REUTERS/Barry Malone

the future of food

ending hunger: gene technology and a new green revolution

november 2009
 the future of food november 2009

feeding the world

Half a century after the Green Revolution, a food crisis and the global economic
downturn have catapulted the number of hungry people in the world to more
than 1 billion. The United Nations says world food output must grow by 70 percent
over the next four decades to feed a projected extra 2.3 billion people by 2050.
International leaders gathered in Rome in November for the U.N. Food and
Agriculture Organization’s World Summit on Food Security to hear competing
arguments over how best to tackle the problem. Here is a package of special
reports on the fight over the future of food by Reuters.

The fight over the future of food

By Claudia Parsons, Russell Blinch and Svetlana Kovalyova

At first glance, Giuseppe Oglio’s farm near Milan looks

like it’s suffering from neglect. Weeds run rampant
amid the rice fields and clover grows unchecked
around his millet crop.
Oglio, a third generation farmer eschews modern
farming techniques – chemicals, fertilizers, heavy
machinery – in favor of a purely natural approach.
It is not just ecological, he says, but profitable, and
he believes his system can be replicated in starving
regions of the globe.
Nearly 5,000 miles (8,000 km) away, in laboratories
in St. Louis, Missouri, hundreds of scientists at the
world’s biggest seed company, Monsanto, also want
to feed the world, only their tools of choice are laser
beams and petri dishes.
Monsanto, a leader in agricultural biotechnology,
spends about $2 million a day on scientific research that
aims to improve on Mother Nature, and is positioning
itself as a key player in the fight against hunger.
The Italian farmer and the U.S. multinational represent
the two extremes in an increasingly acrimonious
debate over the future of food.
Everybody wants to end hunger, but just how to do
so is a divisive question that pits environmentalists A combination of the food crisis and the global economic downturn has catapulted
against anti-poverty campaigners, big business the number of hungry people in the world to more than 1 billion. The United
against consumers and rich countries against poor. Nations says world food output must grow by 70 percent over the next four
decades to feed a projected extra 2.3 billion people by 2050.
The food fight takes place at a time when experts on
both sides agree on one thing – the number of empty for the complete story, click here.
bellies around the world will only grow unless there is
major intervention now.

2
 the future of food november 2009

Food: Is Monsanto
the answer or the
problem?
By Carey Gillam

Norman Borlaug, the father of the Green Revolution of the 1960s

and 1970s, had only months to live when he received a visit from an
old friend, Rob Fraley, chief of technology for Monsanto Co.
Borlaug, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 for his work
increasing food production in starving areas of the globe, welcomed
Fraley to his Dallas home, where the two men sipped coffee and tea
and discussed a subject dear to their hearts: the future of agriculture
and the latest challenges of feeding the human race.
Fraley, who first met Borlaug 20 years earlier, when they served as
founding board members for an agricultural group that works with
developing nations, said he showed his friend photos of new types
of corn that Monsanto was developing. Using biotechnology and
genetic transfers, Monsanto, the world’s largest seed company,
hoped to create a corn variety that could grow well in dry conditions,
even in drought-prone Africa, helping to alleviate hunger and
poverty – and fatten its bottom line.
“We were showing him some of the pictures of the drought-tolerant
corn,” Fraley recalled. “You could see his eyes were starting to well
up, and I said, ‘Norm, what’s wrong?’ He said, ‘Rob, I’ve made it all
the way through the Green Revolution. I don’t think I’m going to
make it through the gene revolution.’”
The topic of Fraley’s final conversation with his friend that day
underscored the unfolding of a modern era of global agriculture. Soybean Plant Specialist Nancy Brumley ties up a soybean stalk in the soybean greenhouse
at the Monsanto Research facility in Chesterfield, Missouri October 9, 2009. In the new
In this new paradigm, traditional plant breeding is giving way to
paradigm of a modern era of global agriculture, traditional plant breeding is giving way to
the high-tech tools of rich corporations like Monsanto, which are the high-tech tools of rich corporations like Monsanto, which are playing an increasingly
playing an increasingly powerful role in determining how and what powerful role in determining how and what the world eats. REUTERS/Peter Newcomb
the world eats. It is also generating controversy, as critics continue
to question the safety of biotech crops, and fear increasing control of than any other company. It employs about 400 scientists in four St.
the global food supply by giant corporations. Louis-area research facilities, applying an array of new technologies
to plant genetics, with a goal of doubling yields in major crops, such
Still, few dispute that something needs to be done. The United as corn and soybeans, between now and 2030.
Nations has said that food production must double by 2050 to meet
the demand of the world’s growing population and that innovative “If we do that successfully, it won’t just be good for Monsanto, it will
strategies are needed to combat hunger and malnutrition that be good for the world,” Fraley said.
already afflict more than 1 billion people. As it positions itself to be a leader in advancing a global fight
Amid this dire outlook, St. Louis, Missouri-based Monsanto – along against hunger, Monsanto has started working with nonprofit
with its biggest corporate rivals, charitable foundations, public organizations in poor nations, donating research and genetics to
researchers and others – is forming a loose coalition of interests help needy farmers.
instigating a second Green Revolution. “What we do builds on what The moves run parallel to Monsanto’s commercial sales of high-
he started,” Fraley said of Borlaug, who died in September at the priced seeds and agricultural chemicals to farmers in wealthy
age of 95. nations, which has made the company a darling of Wall Street and
helped it post record net sales of $11.7 billion and net income of $2.1
GENE JUGGLING billion for fiscal 2009.
Founded in 1901 as a maker of saccharine, Monsanto has undergone
several evolutions of its own. The company spends an estimated The U.S. Department of Agriculture and governments around
$2 million a day on agriculture research and development – more the world are encouraging Monsanto – as well as rivals DuPont,

3
 the future of food november 2009
Dow Chemical, BASF and other corporate interests – to work with
academics, foundations and public institutions on how to increase
food production globally.
Drought-tolerant crops, particularly corn, are high on the agenda
amid concerns about a changing climate. Improved wheat is also a
major goal.
Corn and wheat account for about 40 percent of the world’s food
and 25 percent of calories consumed in developing countries, and
millions of people get more than half of their daily calories from
corn and wheat alone, according to the United Nations’ Food and
Agriculture Organization.
“We want to encourage the private sector to help shape research.
These are important issues for all Americans and the world,” said
Roger Beachy, President Barack Obama’s newly appointed director
of the U.S. National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
Critics say the nonprofit work is a way for Monsanto to get even
the world’s poorest farmers hooked on pricey patented seed
technology. But Monsanto and biotech supporters say it is the only
way to grow enough food to feed a world population expected to hit
9.4 billion by 2050.
“Global ag production must grow by 70 percent by 2050, and it will
have to come out of increased yields because there is only a minimal
amount of new land that can be put into production without
environmental problems,” said Mary Boote, executive director of
an industry group called the Truth About Trade and Technology.
“Biotechnology has to be one of the tools we use.”
MAIZE FOR AFRICA
Monsanto’s humanitarian work in Mexico, Africa, India and
elsewhere is still in the early stages. One of its largest projects is
participation in the development of a type of maize – a major food
source for 300 million Africans – that grows better in drought-prone
areas of the continent.
“Drought is at the top of the list as a challenge for farmers there,”
said Natalie DiNicola, director of global development partnerships
for Monsanto.
4
Monsanto is working with African researchers in a
partnership launched in March 2008 with funding from
the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Howard
Buffett Foundation. The company is donating some of its
genetic “markers” and other breeding resources. Five
African nations – Uganda, Kenya, Mozambique, South
Africa and Tanzania – are testing sites.
The work comes at a time of “tremendous need” for
African farmers, who sometimes suffer complete crop
failures due to drought, said Daniel Mataruka, executive
director of the Kenya-based African Agricultural
Technology Foundation.
“The strategy of the whole project is to ensure there
is yield stability ... that there is some kind of yield,”
Mataruka said.
Along with helping poor farmers obtain better seeds,
the project is also educating and assisting them in
proper use of fertilizers and land management. While
Monsanto’s short-term goal is “global good,” the company hopes that
eventually the farmers it helps will become commercial customers.
“There is an absolute need to help these farmers ... make them more
food-secure and help them climb out of poverty,” said DiNicola. “We
would hope that projects like this one and others are going to lift
them out of poverty enough that someday the market is working and
they can become customers for us.”
The company’s work on drought-tolerant crops for African farmers
dovetails with research for a commercial drought-tolerant corn
that Monsanto hopes to have on the market by 2012. Racing rival
DuPont, which also is developing a drought-tolerant corn, Monsanto
is experimenting with a number of gene combinations to stimulate
greater photosynthesis, improve root structures, and enhance other
characteristics so the transgenic corn can yield more kernels with
less water.
DARK HISTORY
But even as Monsanto steps up its humanitarian efforts, the
company faces a host of hurdles, not the least of which is its own
image. Dubbed “Mon-Satan” by some detractors, the company has
garnered criticism for many of its products, policies and promises –
and its humanitarian effort is no different.
“Monsanto is merely trying to hide its profit motive behind a mask of
altruism,” said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for
Food Safety, a private advocacy group. “Monsanto has a long history
of putting profit before the welfare of people and communities.”
Before it turned to seed technology, Monsanto was primarily a
purveyor of chemicals, including the infamous Agent Orange
herbicide blamed for widespread health problems during its use by
the military in the Vietnam War.
Then there was Alabama, where the company operated a plant
making polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs. Monsanto closed
the plant in 1971, before PCBs were banned for being linked to a
range of health problems. But thousands of residents living near
the plant alleged their health and homes were ruined by PCB
contamination and sued Monsanto. The company spun off its
 the future of food november 2009
even as Monsanto steps up its humanitarian efforts, the company
faces a host of hurdles, not the least of which is its own image.
chemical assets related to the litigation, but ultimately was hit with
$600 million in damages.
Monsanto has also faced criticism over its Roundup herbicide, which
it continues to sell today, although profits are waning. Roundup
is the world’s top-selling weed killer, but critics charge that its
widespread use has prompted the emergence around the world of
“super weeds.” They also contend Roundup residue in plants and in
the soil can be harmful.
The company also has been accused of falsely representing the
product as environmentally friendly. France’s highest court last
month found that Monsanto had engaged in false advertising for
claiming its herbicide was biodegradable. Monsanto said the ruling
did not question the safety of its herbicides, or their customer
benefits, and was merely about the “use and possible interpretation
of language in a specific advertisement.”
Critics say that, just as Monsanto insisted that its chemicals were
safe, the company claims its genetically engineered crops are safe.
Many consumer and environmental groups around the world say
disrupting DNA in plants is harmful to human health and disruptive
to nature. Monsanto’s products are banned in many parts of Europe
and elsewhere.
The U.S. government does not independently test genetically
modified crops for safety, and researchers differ on whether there
might be negative health consequences to animals and people.
Monsanto says legitimate science supports its position that its
products are safe, and officials say pressing needs for sustainable
agriculture and higher-yielding harvests make old arguments over
genetic modification obsolete.
But Monsanto-bashing is not limited to what its detractors call
“Frankenfood.” Even critics who aren’t against biotech crops say
Monsanto has gained a monopoly in the seed industry, charging
farmers exorbitant prices and stalking and suing producers who
don’t pay up.
“Monsanto has demonstrated itself to be greedy and they have a
credibility problem,” said Fred Stockes, executive director of the
Organization for Competitive Markets, a nonprofit group focused on
ensuring competitive agricultural markets. “Now they are trying to
cast themselves as a leader in the Green Revolution. That rings very
hollow.”
Monsanto has acknowledged the U.S. Justice Department has been
asking questions about its role in the seed industry amid allegations
about its market dominance, but the company has said such criticism
is without merit.
Given its history, Monsanto’s motives are likely to be questioned
again and again. “All we can do is look at the past and see what
they’ve done so far, and the balance sheet on Monsanto does not
give you lots of reasons for hope,” says Michael Pollan, an author of
several books on food and agricultural practices.
HIGH-TECH TOOLS
But, for all its controversies, Monsanto continues to dominate the
marketplace and its technological advancements in key crops are
winning over more and more farmers.
As the leader of the nascent biotech crop movement – Monsanto
launched the world’s first genetically modified crop in 1996 – it has
used a variety of techniques over the years to tinker with the genes
of crops, transferring genes between species of plants, animals and
other organisms.
The current “tool” of choice is an agrobacterium that has the ability
to transfer DNA between itself and plants. To genetically alter
corn, researchers insert desired DNA from a different plant species
or organism into the agrobacterium and then combine that in a
petri dish with corn cells. Thousands of these tiny starter cells line
Monsanto’s laboratory shelves, accomplishing in minutes breeding
that previously took months or years to achieve.
Researchers pollinate a corn stalk by hand in the corn greenhouse at the Monsanto Research
facility in Chesterfield, Missouri October 9, 2009. Monsanto launched the world’s first
