Box Box 6-8. Genetic engineering and development and sustainability goals

Genetic engineering is distinguished from conventional plant breeding by its reliance on molecular methods (i.e., not including sexual reproduction) to introduce genetic variation into the cells of a target population. In agricultural applications, transgenesis is currently the most common kind of genetic engineering. Trans-genesis uses a vector to introduce segments of DNA isolated from one or more organisms into the cells of another organism where it is integrated into the genome. Transgenic annual crop plants are used widely in the United States, Canada, Argentina, Brazil, India and China, and many farmers using them have ben­efited; the number of farmers planting transgenic crops continues to grow in the NAE and elsewhere. Many new transgenic plants and animals are being developed for use in agriculture. In addition to transgenesis, several other molecular methods are being used to introduce significant genetic variability into agriculturally im­portant species directed evolution and site-specific mutagenesis. In the future it is likely that these and other, yet to be developed methods, will become more common. However, transgenic organisms have engendered controversy as they have been developed and used. The controversies have revolved around three interlinked issues: policy priorities, self-de­termination and ownership, and risk and consumer acceptance (NAFTA-CEC, 2004; Andow and Zwahlen, 2006). These contro­versies have themselves affected the organization of AKST in the NAE. It is likely that the many controversies will not be resolved in the next 5-10 years. The policy divide, recently reflected by the WTO dispute be­tween the United States, Canada and Argentina versus the Eu­ropean Commission, has resulted in policy instability that has delayed the development and implementation of agricultural ge­netic engineering. This divide not only occurs between countries in the NAE, but between the NAE and other parts of the world. There is a need to stabilize the policy environment, beginning with clarification of the differences. Genetic engineering has sharpened some tensions between ownership rights and the rights of farmers and individuals in gen­eral. Biological patents remain controversial in many parts of the world, but in the NAE they have accelerated the commercializa­tion of biological products in many fields outside of agriculture as well as in agriculture. These patents have helped stimulate the fusion of molecular biology with plant and animal breeding, which has led to new areas of investigation in the plant sciences. At the same time, they have contributed to a weakening of public sector capacity to conduct innovative research in agricultural bio­technology, and have contributed to the concentration of owner­ship of the seed industry. The rights of peoples to determine how transgenic organisms enter nations has been a subject of much international negotiation (e.g., under the Cartagena Protocol on

Biosafety) and the terms under which they enter into individu­als' lives is still a matter of much discussion. These controver­sies have become more complicated as they have entangled with many other issues, including indigenous peoples' rights, biodi­versity conservation and food aid. The consequences of these and related changes need to be understood for the NAE and the rest of the world, to better assess the need for mitigation mea­sures, and if needed, what measures would be appropriate. The development of transgenic crops has focused attention on risk and consumer preference. Risk assessment has focused on human health and environmental risks, which has led to re­newed examination of the methods of risk assessment and agri­cultural technology assessment, particularly concerning benefits, opportunity costs, long term adverse effects, and the distribu­tion of benefits and risks in society (Snow et al. 2005). Consumer preferences increasingly influence the development of nearly all agricultural technologies, including transgenic crops. These preferences have contributed to the stratification of commodity markets (corn is no longer just "corn"), and have thus undercut, not without some tension, the traditional supply-side approach involving undifferentiated commodity streams throughout the supply chain. The increased attention on risk and technology assessment, and the increasing strength of consumers to influ­ence the development of agricultural technology will be important touchstones for NAE AKST in the coming decades. IAASTD goals include elimination of hunger and malnutrition by 2050. To accomplish this will require making greater quantities and more nutritious food available to the poor (Sen, 1981), which will require improving access to, increasing production of and de­creasing losses of global food supplies. Several reports of inter­national bodies suggest that transgenic organisms will help meet this goal (e.g., FAO, 2004b), while others are less sanguine (e.g., UNECA, 2002). Unlike the Green Revolution, genetic engineering is not a single technology package, so its potential to contribute to development and sustainability goals must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. We can conclude with confidence that ge­netic engineering is positioned to help meet development and sustainability goals, and we can even say that some (future) prod­ucts of genetic engineering will likely help meet development and sustainability goals. However, each case must be examined on its own merits. This is the challenge for the future. There is no simple path for the use of genetic engineering that will assure that its products will contribute to meeting development and sustain­ability goals. Likewise, there is nothing about the technology itself that is inimical to the attainment of those goals. Like other agri­cultural technologies, we will need to understand better how the socioeconomic and environmental context for the use of trans­genic organisms enables them to contribute to these goals.