Alternative investment funds - EY

Impacts

of Plant Biotechnology

Unit II • Biotechnology and Plants

2

Lesson 2 Impacts of Plant Biotechnology 99

Everyone agrees that biotechnology and the pro-duction of transgenic plants are changing the faceof agriculture. One way to assess this impact is tolook at potential benefits and risks from the prod-ucts of biotechnology. The literature on plant bio-technology contains a range of benefits from re-ducing the use of agricultural chemicals to allevi-ating world hunger. Concerns or risks cover anequally broad area, from the increased potentialfor pesticide resistant insects to to safety in foodto an infringement on plant breeders’ rights.

Environmental Benefits

Insect resistant crops

Reduction of stronger sprays. Crops with built-in pest resistance can reduce or eliminate stron-ger chemical sprays. For example, in an averageyear, conventional potato growers might spraytheir fields with insecticides as many as five times,and conventional cotton growers as many as tentimes.

More beneficial insects spared. Eliminating theuse of insecticides increases the number of ben-eficial insects that would be killed by sprays butare not targeted by the natural pesticide in theplant.

Safer farmworker conditions. Decreased use ofchemical pesticides will reduce worker exposureto chemicals.

Herbicide-tolerant crops

Herbicide use reduced. Herbicide tolerant cropsallow herbicides to be used as needed, at differ-ent times in the life cycle of the plant, rather thanbefore plants are planted, and can reduce theamount of herbicide needed.

Move to “friendlier” herbicides. Most herbicidetolerant crops on the market have been developedto be used with glyphosate or glufosinate herbi-cides, known to have less toxicity than other stron-ger herbicides such as atrazine.

Reduction of soil erosion. Herbicide tolerantcrops can work hand-in-hand with no-till andreduced-till farming practices, in which a farmerplants a crop without tilling the field before plant-ing. This method is designed to reduce soil ero-sion and subsequent fertilizer runoff into water-ways, but allows more weeds to grow.

Other cropsReduced nitrogen use, runoff. Nitrogen-fixingplants would result in decreased nitrogen use, lessnitrogen runoff degrading soil and groundwater.

Other plant products

Wider range of natural products. Biopesticidesmade from bacteria, fungi, and viruses reduce theneed for chemical sprays

Earlier detection of plant disease. Immunoassaytest kits allow growers to detect plant pathogens


100 Lesson 2 Impacts of Plant Biotechnology

in the field, enabling them to treat crops earlierusing fewer chemicals.

Environmental Concerns

Several public interest groups are actively moni-toring and evaluating the environmental and eco-nomic impacts of biotechnology in agriculture.The Union of Concerned Scientists, the Biotech-nology Working Group, the Environmental De-fense Fund, Greenpeace, and the Rural Advance-ment Foundation International are some of thegroups that regularly study these issues and com-municate with the public.

Insect resistant cropsInsect resistance to Bt. The potential of pests todevelop resistance against insecticides is wellknown: more than 500 insects are already resis-tant to a number of insecticides. Bt crops pose agreater potential risk for insect resistance becausethe Bt toxin is expressed in most plant tissuesthroughout the life cycle of the plant. This con-stantly exposes insects to the toxin, making themmore likely to develop resistance to Bt. If Bt be-comes ineffective, the result may be 1) more useof possibly stronger chemical pesticides by grow-ers; and 2) Bt sprays would lose their effective-ness for groups like organic growers and homegardeners who depend on them.

Reduced interest in sustainable agriculture.Built-in resistance may cause a reduced effort to-ward sustainable agriculture practices, includingcrop rotation, responsible tillage, intercropping,and integrated pest management.

Herbicide tolerant crops

Transgenic plants becoming weeds. A new com-bination of traits could allow genetically-engi-

neered crops to live and reproduce in the envi-ronment and become weeds themselves.

Creation of herbicide resistant weeds. Foreigngenes can move through pollen into plant rela-tives, called outcrossing, transferring undesirabletraits in the weed population. An often cited ex-ample is the possibility that weeds could becomeresistant to herbicides, either as a result of in-creased exposure to the herbicide or as a result ofthe transfer of the herbicide resistance trait toweedy relatives of crops through the plant’s pol-len. Already, the number of weeds that becomeresistant to one herbicide or another increases eachyear. There are currently more than 180 resistantspecies world-wide.

Pollution of native sources of new plant genes.Hybrid or transgenic plants grown in areas withwild relatives could harm essential sources of newgenes. For example, transgenic corn grown inMexico could pollute native corn varieties; soy-beans grown in the Far East could pollute nativesoybean varieties.

Increased dependence on herbicides, toxicity ofherbicides. Plants engineered to resist herbicidesmay result in the use of more herbicides, many ofwhich have known harmful effects on humanhealth. Studies have also shown that the “benign”herbicide glyphosate is toxic to fish, to earth-worms and to some beneficial fungi that helpplants take up nutrients in the soils. Another con-cern is that herbicide spray can drift from the siteand cause damage to wild plants.

Other crops

Creation of new or worse viruses. Virus-resistantplant varieties pose risks of creating new or worseviruses. Recombination can occur between theplant produced viral genes and closely relatedgenes of incoming viruses. Such recombination



may produce viruses that can infect a wider rangeof hosts or that may be more virulent than theparent viruses.

Poisoned wildlife from industrial crops. Plantsengineered to produce plastics or pharmaceuti-cals could harm wild animals, such as mice or deerwho consume crop debris left in the field afterharvesting.

Other concerns

Loss of crop genetic diversity. Farmers in a re-gion may grow a small number of high-tech crops,creating monocultures (large areas where onlyone crop is planted). Low genetic diversity canrender crops susceptible to massive losses fromnewly introduced pests or diseases.

Field trials not accurate predictors. Most fieldtrials take place on fewer than 10 acres, and areusually isolated to prevent escape of plants andpollen. They do not accurately predict safety at acommercial scale. They usually do not take intoaccount varying climates and native weed popu-lations found in other potential growing areasaround the world.

Economic/Global Benefits

Insect resistant crops

Higher and more predictable yields. Plants de-veloped for increased pest resistance allow grow-ers to plant less acreage of a crop with more pre-dictable yields. It is currently estimated that 30%of crops grown are normally lost to pests.

In the United States, corn is the leading crop interms of economic importance. Bt corn offers thepotential to control European corn borer, a majorproblem that has not been effectively managedin other ways. European corn borer is hard tomanage because 1) borers are “cryptic” insects

that hide in the stalk where sprays are not effec-tive; 2) the canopy of leaves on mature plants donot allow aerial spraying to reach the stalk; 3) thetiming of pesticide application has to be exactlyright. Data from Monsanto sites in fivemidwestern states show that in 1997 their Bt corndelivered an average 14.9 bushels/acre advantageover identical non-Bt hybrids, for an economicbenefit of $27.25 per acre. Other studies haveshown costs to be about the same between chemi-cally treated corn and Bt corn with the licensingfee.

Fewer agricultural inputs. Higher expected yieldsresult in fewer acres needed per crop, which trans-lates to fewer agricultural inputs like fuel, labor,water and fertilizer.

Other crops

Market for new agricultural products. Biotech-nology opens the range of possibilities for newproducts made from plants including pharmaceu-ticals, oils, fuel, and other non-food products.

Source: Monsanto and Seed Company research at 111 sites. www.monsanto.com/ag/articles/sourcebook98yieldgard.htm

Nebraska Illinois Iowa Minnesota Ohio

NonBt Hybrids

YieldGard

2.32.32.32.32.3

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Percent of Plants Tunneled by Corn BorersBt and NonBt Hybrids

94.294.294.294.294.2

68.068.068.068.068.0

82.482.482.482.482.4

65.165.165.165.165.1

40.140.140.140.140.1

1.31.31.31.31.3 1.71.71.71.71.7 1.21.21.21.21.2 0.00.00.00.00.0



Benefits to world food supply. Some develop-ments may prove to be useful in easing the worldfood supply and aiding agriculture in develop-ing nations, where farmers cannot afford to uselarge quantities of fertilizers and pesticides. Someproposed benefits include:

• increased proteins in forage crops will raisenutritional levels

• crops developed for tolerance to drought andflood, salt and metals, heat and cold will pro-vide greater productivity on marginal lands

• improved quality of seed grains will result inhigher yield

• nitrogen-fixing plants could reduce the needfor fertilizer.

Faster, more efficient, more flexible plant breed-ing. Genetic engineering has changed plant breed-ing, making the process more direct and efficient.Table 2-1 compares traditional plant breeding tobreeding based on genetic engineering.

Other products

Pharmaceuticals safe and inexpensive to pro-duce. Plants can produce large amounts of phar-maceuticals inexpensively and easily. They areuseful because they 1) do not serve as hosts foragents which cause human disease; 2) reduce theproblems and issues surrounding the use of labo-ratory animals; and 3) provide farmers with an-other option for their farm lands.

Economic/Global ConcernsShift toward larger farms and more capital-in-tensive farming. Biotechnology may be encour-aging a shift towards even larger farms and morecapital-intensive farming systems.

More expensive seeds. Seeds of genetically-en-gineered plants are more expensive to buy. Forexample, in 1997, transgenic cotton seed cost $32more per acre than conventional seed.

Table 2.1 Traditional Plant Breeding vs. Genetic Engineering

Genetic information can be inserted into a plantfrom any organism, including a bacterium or ananimal.

Single genes with known traits can be insertedinto a plant.

Genetically modified plants can be grown usingtissue culture.

Typically takes 5 generations to produce a plant

Sexual crosses can occur only in the same ornearly related species, limiting the genetic re-sources breeders can draw on.

When two plants are crossed, about 100,000 genesfrom each plant are combined; breeders have toback-cross the plant many times to eliminateextraneous traits and restore positive traits fromparent plants.

When two plants are crossed, seeds must becollected, planted, and the resulting plantscultivated before the results of the cross can beseen.

Typically takes 14 generations to produce adesired new plant

Traditional Plant Breeding Genetic Engineering



Shift toward even larger corporations makingmost of the products, profits. Corporations in-volved in agricultural biotechnology are realign-ing themselves as quickly as possible to controlthe major product lines. In May of 1998, Monsantoacquired Delta Pine & Land Company, a companythat controls 73% of the worldwide supply of cot-ton seed. Rhone Poulenc is merging with AgrEvo,to become the largest agricultural products com-pany. Monsanto, Pioneer, Novartis and othershave been moving from the seed business into the“life sciences” industry, combining geneticallyengineered seeds, agricultural chemicals, andpharmaceuticals.

Reduction of farmers’ rights to save seed. Intel-lectual property laws and the introduction of hy-brids that do not perform well in the second gen-eration have already reduced farmers’ ability tosave seed for replanting and for swapping withother farmers. Presently, Monsanto requiresgrowers of their transgenic seed to sign agree-ments not to save and replant seed from theirtransgenic crop, and is actively pursuing grow-ers who violate the agreement. A new technol-ogy designed to disable a seed’s capacity to ger-minate would further reduce farmers’ ability tosave seed. The technology will not now be com-mercialized partly due to public outcry.

Impacts of GeneticallyEngineered FoodsOf all the innovations of biotechnology, geneti-cally engineered foods are among the most con-troversial. Over the past decade, several surveyshave been conducted to find out how people inthe US and other countries feel about genetically-engineered foods. These surveys have shown that,for the most part, American consumers are neu-tral to positive about these foods and are gener-ally unaware of the issues surrounding biotech

foods. European consumers and several govern-ments in the European Union, however, are muchmore reluctant to accept biotech foods, which arecalled genetically modified foods or GM foods.In fact, at the end of the 1990’s, the impact of pub-lic opinion and public policy in Europe is slow-ing the growth of the industry in the United Statesand worldwide.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is theUS federal regulatory agency that oversees theintroduction of these foods into consumer mar-kets. See Lesson 3 for more information on theFDA’s policies on genetically engineered food.

Benefits of Biotech FoodsProponents of genetically engineered foods citethe following benefits to human health and nu-trition:

Higher levels of protein. Foods such as rice arebeing developed with higher protein levels thatwill improve the ability of large populations indeveloping countries to feed themselves. In ad-dition, some of these proteins have other benefits.For example, higher level of lysine in rice mayhelp reduce childhood blindness in China causedby lysine deficiency.

Better tasting fruit, ripened longer on vines.Tomatoes, other vegetables, and fruits such aspeaches, bananas and strawberries will taste bet-ter, ship better, and have a longer shelf life.

Higher levels of vitamins. Fruits and vegetablesare being modified to contain higher levels of vi-tamin C, vitamin E, and beta carotene.

Reduced allergens, levels of natural toxins.Among food innovations in the pipeline are ricewith reduced allergenic proteins and potatoeswith reduced toxic glykoalkaloids, which cause abitter taste and make potatoes unmarketable.



Healthier foods, lower fat. Some modificationsto make foods less fatty include potatoes with in-creased starch that will take in less oil when fry-ing; and oils from corn, soybeans, and canola withreduced saturated fat.

Fewer chemical residues. Foods grown ontransgenic pest-resistant plants may be free of resi-dues from the chemical pesticide sprays growerswould normally use.

