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.” * 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. *

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]

 [Box/Picture on page 7]

The Farmer—An ‘Endangered Species’?

“Since 1950, the number of people employed in agriculture has plummeted in all industrial nations, in some regions by more than 80 percent,” says the journal World Watch. The United States, for example, now has fewer farmers than prisoners. What is causing this exodus from the land?

Major factors are falling income, rising rural debt, growing poverty, and increasing mechanization. In 1910, farmers in the United States received about 40 cents for every dollar that shoppers spent on food, but by 1997, the farmers’ share had dwindled to about 7 cents. A wheat farmer, says World Watch, “gets just 6 cents of the dollar spent on a loaf of bread.” This means that customers pay about as much for the wrapper as they pay the farmer for his wheat. In developing nations, farmers are even worse off. A farmer in Australia or Europe may be able to borrow from a bank to tide him over a bad year; a West African farmer may not be able to try again. He might not even survive.

[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)

[Pictures on page 8]

The Millennium Seed Bank, in England, is preserving valuable plant seeds

[Credit Line]

© Trustees of Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew