Sanet Post, Joel Grossman
Biotechnology and Pesticides
March 20, 1997

For another perspective on biotech, the Forbes magazine of 10 March 1997 has an article by Robert Linzer and Bruce Upbin titled "Monsanto v. Malthus."

Interestingly, one of the major justifications cited for biotech in agriculture, the expected doubling of the world population, is called "absolute nonsense" in another article later in the magazine interviewing business management guru Peter Drucker.

What is particularly compelling about the potential of biotech plants making their own pesticides is contained in a chart titled "Old potato equals waste." Manufacturing the pesticides needed for "old" potatoes requires 4 million lbs of raw materials and energy from 1,500 barrels of oil. This yields 3.8 million pounds of inert ingredients and 1.2 million pounds of insecticide. This 5 million pounds of formulated pesticide product is put into 180,000 containers and packages [which presumably must be disposed of in toxic waste dumps, etc.].

It requires another 150,000 gallons of fuel to distribute and apply the potato pesticides. However, only 5% of the pesticide even reaches the targeted pest. Thus, 95% of the pesticide is wasted and can potentially contaminate the environment. This is the real promise of biotech, reducing the pesticide load on the environment. It is certainly food for thought, whatever your ideological or philosophical position on biotech.

Whether resistant plants, either the biotech or the conventional plant breeder kind, will ever achieve this pesticide reduction is another matter. Sometimes resistant plants hold off pests for many years, one of the classic cases being Hessian fly resistant wheat. Having worked as an agricultural pest control adviser and covered pest control as a journalist, I have tremendous respect for pests. It would be no surprise to me if pest resistance and new pests also create situations where both pesticides and biotech inputs are used, with little net gain.

The sustainable approach advocated by many in this list seems to me a sensible context for discussing the role of biotech. I hate to see us take a Dark Ages type approach and reject all the modern science and potential pesticide reductions possible from biotech because of a few bad uses or failures. Rather, I think we should harness the best of biotech in the service of sustainable agriculture along with pointing out its misuses and curbing unwise uses. In other words, a proactive approach, not just reactive.

Joel Grossman
independent writer and former pest control adviser

3216125@mcimail.com