Is Man Destroying His Own Food Supply?

“Our true challenge today [is] not debts and deficits or global competition but the need to find a way to live rich, fulfilling lives without destroying the planet’s biosphere, which supports all life. Humanity has never before faced such a threat: the collapse of the very elements that keep us alive.”—Geneticist David Suzuki.

AN APPLE is an easy thing to take for granted. If you live where apples grow in abundance, you might assume that they are readily available and, better yet, that you may pick from a wide variety. But did you know that there may be far fewer types to choose from today than there were 100 years ago?

Between the years 1804 and 1905, there were 7,098 varieties of apples grown in the United States. Today 6,121 of those—86 percent—are extinct. Pears have fared similarly. About 88 percent of the 2,683 varieties once grown are now extinct. And when it comes to vegetables, the numbers are even grimmer. Something is disappearing, and it is called biodiversity—not only the rich variety of species of living things but also the rich variety of types found within species. Diversity within the various kinds of vegetables grown in the United States has been slashed by 97 percent in less than 80 years! But does diversity really matter?

Many scientists say that it does. Although the role of biodiversity is still debated, a number of environmental experts say that it is essential to life on earth. They say that it is just as vital to the plants we grow for food as it is to those growing wild in the forests, jungles, and grasslands of the world. Diversity within a species matters too. The numerous strains of rice, for instance, increase the probability that some strains will have the means to resist common plagues. Hence, a paper published by the Worldwatch Institute noted recently that one thing above all may show mankind how serious it can be to cut down the earth’s biodiversity—the effect on our food supply.

The extinction of plants can affect food crops in at least two ways: first, by wiping out the wild relatives of cultivated crops, a potential source of genes for future breeding, and second, by reducing the number of strains within cultivated species. Early in the 20th century, for example, probably over 100,000 folk varieties of rice were cultivated in Asia, with at least 30,000 in India alone. Now 75 percent of India’s crop consists of just ten varieties. Sri Lanka’s 2,000 rice strains have been all but replaced by 5. Mexico, the cradle of corn domestication, cultivates just 20 percent of the varieties that were found there in the 1930’s.

But more than just food is at stake. About 25 percent of commercially manufactured medicines are derived from plants, and new medicinal plants continue to be found. Yet, plants are constantly being driven to extinction. Could we be, in effect, sawing off the very branch that supports us?

According to the World Conservation Union, of some 18,000 species of plants and animals investigated, more than 11,000 face extinction. In places such as Indonesia, Malaysia, and Latin America, where great swaths of forest have been cleared for plantations, researchers can only guess at how many species are about to—or already have—become extinct. Nevertheless, some say that extinction is proceeding “catastrophically fast,” reports The UNESCO Courier.

Of course, the earth still produces a prodigious amount of food. But for how long can a burgeoning human population feed itself if the planet’s biodiversity dwindles? Various countries have responded to such concerns by setting up seed banks as insurance against the loss of important plants. Some botanical gardens have taken up the mission of species preservation. Science has supplied the powerful new tools of genetic engineering. But can seed banks and science really solve the problem? The following article will examine this question.

Variety—Essential to Life

IN THE 1840’s, Ireland’s population exceeded eight million, making it the most densely populated country in Europe. Potatoes were its dietary mainstay, and a single variety called lumpers was the most widely grown.

In 1845 the farmers planted their lumpers as usual, but blight struck and wiped out almost the entire crop. “Most of Ireland survived that difficult year,” wrote Paul Raeburn in his book The Last Harvest—The Genetic Gamble That Threatens to Destroy American Agriculture. “The devastation came the next year. Farmers had no choice but to plant the same potatoes again. They had no other varieties. The blight struck again, this time with overwhelming force. The suffering was indescribable.” Historians estimate that up to 1 million people died of starvation, while another 1.5 million emigrated, most to the United States. Those remaining suffered from crushing poverty.

In the Andes of South America, farmers grew many varieties of potatoes, and only a few were affected by blight. Hence, there was no epidemic. Clearly, diversity of species and diversity within species provide protection. The growing of just one uniform crop runs counter to this basic survival strategy and leaves plants exposed to disease or pests, which can decimate an entire region’s harvest. That is why many farmers depend so heavily on the frequent use of pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides, even though such chemicals are often environmentally hazardous.

So why do farmers replace their many folk varieties with one uniform crop? Usually in response to economic pressures. Planting uniform crops promises ease of harvesting, attractiveness of the product, resistance to spoilage, and high productivity. These trends began in earnest in the 1960’s with what came to be called the green revolution.

