High-tech Harvests

UNIT NINE

Text A High-tech Harvests

The Monsanto Co. has a saccharine slogan for its fast-growing agricultural business：Food, Health and Hope. Europeans might ditch the latter two words and substitute “horrors.” Once a stodgy chemical concern, Monsanto is now leading a corporate stampede into the biotech-food industry. Over the last three years, the St. Louis-based firm has invested some $8 billion to bring genetically modified (GM) food to the masses. In North America, high-tech food has met with little consumer or political resistance. But in Europe a genetic food fight has flared. Some European consumers fret about the potential dangers of disease-resistant corn and pest-proof soya. Only two biotech crops have been approved for consumption, and almost no GM food is grown commercially. An EU study shows that only one in three people believes that regulatory controls are sufficient. In Britain, where mad-cow disease has had a searing impact on attitudes toward food safety, the tabloids have blasted biotech giants and raised fears about ―Frankenstein food.‖

Such nervousness might be expected to slow the march of high science and high-stakes deal making. Not a chance. Farmers seem sold on the brave new technology, which is already boosting crop yields— and holds the promise, if industry boosters are to be believed, of creating nutritionally enhanced food in the years ahead. For now, at least, those compelling benefits outweigh consumer jitters. Monsanto last week affirmed its intention to make this a global business: the company bought, for $1.4 billion, the international operations of Cargill Inc., a privately-held U.S. company that produces seeds in 24 countries and sells them in 51. ―Over the next 30 years, we have to double or treble food production per hectare to satisfy the needs of a growing global population, whose diet is changing,‖ Monsanto president Hendrik Verfaille told Newsweek. ―Biotechnology will help us produce more and healthier food.‖

The Cargill deal will enable Monsanto to marry its biological food ―traits‖ to Cargill’s trove of germplasm, from which seeds are made. It also gives Monsanto access to Cargill’s global distribution network, which is especially strong in South America and Asia. ―One of the key issues in the biotech-agricultural industry is getting your genetic traits into the crop varieties that farmers want to grow,‖ says Philip Angell, a spokesman for Monsanto.

Europe’s unease over GM food is palpable—but by no means uniform. In fact, the continent seems to be in conflict on the issue—torn between safety concerns and the risk of falling behind in another key high-tech industry. Two weeks ago Swiss citizens overwhelmingly defeated a constitutional amendment that would have effectively shut down biotech research in that country. In the Netherlands and Belgium, about 50 products containing GM organisms—and labeled as such—are stocked on store shelves. On the other hand, surveys show that most Germans don’t want to eat biofood. Neither does the Prince of Wales. An organic farmer, His Royal Highness recently penned an anti-biotech diatribe in The Daily Telegraph, decrying science that strays into ―realms that belong to God and God alone.‖

Austria understands. That country has banned the import of transgenic crops. German environmentalists have tried to block GM food shipments. Britain’s largest frozen-food retailer, Iceland, has adjusted its food supply to keep genetically modified organisms out of its own-brand products. Says Iceland CEO Malcolm Walker: ―The introduction of genetically modified ingredients is probably the most potentially dangerous development in food production this century.‖

There’s mix of motives behind the fears. Small farmers are scared of encroachments by mad

scientists and big business. Green-party activists worry about ―genetic pollution‖—the potential for genes to migrate from hardy GM varieties to native plants, creating ―superweeds.‖ Hard-liners advocate a moratorium on the commercial planting: ―What we want is proof of need. If [transgenic] food just makes more profit for the multinationals, what’s the use of it all?‖

Last month the EU approved rules forcing producers to label food containing high-tech soya or maize. That’s a sharp contrast with the United States, where regulators do not view transgenic food as materially different from regular food. For months the French have blocked the import of three GM maize varieties into their country—even though the EU has already accepted the safety of the products. Naturally, the EU’s slow and complicated approval process irks the United States. Last month U.S. Agricultural Secretary August Schumacher Jr. complained that France’s foot-dragging would cost the United States some $200 million in GM maize exports this year. ―It’s been one change after another in the EU’s approval process,‖ says Tim Galvin of the U.S. Foreign Agriculture Service. The United States wants Europe to drop any barriers to the new food that aren’t based on scientific principles. Washington also opposes the EU’s labeling policy, viewing it as a potential disruption to trade.

U.S. experts argue that Europe’s safety fears are unfounded. ―There is no scientific basis for concern,‖ says Roger Beachy, a plant geneticist at the Scripps Research Institute in California. After 15 years of field study, Beachy says, ―there have been no surprises, no unexpected results.‖ Beachy asserts that genetic tinkering ―will make our agriculture cleaner and more environmentally sustainable‖ –eliminating costly diseases and pest problems, boosting yields and substantially reducing the need for chemical treatments. Beachy claims that genetic engineering has revived the Hawaiian papaya industry. He also notes that genetic techniques are much more precise than classical agricultural crossbreeding. ―With genetic biology, you introduce one or two new genes. With crossbreeding, you introduce tens of thousands of new genes. Biotechnology is much less haphazard.‖

Biotech enthusiasts acknowledge that the first-generation products were developed to benefit farmers, not consumers. ―You can understand why people are scratching their heads,‖ says Tom Hoban, a professor at North Carolina State University who has studied consumer attitudes toward biotechnology. But the next crop wave, coming in two or three years, will be different. Scientists are developing foods with enhanced nutritional value—oils with less fat, wheat with more protein. DuPont, the U.S chemical and oil giant, is keen on the ―functional food‖ market. It plans to sell a portion of its Conoco Oil subsidiary (from which it derives almost half of its $45 billion in annual revenues) and invest the proceeds in biotechnology.

In truth, the biotech horse is already out of the barn—and Europeans know it. Worldwide, the acreage planted with GM crops is forecast to treble by the year 2000. In Britain, transgenic soya is already reckoned to be in 60 percent of processed food, from beer to cookies. A genetically engineered tomato paste is a hit in the Sainsbury and Tesco grocery chains. James Watson, the Nobel Prize winner who co-discovered the DNA double helix, last year chided Germans for their scientific scruples. ―The gene is still regarded by much of the German population as a bad thing,‖ he said. ―I think the time has come to end this.‖ Led by Novartis, the European pharmaceutical industry is itself pouring money into biotech R&D (research and development).

Asia is also getting on board. Japanese regulatory authorities, who are both protectionist and finicky about food quality, allow the import of GM corn and soya—without labeling. And China, responsible for feeding 1.2 billion people, has made biotech agriculture priority. Merrill Lynch

estimates that the worldwide biotech-food market will hit roughly $7 billion by the turn of the century. And after that? ―There won’t be a biotech-food industry,‖ avers Val Giddings, a vice president of the Biotechnology Industry Association in Washington. ―There will be a food industry that uses genetic techniques.‖ Verfaille, the Monsanto president, says that within five years ―we’ll have mapped all the DNA of plants.‖ That is beneficial, ―because plants are the only renewable resource we have left. Everything else is used up.‖ The challenge, he says, is to make sure consumers understand that reality.

Exercises

I. Answer the following questions

1. What do you know about genetically modified (GM) food? 2. Do you want to buy them in supermarkets? Why or why not?

3. Do you think it is necessary for the supermarkets to label food as biofood or natural food? Why?

4. Europe’s unease over GM food is palpable—but by no means uniform. What is the situation in the Netherlands?

5. Many countries’ attitude toward GM food is paradoxical. What are their attitudes? What caused these?

6. Do you think it is vital for China to embark on the research project? Why or why not? 7. Have you ever bought or consumed GM food or product? What are they?

8. GM food, mainly from America, has caused great impact on the food products produced in our country. What do you know about this?

9. In the research of biofood, our country has been lagging far behind others but we have realized its significance. Do you have any good ideas about this? What shall we do? 10. What’s your view about the prospect of GM food?

II. Tell the following statements true or false according to the text

1. The Monsanto Co., an agricultural business, has invested some $8 billion to bring genetically modified (GM) food to the masses over the last four years. 2. In North America, high-tech food is highly welcomed.

3. In Europe, no biotech crops have been approved for consumption.

4. The concern about the safety of GM food has slowed the march of high science and high-stakes deal making.

5. Europe’s unease over GM food is both plain and contradictory. They are fretful about the potential danger of the food and the risk of falling behind in another key high-tech industry. 6. Surveys show most Germans want to eat biofood, but British do not.

7. The EU approved rules forcing producers to label food containing high-tech soya or maize, so did the United States.

8. Compared with crossbreeding, genetic biology, according to Beachy, is safer.

9. In all over the world, the acreage planted with GM crops is expected to double by 2000. 10. China, confronting the grim situation to feed 1.2 billion people, has made biotech agriculture priority.

III. Multiple Choices

1. The main theme of the passage is_______.

A. The US is trying to force Europe to buy genetically modified food. B. Monsanto is the world’s pioneer in the GM food business. C. Consumers are fighting back against GM food companies.

D. Despite opposition, GM food will soon be accepted worldwide. 2. A ―saccharine slogan‖ is _______. A. a slogan which is repulsively sweet. B. an advertisement for sugar.

C. a catchphrase using words with only one syllable. D. a slogan only used by the Monsanto Company.

3. What metaphor do GM food’s opponents use to denigrate it? A. Mad-cow disease. B. Frankenstein food. C. Brave new technology. D. A stodgy chemical concern.

4. The reason why farmers are interested in planting biotech crops is ____. A. they are already boosting crop yields. B. they are disease-resistant and pest-proof. C. they are expected to be functional food. D. all of them.

5. One of the benefits which the Monsanto gets from the Cargill deal is____ A. combination of their respective biological food traits. B. access to Cargill’s global distribution network. C. successful entry into EU’s market. D. immediate higher profit.

6. Which is not one of the factors that cause European’s unease over GM food? A. The safety of GM food.

B. The risk of falling behind in this new high-tech industry. C. Potential dangers to be brought by new technology. D. Lower-price competition.

7. It is implied that the biotech beans can produce ______. A. less oil

B. more oil with less fat C. more fat

D. less nutritious oil

8. The United States was angry with EU because of the following EXCEPT______. A. its slow and complicated approval process. B. labeling policy. C. price limit.

D. intentional barriers.

9. Its supporters say that GM food is necessary because______. A. it will make more profits for foodstuffs companies B. farmers are in favor of the new technology

C. D. 10. A. B. C. D. 11. A. B. C. D. 12. A. B. C. D. 13. A. B. C. D. 14. A. B. C. D. 15. A. B. C. D.

over the next 30 years we have to double or treble food production Monsanto has access to Cargill’s global distribution network ―Genetic pollution‖ means ________. the birth of deformed babies

food unfit for human consumption

food containing high-tech soya or maize the migration of genes from GM varieties

According to Roger Beachy, all of the following are benefits of GM EXCEPT_______. healthier farm animals cleaner agriculture higher crop yields

elimination of plant diseases and pests

Biotechnology is less haphazard than crossbreeding because_______. crossbreeding is unscientific

crossbreeding is done by unskilled farmers biotech only introduces one or two new genes

the big food companies find biotech more profitable

The expression ―the biotech horse is already out of the barn‖ means_______. scientists have already produced a GM horse

the progress of GM food worldwide cannot be stopped

the control of GM food has passed from the farm to the factory oil companies are switching to the GM food business In the next century, ________.

the worldwide food industry will use genetic techniques there will no longer be any GM food

Japan will make biotech agriculture a priority

Europe will stop blocking the import of three GM maize varieties The tone of this passage is ________. indignant and fearful upbeat and enthusiastic neutral and scholarly balanced and optimistic

本文来源：https://www.bwwdw.com/article/9618.html