genetically modified crop in 1996 and GM crops are now grown in countries ranging from
Australia to South Africa, the Philippines and Brazil. Up to 85 percent of the massive U.S. corn
crop is now genetically engineered according to U.S. data. REUTERS/Peter Newcomb
5
 the future of food november 2009
“We are in the golden age of the biological sciences,”
said Robert Thompson, a professor of agricultural
policy at the University of Illinois, who is familiar with
Monsanto’s work. “Genetic engineering significantly
increases the efficiency of research.”
The company’s labs also sport “near-infrared”
technology, using laser light to scan soybean seeds
and gauge soy content and other characteristics.
And a newly patented set of seed “chippers” is being
used to rapidly trim flecks of soybean and corn seeds
and mechanically position them for testing, so that,
throughout the system, Monsanto scientists can glean
results from 100,000 seeds a day.
The company hopes its work will be further bolstered
through an investment announced in August in
Pacific Biosciences of California for development of a
new DNA sequencing system for genetic analysis.
Monsanto also is opening its first research center
in China as a base for collaborations with Chinese
scientists. The company said on November 4 that the
Beijing research center would focus on early-stage
bioinformatics and genomics research. It adds to the
company’s research centers in the United States,
Brazil and India.
“We’re entering a really phenomenal decade,” said
Robert Reiter, Monsanto’s vice president of breeding
technology. “We see a line of sight to really advance
to new levels of (food) productivity.” The company
has started taking this message directly to the
countryside, hauling a mobile technology unit by
semi-trailer from farm town to farm town around the
United States to educate farmers about the future of
seed technology.
Supporters of biotech crops say education is key to
overcoming criticisms and expanding the world’s food
supply.
“We have to at least double food production, and
technology can make a big contribution. If we don’t
do it, the downside is huge,” said Clive James, director
of the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-
Biotech Applications, which was founded by Borlaug
and helps promote and track usage of biotech crops.
“The best promise that the world has ... is to combine
the best of conventional technology with the best of
biotechnology so we can feed the world tomorrow,”
said James.
Editing by Jim Impoco and Walter Bagley
6
Who’s who in biotech seed arena
While Monsanto Co is considered a leader in research, development and
marketing of genetically modified crops, a handful of other corporate giants are
also staking a claim to feeding the world with biotech corn, soy and other crops.
The companies all say they are focused on products that will increase crop
yields, aid farmers and offer better nutrition for consumers. Here’s a look at
some of the top players:
• Monsanto Co
Based in St. Louis, the company posted record net sales of $11.7 billion and
net income of $2.1 billion for fiscal 2009. Among its key products are corn,
soybeans and cotton that tolerate weed-killing treatments and resist pests.
• Pioneer Hi-Bred
Subsidiary of DuPont based in Johnston, Iowa. Produces, markets and
sells hybrid seed in nearly 70 countries worldwide and is the closest rival
to Monsanto for market share in U.S. biotech corn seed market. Revenue
totaled $4 billion in 2008.
• Syngenta AG
The Basel, Switzerland-based company operates in 90 countries and
generated 2008 sales of $11.6 billion. Collaborating with International Rice
Research Institute to improve rice.
• Dow AgroSciences
Subsidiary of Dow Chemical Co based in Indianapolis, Indiana. With global
sales of $4.5 billion, company offers insect-protected corn and cotton,
among other seed products, and is expanding its research into wheat.
• BASF
Based in Ludwigshafen, Germany, this leading global chemical company
is increasingly focusing its health and nutrition division on plant
biotechnology to increase crop yields. Like its rivals, BASF is working on a
drought-tolerant corn seed. Revenue in its agricultural division totaled 3.4
billion euros in 2008.
• Bayer CropScience AG
The unit of Bayer AG, had 2008 sales of 6.4 billion euros and operates in
120 countries. The company is pursuing 56 “bioscience” research projects
involving six crops.
Reporting by Carey Gillam; Editing by Walter Bagley
 the future of food november 2009