Concerns about Biotech FoodsIn the United States, most concerns about thesafety of genetically engineered foods are ex-pressed by public interest groups that include theEnvironmental Defense Fund and the Union ofConcerned Scientists. In Europe, resistance iswidespread and highly public.

The following sections summarize the major hu-man health concerns raised by the introductionof genetically-engineered foods.

Marker genes/ antibiotic resistance

One group of concerns surrounds the use of anti-biotic resistant marker genes. When plantbiotechnologists modify or add a gene to producea transgenic plant, they often also insert a markergene that will select the plants that are success-fully transformed. The most widely used mark-ers make developing plants resistant to antibiot-ics. When a group of transformed plant cells areexposed to the antibiotic, the successfully trans-formed ones resist the antibiotic and continue tolive in culture while the unsuccessful ones die.

The compounds that make the transformed plantsresistant to antibiotics continue to be producedin plant tissues of genetically engineered plants.As a result, these compounds may be found infoods produced from these modified plants.

Some antibiotics could lose effectiveness. Anti-biotic resistance genes produce enzymes thatmight reduce the effect of oral antibiotics. If foodswith antibiotic resistant genes are taken withmeals, the interaction could reduce the ability ofthese antibiotics to fight disease.

Resistance genes could be transferred to humanor animal pathogens. If microorganisms are ableto take up antibiotic resistance genese, they couldbecome impervious to antibiotics, worsening thealready serious health problem of antibiotic-resistant disease organisms.

The Union of Concerned Scientists recommendsthat as the number of genetically engineered prod-ucts grows, the effects of antibiotic resistance beanalyzed cumulatively across the food supply.They contend that the full set of antibiotic resis-tance risks associated with genetic engineeringhave not been identified.

Allergens, toxins, unknown substancesHidden allergens. Genetically engineered foodscan contain genes from a variety of sources, in-cluding bacteria, animals, or other plants. Someof these new substances might cause allergic re-actions in sensitive people who would not beaware of the allergen’s presence in the food.

Increase of natural toxins, production of newtoxins. Modifications to foods could change path-ways that regulate the production of natural toxicsubstances in the plant, and cause increases innatural toxins.

Unknown substances. Vegetarians and certainreligious groups with dietary rules could un-knowingly eat foods with an animal gene, foodsthat should not be eaten together, etc.

Labeling needed. Some consumer groups feel thatgenetically engineered foods should be labeled.See regulatory policy about labeling in Lesson 3.



Terms

GM foods – “genetically modified” foods, theterm used in Europe for genetically engi-neered foods.

life sciences industry – large conglomerate indus-tries formed from acquisitions and mergersbetween chemical, seed, and pharmaceuticalindustries.

marker gene – a gene added during genetic engi-neering that selects for successfully trans-formed plants.

monocultures – large areas where only one cropis planted.

no-till or reduced-till agriculture – agriculturalpractices designed to reduce soil disturbanceand the resulting erosion and runoff.

outcrossing – the movement of foreign genes intorelated weed species.

sustainable agriculture – a system of agriculturethat emphasizes crop rotation, soil enrich-ment, cover crops, and natural predators forpest control. It includes economic, environ-mental, and management considerations.

Sources & Resources

Public interest groups on the Internet

Environmental Defense Fund – www.edf.org.

Greenpeace USA – www.greenpeaceusa.org. In-formation and reports on concerns about bio-technology.

Rural Advancement Foundation International –www.rafi.org. Information, online newsletter,monitors concerns on diversity, farmers’rights.

Union of Concerned Scientists – www.ucsusa.org. Extensive information and opinion aboutagricultural biotechnology, news releases, re-ports, quarterly newsletter,The Gene Exchange.

Industry information on the Internet

Monsanto – www.monsanto.com. Extensive web-site with special pages on benefits, issues,questions and answers about specific prod-ucts.

Novartis Seed Company – www.nk.com. Infor-mation about benefits, “homework helper”sheets for students on Bt corn and RoundupReady soybeans.

News, information on the Internetor by subscription

@g online – www.agriculture.com. Daily onlinenews service with links to industries.

AgBioForum – www.agbioforum.missouri.edu.Online magazine devoted to the economicsand management of agricultural biotechnol-ogy.

Agbiotech Infosource – www.agwest.sk.ca. Ag-West Biotech Inc., Saskatchewan, Canada.Monthly agricultural biotech newsletter forschools available on line or by subscription.

Council for Agricultural Science andTechnology (CAST) – www.cast-science.org.