The Green Revolution

Through massive government and corporate campaigns, farmers in famine-prone lands were persuaded to replace their diverse crops with uniform, high-yield grains, particularly rice and wheat. These “miracle” grains were hailed as the solution to world hunger. But they were not cheap—seeds cost up to three times the normal price. Yields also depended heavily on chemicals, including fertilizers, not to mention such costly equipment as tractors. Still, with government subsidies the green revolution took off. “While it has saved millions from starvation,” says Raeburn, “[it] is now threatening the world’s food security.”

In effect, the green revolution may have provided short-term gains at the cost of long-term risks. Uniformity of crops soon became commonplace across entire continents—while the intensive use of fertilizers encouraged weed growth, and pesticides destroyed beneficial insects as well as pests. In rice paddies, toxic chemicals killed fish, shrimps, crabs, frogs, and edible herbs and wild plants—most being valuable supplementary foods. Chemical exposure also led to cases of poisoning among farmers.

A teacher in the Biology Department of the Open University in the United Kingdom, Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, wrote: “It is now indisputable that monoculture crops introduced since the ‘Green Revolution’ have adversely affected biodiversity and food security all over the world.” According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, 75 percent of the genetic diversity present in cultivated plants a century ago is now lost, mainly because of industrial farming practices.

A paper published by the Worldwatch Institute warns that “the ecological risks we take in adopting genetic uniformity are enormous.” How are these risks kept at bay? Agricultural scientists and potent chemicals are required as well as financing for farmers. Yet, there are no guarantees. Genetic uniformity contributed to a devastating corn blight in the United States and the loss of half a million acres of rice in Indonesia. In recent years, however, a new farming revolution has begun, one that involves the manipulation of life at a more fundamental level—the gene.

The Gene Revolution

The study of genetics has given rise to a lucrative new industry called biotechnology. As the name suggests, it blends biology and modern technology through such techniques as genetic engineering. Some of the new biotech companies, as they are called, specialize in agriculture and are working feverishly to patent seeds that give a high yield, that resist disease, drought, and frost, and that reduce the need for hazardous chemicals. If such goals could be achieved, it would be most beneficial. But some have raised concerns about genetically engineered crops.

“In nature, genetic diversity is created within certain limits,” says the book Genetic Engineering, Food, and Our Environment. “A rose can be crossed with a different kind of rose, but a rose will never cross with a potato. . . . Genetic engineering, on the other hand, usually involves taking genes from one species and inserting them into another in an attempt to transfer a desired trait or character. This could mean, for example, selecting a gene which leads to the production of a chemical with antifreeze properties from an arctic fish (such as the flounder), and splicing it into a potato or strawberry to make it frost-resistant. It is now possible for plants to be engineered with genes taken from bacteria, viruses, insects, animals or even humans.”a In essence, then, biotechnology allows humans to breach the genetic walls that separate species.

Like the green revolution, what some call the gene revolution contributes to the problem of genetic uniformity—some say even more so because geneticists can employ techniques such as cloning and tissue culture, processes that produce perfectly identical copies, or clones. Concerns about the erosion of biodiversity, therefore, remain. Genetically altered plants, however, raise new issues, such as the effects that they may have on us and the environment. “We are flying blindly into a new era of agricultural biotechnology with high hopes, few constraints, and little idea of the potential outcomes,” said science writer Jeremy Rifkin.b

On the other hand, the power to manipulate life on the genetic level is a potential gold mine, and so the race is on to patent new seeds and other engineered organisms. In the meantime, plant extinction continues unabated. As mentioned earlier, in order to avert disaster, some governments and private institutions have set up seed banks. Will these banks enable future generations to have a broad variety of seeds to plant and harvest?

Seed Banks—Insurance Against Extinction?

The Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew, England, has embarked on what it hails as “one of the largest international conservation projects ever undertaken”—the Millennium Seed Bank Project. The principal aims of the project are (1) to collect and conserve 10 percent—over 24,000 species—of the world’s seed-bearing flora by 2010 and (2) well before then, to collect and conserve seeds of the entire United Kingdom native seed-bearing flora. Other countries have also established seed banks, or gene banks, as they are sometimes called.

Biologist John Tuxill states that at least 90 percent of the millions of seeds stored in seed banks are of valuable food and commodity plants, such as wheat, rice, corn, sorghum, potatoes, onions, garlic, sugarcane, cotton, soybeans, and other beans, to name a few. But seeds are living organisms that remain viable only as long as their internal energy reserves last. So how dependable are seed banks?

Woes at the Bank

Seed banks cost money to run—annually a total of about $300 million, according to Tuxill. However, even this amount may be inadequate, he notes, for “only 13 percent of gene-banked seeds are in well-run facilities with long-term storage capability.” Because poorly stored seeds do not last long, they must be planted early so that the next generation of seeds can be harvested; otherwise, seed banks become seed morgues. Of course, such work is labor-intensive, which only complicates matters for facilities that are already hard-pressed for funds.

