Testimony of

Roger N. Beachy, President
Donald Danforth Plant Science Center
Before the U.S. Senate committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry
October 6, 1999

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

I am pleased to be here today as a member of the scientific community and as President of the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center. The Danforth Center is a non-profit, 501(C)3 center devoted to study of plant biology and its applications in food, agriculture and allied fields. The Center was established in St. Louis, Missouri in 1999 through a unique initiative between five outstanding academic, private, and public research institutions and received initial funding from the Danforth Foundation, the Monsanto Company, and the State of Missouri. It owns all rights to discoveries resulting from the research conducted within the Center, and the multiple companies that support research at the Center will have rights to license the discoveries, much as occurs at the great universities and biomedical institutions in this country.

As a scientist and leader of a research team at Washington University in St. Louis in the mid-1980s, and with colleagues at the Monsanto Company, our team developed the first genetically modified food crop. A variety of tomatoes were developed to be resistant to a common virus using genetic transformation, the first example of disease resistance produced by using genetic engineering technologies rather than through traditional plant breeding techniques. Since the mid-1980s, similar approaches have been used to develop varieties of potato, squash, cucumber, papaya, tomato, rice and other crops that are resistant to virus diseases. Each of these crops have undergone extensive field evaluation under the guidance of USDA and EPA regulatory processes, and following oversight by the FDA, some have been sold commercially.

Using similar technologies but different types of genes, other crops have been developed for resistance to insects. You are all familiar with cotton, corn, and potato varieties that are resistant to certain types of insects because they contain a natural protein from a soil bacterium, Bacillus theringiensis, or B.t., that causes certain types of insects to stop feeding on the leaves or stems of the modified plants. Similar types of genes and technologies could be used to produce varieties of tomatoes that resist the tomato hornworm, and sweet potatoes and cabbages that resist insect larvae that destroy the crop after harvest.

As a result of these advances, farmers that produce these crops can do so without resorting to the use of the large amounts of chemical sprays that have been part of our highly productive agricultural practices for more than 40 years. It has been estimated, based on recent scientific data, that genetically modified potatoes that carry genes for resistance to Colorado potato beetle and for virus resistance nearly 3 million pounds; 1,500 tons) of chemical insecticides. The savings of insecticides in cotton and corn are far larger. If similar research efforts were undertaken on all of the major fruits and vegetables produced in this country, the reduction in the amount of pesticides used by the farmer that find their way into the soil, water, and air, and that can remain in some grocery produce, would be truly staggering.

We hope that similar scientific progress can be made to control the many diseases caused to food and grain crops by fungi, bacteria, and nematodes. Unfortunately, progress has been slow in developing genetic solutions to such diseases, and farmers must still rely on the use of chemicals to control nematodes and fungi, and bacterial diseases on our foods. Similarly, there are many insect predators that must be controlled by chemicals rather than by the more natural genetic mechanisms that are provided by classical and modern crop improvement, including genetic engineering. Nevertheless, scientists continue to work diligently to overcome these difficulties to develop crops that are resistant to pests and diseases.

As a scientist I have listened with interest to the proclamations and speeches given by members of organizations that fight against the use of modern techniques that are used in agriculture; including, ironically, organizations interested in protecting the environment. One of the first things we did in my lab after we developed the first virus-resistant tomato plants was to conduct experiments related to the safety of the food and the safety of the gene in the environment, and the potential impact of the gene on the pathogen. At first I was offended by the demands, since my colleagues who worked in crop improvement using much less precise methods of cross breeding, or mutation-induced breeding, or wide species crosses did not undergo the same type of scrutiny, inquiry, or personal verbal attacks for their work. Nevertheless, we used strict scientific principles to confirm to ourselves and our critics that the gene we used was safe for the environment. Other groups at universities and in private companies conducted far more complete analyses on crops such as squash and potato, and confirmed the safety of the techniques and the genes, and the foods that were harvested from the plants.

The vast majority of scientists realize the value of modern genetics and biotechnology to improve crops. And, many of us are engaged in studies to address the truly valid concerns raised by scientists and non-scientists alike. Some of the concerns that are raised lie in the category of perceived vs. actual risk, and we find it difficult, if not impossible, to formulate experiments that address the extremely improbable.

Similarly, the vast majority of plant and agricultural scientists who are truly familiar with how crops have been developed through the years and the processes through which those foods have been evaluated, are amazed by the response of those that seemingly do not want the technology to be adapted. Some of these groups are established to promote protection of the environment, but are opposed to crops that require less chemical insecticide, or reduce tillage and soil erosion. Other groups are truly concerned about the safety of the foods produced by new techniques that they do not understand, but have full confidence in foods produced by classical methods that they also do not understand, or processes that purport to produce vegetables and fruits by organic methods that use questionable materials and whose safety is not guaranteed. Organic farming makes good use of animal manures to fertilize crops, yet unless the manure is properly composted, it is a very real source of E. coli contamination on organically grown fruits and vegetables.

The most that we can ask is that all foods produced by whatever method receive the same level of evaluation both with regard to impact on the environment, and safety to the consumer. We, like most American consumers, are confident in the scientific validity of the processes that regulate and oversee the American food supply. We are equally confident that if we abandon the scientific process in judging the safety of the food supply, we will slow or destroy the advances that will reduce the use of unsafe chemicals and agricultural practices in this country, and which promise to strengthen the agriculture economy in the U.S.A. and around the world. These advances are truly necessary if we are to meet the challenges of population growth and urban expansion in the 21st century.

Thank you for the opportunity to address your committee, and I look forward to answering questions that you might have.