Is Africa selling out

its farmers?
By barry Malone and Ed Cropley

For centuries, farmers like Berhanu Gudina have eked

out a living in Ethiopia’s central lowlands, tending tiny
plots of maize, wheat or barley amid the vastness of
the lush green plains. Now, they find themselves
working cheek by jowl with high-tech commercial
farms stretching over thousands of hectares tilled by
state-of-the-art tractors – and owned and operated by
foreigners.
With memories of Ethiopia’s devastating 1984 famine
still fresh in the minds of its leaders, the government
has been enticing well-heeled foreigners to invest in the
nation’s underperforming agriculture sector. It is part of
an economic development push they say will help the
Horn of Africa nation ensure it has enough food for its
80 million people.
Many small Ethopian farmers do not share their leaders’ enthusiasm for the policy, cover photo: Razack Munboadan (2nd L) and Hanumatha Rao (C),
managers with Karuturi, an Indian company with four commercial farms in
eyeing the outsiders with a suspicion that has crept across Africa as millions of Ethiopia, check the corn harvested by workers at Karuturi’s farm in Bako,
hectares have been placed, with varying degrees of transparency, in foreign hands. central Ethiopia November 6, 2009. REUTERS/Barry Malone

for the complete story, click here.

Welcome to the Clone Farm

By Karl Plume

To the untrained eye, Pollard Farms looks much like any other cattle
ranch. Similar looking cows are huddled in similar looking pens.
But some of the cattle here don’t just resemble each other. They are
literally identical – clear down to their genes.
Of the 400-some cattle in Barry Pollard’s herd of mostly Black
Angus cattle there are 22 clones, genetic copies of some of the most
productive livestock the world has ever known.
Pollard, a neurosurgeon and owner of Pollard Farms, says such
breeding technology is at the forefront of a new era in animal
agriculture. “We’re trying to stay on the very top of the heap of
quality, genetically, with animals that will gain well and fatten well,
produce well and reproduce well,” Pollard told a reporter during a
recent visit to his farm.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2008 approved the sale
of food from clones and their offspring, stating the products are
indistinguishable from that of their non-clone counterparts. Japan,
the European Union, and others have followed suit.
The moves have stirred controversy about whether tinkering with
nature is safe, or even ethical, prompting major food companies to
swear off food products from cloned animals. But consumers are
likely already eating meat and drinking milk from the offspring of
clones, which are technically not clones, without even knowing it.
Farmers can now use cloning and other assisted breeding
technologies to breed cows that produce bigger, better steaks
or massive amounts of milk, and animals that resist diseases or
reproduce with clockwork precision. Premier genes can translate
to improved feeding efficiency, meaning the ability to convert the
least amount of feed into the most meat or milk, which results in a
smaller environmental footprint.
“If you don’t need as much corn to feed your cattle, you might be
able to cut back on the amount of fertilizer put out there on the
countryside that might end up in a river. You can cut the amount
of diesel that’s spent raising that corn,” Pollard said. “Just like they
improve the genetics of corn, so they can produce more bushels per
acre, we’re trying to do that same type of thing by using cloning and
superior genetics to produce more meat with less input.”
RISING FOOD DEMAND
The United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization has said
food production will need to double by mid-century to meet demand
from a growing world population, with 70 percent of that growth