The book Seeds of Change—The Living Treasure explains that the National Seed Storage Laboratory, in Colorado, U.S.A., has “suffered multiple difficulties, including power failures, broken refrigeration equipment, and understaffing that has left enormous, chaotic piles of seeds uncatalogued.” Seed banks are also subject to political upheavals, economic downturns, and natural disasters.

Long-term storage creates other problems too. In their natural environment, plants have a limited but vital ability to adapt, and this enables them to survive disease and other challenges. But in the protected environment of a seed bank, they may after a few generations lose some of that resilience. Well-stored seeds of many plants may, however, last for centuries before they need replanting. Despite such limitations and uncertainties, the very existence of seed banks reflects the growing concerns about the future of mankind’s food crops.

Of course, the best way to reduce extinction is to protect native habitats and revitalize diversity in crops. But to do that, says Tuxill, we need to “develop a new balance between human needs and those of the natural world.” How realistic, though, is it to think that humans will “develop a new balance” with the natural world while they pursue industrial and economic progress with almost a religious zeal? Even agriculture, as we have seen, is being assimilated into the high-tech, market-driven world of big business. There must be another answer.

[Footnotes]

[Pictures on page 7]

“Monoculture crops introduced since the ‘Green Revolution’ have adversely affected biodiversity and food security all over the world.”—Dr. Mae-Wan Ho

[Credit Lines]

Background: U.S. Department of Agriculture

Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maíz y Trigo (CIMMYT)

Who Will Feed the World?

WILL mankind ever start protecting biodiversity instead of destroying it? That, according to biologist John Tuxill, would require “a major policy shift.” He adds, though, that such a shift “is not likely to occur without profound changes in peoples’ awareness of plant biodiversity’s benefits, their desire to change existing practices, and their willingness to try new approaches.”

Many find it hard to believe that such profound changes will come about. And many disagree with Tuxill’s conclusion. There are environmental scientists who feel that the role of biodiversity is still poorly understood and perhaps exaggerated by some of their colleagues. Still, as scientists debate the matter, it seems worthwhile to take note of the cry of alarm coming from some experts in this field. They seem troubled, not only by the loss of biodiversity but also by the greed and shortsightedness they see at work behind such losses. Note these comments from various writers.

“Just a century ago, hundreds of millions of farmers, scattered across the planet, controlled their own seed stocks. . . . Today, much of the seed stock has been brought up, engineered, and patented by global companies and kept in the form of intellectual property. . . . By focusing on short-term market priorities, the biotech industry threatens to destroy the very genetic heirlooms that might one day be worth their weight in gold as a new line of defense against a new resistant disease or super bug.”—Science writer Jeremy Rifkin.

“The media mantra, repeated over and over, is that the real bottom line must be the marketplace, free trade and the global economy. When the media are dominated by wealth and large corporate interests, this economic faith is like religious dogma and is seldom challenged.”—Geneticist David Suzuki.

In his book Seeds of Change—The Living Treasure, author Kenny Ausubel points out the hypocrisy in developed countries when their “governments and corporations bemoan the imminent global danger of extinction of humanity’s ‘common heritage’ of the gene pool.” He notes that they too are threatening biodiversity by promoting the use of modern farming techniques and monocultures.

Whether the worst fears of environmentalists are justified or not, you may find it difficult to feel confident about the future of this planet. How long can it survive when mankind seems driven by greed? Desperate for answers, many people hope that science will come to our rescue.

Can Science and Technology Save Us?

The Royal Society of Edinburgh recently expressed concern that scientific advances are now so rapid and sophisticated that scientists run the risk of not fully understanding the implications of these advances. “Science provides tiny, fragmented insights into the natural world,” wrote David Suzuki. “We know next to nothing about the biological makeup of Earth’s life-forms, let alone how they are interconnected and interdependent.”

As Science magazine explained, “neither the risks nor the benefits of GEOs [Genetically Engineered Organisms] are certain or universal. . . . Our capacity to predict ecological impacts of introduced species, including GEOs, is imprecise.”

Many “advances” have truly been a double-edged sword. They do some good, but they also demonstrate mankind’s lack of wisdom and, all too often, their greed. (Jeremiah 10:23) For instance, while the green revolution produced an abundance and fed many mouths, it also contributed to the loss of biodiversity. By promoting the use of pesticides and other expensive farming techniques, the green revolution ultimately benefited “corporate plant breeders and the elite of the Third World at the expense of ordinary people,” wrote Dr. Mae-Wan Ho. This trend is continuing as agriculture based on biotechnology becomes an even bigger and more powerful enterprise and takes us into a future where food security becomes increasingly dependent on science.