ISB News Report– www.nbiap.vt.edu. Informa-tion Systems for Biotechnology at VirginiaTech. Monthly newsletter covers new prod-ucts, issues, research findings.

http://www.edf.org

http://www.greenpeaceusa.org

http://www.rafi.org

http://www.ucsusa.org

http://www.monsanto.com

http://www.nk.com

http://www.agriculture.com

http://www.agbioforum.missouri.edu

http://www.agwest.sk.ca

http://www.cast-science.org

http://www.nbiap.vt.edu



International Food Information Council – http://ificinfo.health.org. News and informationabout nutrition and food safety. Special sec-tion on biotechnology, press releases, includ-ing latest attitude survey results.

New Scientist – www.newscientist.com. Up-to-date, reader-friendly on-line British journalabout science and the news. Special report onEuropeans and genetically modified foods –www.newscientist.com/nsplus/insight/gmworld/gmfood/gmfood.html.

USDA’s Agricultural Research Service press re-leases – www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr. Informa-tion about current research in all areas of ag-riculture.

Why Files – http://whyfiles.news.wisc.edu/062ag_ gene_eng/index.html. An informationseries from the University of Wisconsin. Con-tains a user-friendly series on the impacts ofagricultural biotech.

Your World/Our World – User friendly magazinewith teachers’ guide, published 10x/year for7th and 8th graders by Pennsylvania Biotech-nology Association. Available from PBA, 1524West College Avenue, Suite 206, State College,PA 16801, 814-238-4080.

Books, other Print Materials

Goldburg, R., Rissler, J., Shand, H. and Hasse-brook, C., 1990. Biotechnology’s Bitter Harvest.A Report of the Biotechnology WorkingGroup.

Hoban, Thomas. (1998). Trends in consumer atti-tudes about agricultural biotechnology.AgBioForum,1(1)3-7. Retrieved from www.agbioforum.missouri.edu.

Mellon, M. and Rissler, J. (eds) 1998. Now or Never:Serious New Plans to Save a Natural Pest Con-trol. Union of Concerned Scientists.

NC Cooperative Extension Service, 1992. A Guideto Biotechnology in Crop Production. Raleigh NC:North Carolina State University.

Rissler, J. and Mellon, M. Perils Amidst the Prom-ise: Ecological Risks of Transgenic Crops in a Glo-bal Market. Union of Concerned Scientists, De-cember 1993.

Zinnen, Tom and Jane Voichick, 1994. Biotech-nology and Food. University of Wisconsin.

Videos

Biotechnology: Sowing the Seeds for Better Agricul-ture. Produced by the North Carolina Biotech-nology Center, 1991. NCBC phone 919-541-9366; fax 919-990-9544. Available at no cost toNorth Carolina teachers; for $10 to teachersoutside North Carolina. Shows products, ben-efits of agricultural biotechnology.

http://ificinfo.health.org

http://www.newscientist.com

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr

http://whyfiles.news.wisc.edu/062ag_gene_eng/

http://www.agbioforum.missouri.edu


The Issues AroundHerbicide Tolerant Crops

TeacherWorksheet

Activity 2 -1

Unit II • Activity 2-1 Teacher Worksheet

About this ActivityNew advances in plant biotechnology are associ-ated with both benefits and concerns. This activ-ity contains an article about an important newproduct of plant agriculture, herbicide tolerantcrops. The purpose of this activity is to help stu-dents understand the complexity of interrelation-ships between a new plant technology and theenvironment in which it is grown.

Have the students read the article from the WhyFiles and answer the questions as a starting pointfor a discussion on pros and cons of herbicide tol-erant plants. These questions are designed to helpstudents 1) understand the facts and concepts inthe article; 2) assess the writers’ bias and credibil-ity; 3) distinguish between fact and opinion; 4)compare different points of view; and 5) to cometo their own understanding of the issues.

Objectives

• discuss the impacts of genetically engineeredplants, using herbicide tolerance as an ex-ample

• recognize the complex interrelationships be-tween technology and the environment.

Related Skill Standards

• develop and use listening skills

• develop objectivity

• read and comprehend written documentation

• identify and understand the ethical dilemmasinvolved in science.

Time RequiredThis activity should take about one class period.

Background Reading

Before doing this activity students and teachersshould have read and discussed the text in Les-son 2, Impacts of Plant Biotechnology and Lesson 1,Products of Plant Biotechnology.

Materials

Activity 2-1 Student Worksheet for each student:The Why Files Field of Genes series article “Is ItSmart To Teach Plants To Resist Herbicides?”