7
 the future of food november 2009
Ground-breaking moments in global agriculture
Organized cultivation of food crops like wheat and barley began
about 10,000 to 12,000 years ago in the Fertile Crescent, what is
now the Middle East.
Great strides in agriculture have been made since through
innovation, technology and genetics to help feed the world’s
growing population. Despite this, however, more than 1 billion
people went hungry in 2009, 100 million more than last year.
The increase is not a result of poor harvests, but due to high food
prices, particularly in developing nations, and lower incomes and
lost jobs due to the economic downturn.
Here are some landmark moments in world agriculture:
1701 - Briton Jethro Tull invented the seed drill, an improved
plough that was drawn by a horse.
1798 - Thomas Malthus predicts impending famine as population
growth outstrips food production.
1831 - American Cyrus McCormick introduced his mechanical
reaper, which was mass produced by 1847 in a Chicago factory.
1863 - The U.S. Agriculture Department, which forecasts crop
production for major countries across the globe, publishes its first
monthly crop report.
1866 - Austrian Gregor Mendel laid the foundation of modern
genetics by showing traits pass from parents to offspring.
1873 - American John Deere designed the first cast steel plough.
1881 - First generation of hybrid corn to increase production
created.
coming from efficiency-improving technologies. Such forecasts
have prompted calls for a second Green Revolution, a rethinking
of the movement championed by Norman Borlaug, who won the
1970 Nobel Peace Prize for his work in boosting grain production for
starving nations.
Biotechnological advances in grain production will remain at the
forefront of the global fight to alleviate hunger, although animal
agriculture will likely contribute in the longer term.
“When people talk about feeding the world, reducing or eliminating
hunger, I don’t think animal agriculture has much of a role to play.
But, as people successfully move out of that extreme poverty,
that’s when you get the growth in demand for animal protein
and potentially cloning could have positive benefits,” said Robert
Thomson, professor of agricultural policy at the University of Illinois.
Some animal breeds, ideally suited for arid climates, could
be propagated to utilize grazing pastures unsuitable for crop
production. Others may be bred to resist local maladies, like the
Nguni cattle breed, which can develop resistance to ticks and
immunity to tick-borne diseases.
Meanwhile, a growing and more affluent population in the
8
1892 - First successful gasoline engine farm tractor built by
American inventor John Froelich.
1923 - Commercial hybrid seed corn developed by Henry Wallace,
who in 1926 founded the Hi-Bred Corn Co (now Pioneer Hi-Bred
International).
1934 - Worst drought in U.S. history swept through the Great
Plains and covered more than 75 percent of the country.
1944 - Normal Borlaug, father of the Green Revolution to increase
food production, joins Rockefeller Foundation.
1945 - Beginning of the Green Revolution to increase food
production through new cultivars, irrigation, fertilizer, pesticides
and mechanization.
1956 - Mexico becomes self-sufficient in wheat as a result of the
Green Revolution.
1960 - Philippines government, Ford and Rockefeller foundations
establish the International Rice Research Institute in Manila.
1968 - William Gaud, director of the U.S. Agency for International
Development, coins the term Green Revolution. “These and other
developments in the field of agriculture contain the makings of a
new revolution. It is not a violent Red Revolution like that of the
Soviets, nor is it a White Revolution like that of the Shah of Iran. I
call it the Green Revolution.”
1970 - Borlaug is awarded Nobel Peace Prize for his contributions
to world peace through increasing food supply.
Reporting by K.T. Arasu; Editing by Walter Bagley
developing world is seen boosting demand for meat and dairy
products. Meat consumption in developing countries more than
doubled from about 10 kilograms (22 pounds) per person per year in
the 1960s to around 26 kg near the turn of the century, according to
the FAO. By 2030, that was expected to rise to 37 kg per person. Milk
and dairy product consumption has made similarly rapid growth.
SLOW ACCEPTANCE
Supporters say cloning will no doubt play a role in accelerating
production, but the technology has been slow to take, primarily
because of the high cost and resistance on ethical grounds. Of the
more than 2.4 million Angus cattle that have been registered with
the American Angus Association since 2001, only 56 were clones,
according to Bryce Schumann, the group’s chief executive.
It costs at least $15,000 to clone a cow and $4,000 to clone a
sow, although improving efficiencies will likely lower those costs in
coming years, said Mark Walton, president of ViaGen, a company in
Austin, Texas, that provides animal cloning and genomics services.
ViaGen owns the intellectual property rights to the technology that
in 1996 produced Dolly the sheep, the world’s first animal cloned
from an adult cell, at Scotland’s Roslin Institute. ViaGen, along with
 the future of food november 2009

