corn was created some 6,000 years ago by Native Americans who domesticated a wild plant called teosinte, which looks nothing like a modern corn plant. If humans still depended on this wild relative, we would need hundreds, if not thousands, of times more plants—and acres—to replace corn.

Today virtually everything we eat is produced from seeds that have been genetically altered in one way or another. The old approaches were crude and have been refined over the centuries. Modern methods include grafting and forced pollination (mixing genes of distantly related species) and radiation treatments to create random mutations in seeds. The newest method is genetic engineering—a technology developed after scientists observed that the “bothersome” plant pathogenAgrobacterium tumefaciens habitually introduced its own genes into plants. With a little laboratory work, the bacterium can instead implant desirable genes, such as those that increase nutrients or help the plant resist pests or drought.

The planting of genetically engineered crops during the past 20 years has drastically reduced the amount of synthetic insecticides sprayed worldwide, shifted the use of herbicides to those that are less toxic, rescued the U.S. papaya industry from disease, and benefited the health and well-being of farmers and their families and consumers. Every scientific review of the crops on the market so far has concluded that the plants are safe to eat.
Just as the excitement surrounding the benefits of genetic engineering paralleled those of our predecessors, so, too, has the fear of plant tinkering technologies persisted over time. Consider the comments of Maxwell T. Masters, president of the International Conference of Hybridization, in his 1899 Scientific American article: “Many worthy people objected to the production of hybrids on the ground that it was an impious interference with the laws of Nature.” Today we are all too familiar with similar arguments about the application of genetic engineering in agriculture.

This inspiring collection of articles reminds us that the technologies of plant breeding have always been controversial.  Undoubtedly, new ways of producing crops—and the debates surrounding them—will continue. What is clear is that each new technology needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and assessed for its environmental, economic and social impacts.

Amen.  It amazes me to listen to the anti-GMO folks who claim Monsanto made their GMO seeds sterile so farmers couldn't save seed.  They are confusing hybrid seeds, which have been around since the '20s, with patented seeds where the company makes farmers pay licensing fees and won't allow them to save seed.  At the same time, even though there is no evidence that GMO seeds are unsafe, there probably could have been a little more research completed to study any potential health effects prior to flooding the food supply with GMO grain.  The Scientific American Classics: The Birth of the GMO Debate is worth checking out.