Teacher PreparationPhotocopy the Why Files article for each studentor group of students.

Answer Key for Student Questions

1. Why does the author say in the first sentencethat [crops with] “insect resistance could re-duce the amount of chemicals used on crops?”

ANSWER: Crops with built-in resistance toinsects are engineered so that plants do nothave to be sprayed with chemical insecticides.

2. Why does the author say that “herbicide resis-tance could increase” the amount of chemi-cals used on crops?

ANSWER: Fields containing crops developedfor resistance or tolerance to herbicides canbe sprayed with certain chemical herbicides


Teacher Worksheet Unit II • Activity 2-1

at any time in their growing cycle, killing theweeds without damaging the main crop.

3. What are three concerns about herbicide resis-tant crops described in the article?

ANSWER: They encourage the use of moreherbicides; they might not work (1997 cottoncrop); herbicide drift could affect plants out-side fields; plants could transfer pollen toweeds and make weeds become resistant toherbicides, genetic diversity could be ruinedby crossbreeding of new varieties with wildrelatives.

4. What concern is referred to in the title– “Is itsmart to teach plants to resist herbicides?”

ANSWER: The concern that transgenic cropplants could transfer genes to weeds throughpollen and transfer the trait of herbicide re-sistance to the weeds.

5. What other questions would you need to an-swer to make a judgment about one of theseconcerns? Think of at least two questions youwould ask researchers about these issues.

ANSWER: Any questions that ask for furtherevidence, more information, information froma different source, would be appropriate.

Related Activities

1. If students made up their own plant productin Lesson 1 (Related activities, #1), have themmake up several questions and answers abouttheir product that demonstrate their under-standing of the benefits and risks of the prod-uct to the environment, to human health, tothe economy. For example, Will the productbe useful, and if so, to whom? Will it be safe?Does it do what it is supposed to do? Will itincrease a farmer’s yields? The answers to

these questions don’t have to be based on facts,but they should seem plausible.

2. Encourage students to look through currentnews magazines such as Newsweek, sciencejournals such as Scientific American, or agri-cultural magazines for stories about plant bio-technology to share with the class.

3. Find articles about impacts of plant biotech-nology and photocopy them for students.Make up discussion questions that 1) checkfor the facts and science in the article, andvocabulary relevant to the topic; 2) determinethe credibility of the writer or the people citedin the article; 3) characterize the bias of thewriter or the people cited in the article; 4) com-pare the information in the article to informa-tion students may have already learned.

4. Buy a small amount of Monsanto’s RoundupReady® Soybeans (you can use them for thegreenhouse activity in Lesson 8) from a localseed supplier. You will have to sign a contractwhen you buy the seeds in which you agreeto certain conditions from Monsanto. Studythe contract with your students and discussthe ways biotechnology is changing the busi-ness of agriculture.

Internet Activities

1. Have students access the University ofWisconsin’s Why Files (whyfiles.news.wisc.edu/062ag_gene_eng/index.html). The seriescovers other issues of plant biotechnology.Students could be assigned to report on oneof the other issues such as insect resistance.)

2. Have students access the Union of ConcernedScientists’ Internet site (www.ucsusa.org/ag-riculture) and report on one of the agriculturalissues, such as insect resistance or sustainableagriculture.


The Issues AroundHerbicide Tolerant Crops

StudentWorksheet

Activity 2 -1

Unit II • Activity 2-1 Student Worksheet

About this ActivityThis activity asks you to think carefully about issues surrounding the technology of herbicide resis-tance. The reading was taken from an Internet information series from the University of Wisconsincalled the Why Files. The Why Files is a current site that looks at today’s science issues, includingagricultural biotechnology.

Questions

1. Why does the author say in the first sentence that [crops with] “insect resistance could reduce theamount of chemicals used on crops?”

2. Why does the author say that “herbicide resistance could increase” the amount of chemicals usedon crops?

3. What are three concerns about herbicide resistant crops described in the article?

4. What concern is referred to in the title– “Is it smart to teach plants to resist herbicides?”

5. What other questions would you need to answer to make a judgment about one of these con-cerns? Think of at least two questions you would ask researchers about one of these issues.


Student Worksheet Unit II • Activity 2-1

Is it Smart to Teach Plants to Resist Herbicides?

from the Why Files (whyfiles.news.wisc.edu/062ag_gene_eng/index.html)

While insect resistance could reduce the amount of chemicals used on crops, herbicide resistancecould increase it. Nonetheless, several seed companies have already made transgenic crops withimmunity to herbicides that would normally kill them. This allows farmers to spray the field withherbicides after the crop emerges from the ground, zapping the weeds.

