European researchers to search for a synthetic source, and that process, company backers
believed, was on the verge of being discovered. A group at the Pasteur Institute in
France had discovered a bacterium that converted starch into a fuel oil rich in both amyl
alcohol and butanol. When the process was scaled up to industrial quantities by British
scientists, the fermentation was altered, producing butanol, which had just been recognized
as a key component of synthetic rubber manufacture; and acetone, a valuable component of
explosives that had previously been imported.
As recounted by Robert Bud inThe Uses of Life: A History of Biotechnology, the work
had enormous commercial potential, and the scientists, far from being unworldly,
“exploited the breakthrough to the hilt.” The prospectus, which greatly exaggerated the
scientific achievements, netted £75,000 despite stiff opposition from plantation rubber
interests. Predictably, the process for converting starch from potatoes proved cumbersome,
and the plant never realized the hopes expressed in the 1912 prospectus. But a pattern had
been established, coupling scientific enthusiasm with the public’s willingness to believe—
at least the financial public—that would characterize efforts to profit from biology over the
next century.
In a capitalist society, such involvement is to be expected. The challenge is to find a
balance between private profit and public good, and to come to such conclusions in an
open and democratic manner. Farmers, processors, distributors, and others in the farm-
to-fork continuum are constantly striving to improve the safety, quality, and efficiency of
the food supply. Genetic engineering is one additional tool that, with vigilance and over-
sight, can help achieve those goals.
15.8 Conclusions
After a decade of sometimes fierce public debate, what has been accomplished? Better over-
sight, changes in practices, shifting of entrenched attitudes? A little of all, but nothing of
significance has been gained. People are for or against, maybe moving toward a public dis-
cussion of risks and benefits, but slowly.
Meanwhile, the World Health Organization estimates that up to 30% of all citizens of so-
called developed Western countries will get sick from the food and water they consume
each and every year and thousands will die. If the same energy and effort spent on GE
foods could be harnessed to create a culture that values microbiologically safe food,
there would far fewer sick people. In addition, there is also a technology trickle-down
effect in general. Technology is typically created in the developed world and eventually
used in the developing world. Needless debates and fearmongering can slow down inno-
vation, which, in turn, negatively affects the people in the developing world. Is it possible
that protests in well-fed Europe have led to starvation in Africa? This is certainly food for
thought as we think about the future of plant biotechnology.
References
Ball N (1992): Essential connections: Past and future, technology and society in Beyond the Printed
Page: Online documentation.Proc 2nd Conf Quality in Documentation, Univ Waterloo, Waterloo,
Ontario, pp 11–28.
Covello VT (1992): Trust and credibility in risk communication.Health Environ Digest 6 :1–5.
354 WHYTRANSGENICPLANTS ARE SO CONTROVERSIAL