On the face of it, the idea seems unlikely to be adopted on environmental grounds. Yet if the chosenherbicide is less toxic than the one presently used, it could have benefits. And certainly, Roundup,generically called glyphosate, the herbicide to which Monsanto has conferred resistance in soybeansand other crops, is less toxic than most herbicides. Glyphosate stays where it’s put in the field andbreaks down quickly.

But problems can arise. In 1997, thousands of acres of supposedly Roundup-resistant cotton werekilled in Mississippi by the herbicide. Monsanto says it has reached settlements with two dozenfarmers. “We concluded it was a combination of unusual weather patterns and generous use ofRoundup,” says public relations director Karen Marshall. “We’ll give better directions next time.”

Furthermore, glyphosate drift could affect plants outside fields. And the advent of Roundup-resis-tant poplar trees has raised the specter of vast tracts of diverse northern forests being converted tohuge monocultures.

Ruining the relatives. To some extent, plants can transfer pollen—and genes—to related plants.That creates the potential for transferring inserted genes from the crop to other plants. Could weedsgain resistance to Roundup? The idea got a boost when Norman Ellstrand, a professor of genetics atthe University of California, Riverside, showed that weeds hybridized with radish plants in 1994.“Hybridization between crops and weeds can lead to avenues by which undesirable traits can enterwild populations,” Ellstrand said at the time. The problem traits could include herbicide and insectresistance, and tolerance to cold, drought or salinity.

Perhaps more important is the related question of whether the new genes could pollute a crop’srelatives. Should transgenic corn be grown in the regions of Mexico where corn originated, wherewild relatives and old corn varieties both provide genes for insect or disease resistance to new variet-ies of corn?

That idea gives corn breeders the shivers, since it could harm the source of genetic diversity thatunderlies all conventional plant breeding. And yet Monsanto’s Karen Marshall says it could be done,with an adequate plan for preventing gene transfer. “It’s a management problem. We would still sellthe seeds there.”


Surveying Your CommunityAbout Biotech Foods

TeacherWorksheet

Activity 2 -2

Unit II • Activity 2-2 Teacher Worksheet

About this Activity

Several important surveys have been conductedon consumer attitudes to biotech foods, begin-ning with a well-known survey by ThomasHoban from NC State University in 1992. Morerecently, the International Food InformationCouncil commissioned a survey conducted in1997 and again in 1999 by the Wirthlin Group.These surveys, including the most recent, haveall found that Americans are not very aware ofthe issues surrounding foods produced by bio-technology. At the same time, though, in Europethe spotlight has turned to “GM foods” and thedebate surrounding their approval for use inEurope.

This activity has students conduct a mini-surveyof members of their community. Six survey ques-tions are included in this activity. The survey asksrespondents about their knowledge of biotechproduced foods, opinions on some techniques,shopping preferences, and what they think aboutlabeling these products. Each student or pair ofstudents should ask these questions of ten peoplein the community. They should choose people ofdifferent ages, different genders, and from dif-ferent sectors of the community. Students will beasked to tally the results of their survey and dis-cuss their findings with each other. If 20-30 stu-dents get responses from 10 people each, they willhave data from 200 to 300 people. This is not ascientific survey, but will give students a broaderview of their community’s knowledge and atti-tudes.

Objectives

• survey several people to measure their knowl-edge and attitudes about biotechnology foodproducts

• interpret and report on survey results.

Related Skill Standards

• develop objectivity

• develop and use listening skills

• visually depict data using charts and graphs

• organize and present oral summaries.

Time Required

After students have read and discussed back-ground material in Lessons 1 and 2, they will needabout 15 minutes per respondent outside of classto conduct the survey. Plan to spend a class pe-riod where students answer the student questions,make graphs on their respondents’ answers, andgraph the responses from the whole survey. Leada discussion in which students share their gen-eral impressions of peoples’ knowledge. If theytook notes on additional comments from their re-spondents, have them discuss these with eachother.

Background Reading

Before doing this activity, teachers and studentsshould have read and discussed the text in Les-son 2, Impacts of Plant Biotechnology and Lesson 1,Products of Plant Biotechnology.


Teacher Worksheet Unit II • Activity 2-2

Materials

10 copies of Activity 2-2 worksheets for each stu-dent or pair of students. These worksheets con-tain the survey and questions for students to an-swer following their survey work.

Teacher Preparation

Photocopy 10 worksheets containing the surveyand student questions for each student or pair ofstudents.

After the Survey — Student Activities

1. Tally the answers from your own survey.Graph the answers, using a pie chart or a bargraph. What was the most common response,if there was one, for each question?

2. What question would you have asked if youcould have added a question to the survey?Phrase your question so that it informs the per-son being surveyed well enough so they cananswer the question. Make up the 5 answerchoices to fit your questions.

3. You will be asked to graph the combined sur-vey results from the whole class. Use a piechart for each question. Label the charts so thatpeople can understand what they are seeing.

4. Summarize the results of the survey in yourown words, in terms of the respondents’knowledge, opinions and interest in the sub-ject.

Related Activities

1. Have students bring in any news articles theyfind about genetically-engineered foods (orGM foods as they are called in Europe). Jour-nals such as Science and Time cover the lat-est issues.


Surveying Your CommunityAbout Biotech Foods

StudentWorksheet

Activity 2 -2

Unit II • Activity 2-2 Student Worksheet

About this Activity

Your class will conduct a survey on people’sknowledge and attitudes about foods producedthrough biotechnology. You will be trying to as-sess their knowledge of these products, what theythink about different kinds of modifications, howthey would feel about buying these foods in thesupermarket, and whether they think these foodsshould be labeled. Each of you will ask six ques-tions to 10 members in your community.

You and your classmates will compile the answersfrom all the surveys to get a broader picture ofpeople’s knowledge and opinions. If 20 studentsget information and ideas from 10 people each,that’s 200 surveys!

Directions for the Survey

• Choose 10 people to survey. Try to find peopleof different ages, gender, and walks of life, soyou can get a variety of opinions.

• Read the questions and answer choices aloudand circle the answer the respondent chooses.The answers are listed under each questionon a scale of 1 to 5. (Don’t give a copy of thesurvey to the respondent to fill out.)

• Ask the questions the same way each time, soyou can compare the responses from differ-ent people.

• If someone adds other opinions, jot them downon a separate piece of paper. These will con-tribute to your class discussion on the survey.

After the Survey — Student Activities

1. Tally the answers from your own survey.Graph the answers, using a pie chart or a bargraph. What was the most common response,if there was one, for each question?

2. What question would you have asked if youcould have added a question to the survey?Phrase your question so that it informs the per-son being surveyed well enough so they cananswer the question. Make up the 5 answerchoices to fit your questions.

3. You will be asked to graph the combined sur-vey results from the whole class. Use a piechart for each question. Label the charts so thatpeople can understand what they are seeing.

4. Summarize the results of the survey in yourown words, in terms of the respondents’knowledge, opinions and interest in the sub-ject.


Student Worksheet Unit II • Activity 2-2

1. Some food plants are now being produced that use new techniques, often calledbiotechnology. One form of biotechnology is called “genetic engineering.” To geneticallyengineer a plant, breeders change it by putting in a gene that can be taken from anywhere -another kind of plant, a bacterium, or even an animal. How much have you heard aboutthese new plants (such as corn, soybeans, and tomatoes)?

1) a lot 2) a fair amount 3) a little 4) almost none 5) none

2. Some new corn plants have a gene from a soil bacterium built into them that makes the plantsresist corn borers. How likely would you be to buy corn in the supermarket that had beengrown on plants such as these?

1) very likely 2) somewhat likely 3) don’t know 4) not too likely 5) not likely at all

3. Some new soybean plants have been genetically engineered so that a herbicide sprayed aroundthem to kill the weeds will not harm the soybean plants. Do you think that kind of new plantis a good idea?

1) definitely 2) I think so 3) not sure 4) probably not 5) definitely not

4. If you saw two kinds of tomato for sale in the supermarket that both cost the same, thatlooked the same, but you knew that one of them had been produced using genetic engineer-ing, how likely would you be to buy the biotech tomato?


5. What if the genetically engineered tomato cost 10% less than the conventional one, how likelywould you be to buy it?


6. Do you think consumers should be told, by the use of some kind of labeling, whether a to-mato they buy at the supermarket has been genetically engineered?

1) yes, definitely 2) probably should 3) not sure 4) probably not 5) definitely not

What Do You Know About Biotech Foods?

Read the questions and answer choices aloud. Circle the answer the respondent gives you.Write any extra comments on a separate sheet.

Documents

Alternative investment funds - EY