A bottle of milk in a refrigerator bears a label showing

that it is from cows not treated with artificial growth
hormones, in Washington November 9, 2009. A banner
issue for U.S. crusaders against genetically modified
food is genetically engineered growth hormones for
dairy cows, known as rBGH (also known as RBST).
Introduced in the United States in 1994, rBGH is a drug
to extend milk production after a cow gives birth. It was
developed by Monsanto but recently sold to Eli Lilly and
Co. REUTERS/Jim Bourg

its partner company, Trans Ova Genetics

of Sioux Center, Iowa, produces the
vast majority of the clones in the United
States. Other cloning companies are in
Brazil, Argentina, Australia, and China.
Of the roughly 102 million cattle and 66
million hogs in the United States, “no
more than a few thousand” are clones,
according to Walton. Global numbers
are around 6,000.
The most common cloning technique is were unlikely to buy meat, milk, or eggs from offspring of cloned
called somatic cell nuclear transfer, a process in which a donor egg animals, even if the FDA says the products are safe. Other surveys have
cell’s nucleus is removed and replaced with the nucleus (and genes) found that nearly half of consumers have moral objections to cloning.
of a cell from the animal that scientists aim to duplicate. That cell is
then stimulated and later implanted in a surrogate mother. “When you’re genetically modifying a plant, creating a seed that
perhaps has a resistance to insects, that’s different than cloning, and
Walton said cloning is costly because it is a relatively tedious maybe modifying a sentient being,” said Chris Waldrop, director of
process and the technology is relatively immature, comparable the Food Policy Institute at the Consumer Federation of America.
to the production inefficiencies to that of the early automobile “There are different ethical, religious, and moral issues that a society
has to grapple with before they move forward on such a technology.”

consumers are likely
already eating meat and
drinking milk from the
offspring of clones
without even knowing it.
industry. Years ago, scientists were able to achieve success in only
2 or 3 percent of attempts, but ViaGen now boasts 10 to 15 percent
efficiency in producing a calf. It’s aim is nearer to 60 percent, about
the same as traditional in-vitro fertilization, Walton said.
CONSUMER ACCEPTANCE
Despite the steady improvement in the technology, consumer
acceptance of cloning as a viable means to produce human food
remains the top hurdle for breeders and cloning companies.
A survey conducted by the International Food Information Council
found that half of Americans surveyed viewed animal cloning as “not
very favorable” or “not at all favorable.” A similar number said they
Despite cloning’s gradually improving rate of success in producing
healthy animals, the process still has a high rate of failure. Some
animals are born with abnormalities and have to be euthanized and
some have more health problems at birth than conventionally bred
animals.
Large Offspring Syndrome also occurs more often with assisted
breeding technologies like cloning. The syndrome causes the fetus
to grow too large, causing problems for both the clone and the
surrogate.
Opponents also say the FDA’s risk assessment was not thorough
enough and a long-term, multi-generational study of cloning’s
effects on food products is needed. At the very least, the products
should be labeled as derived from cloning, they say.
“The largest study looked at milk from only 15 cows. Only one study
used standard methods of toxicology, and that study looked at
the effects of feeding 20 rats products from clones for 14 weeks,”
said Jaydee Hanson, policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety, a
nonprofit advocacy and research group. “We don’t think that cloning
is a technology that’s ready yet, and we certainly don’t think it’s
ready to be on your plate.”

9
 the future of food november 2009
The only way to definitively avoid food from clones is
to buy organic products, which by the Organic Trade
Association’s definition are from only traditionally
bred animals, he said.
The U.S. Agriculture Department has asked the
livestock industry to voluntarily keep clones out of
the food supply for the moment, but the moratorium
does not apply to progeny of clones. Major meat and
dairy companies, such as Tyson Foods, Smithfield
Foods, and Dean Foods, have said they will not accept
products from clones, citing the desires of their
customers.
ViaGen’s Walton said cloned animals are far too
valuable as breeding stock to be used for food, but
that the progeny of clones are “undoubtedly already
in the food chain.” However, he said, “the proportion
is infinitesimally small compared to the total meat
supply, a tiny little drop in the ocean.”
Still, ViaGen and the Biotechnology Industry
Organization have helped to create a supply chain
management program to track clones from birth to
death. ViaGen also gives farmers the incentive to
disclose when and where they cull a clone by holding
a deposit until the clone’s owner can verify that the
animal has been euthanized or slaughtered for meat.
In time, Walton said, consumers and food producers
will become more comfortable with cloning, much
like they have with genetically modified crops, but it
will take time and it will take openness from cloning
providers.
“Companies have a bottom line to protect, so they
are cautious about new technologies and they are
cautious about listening to their customers,” he said.
“No scientist can say definitively that nothing will be
different tomorrow. But, given the body of knowledge
and the amount of work that’s been done, you can be
extremely confident that the probability of something
untoward happening is incredibly small.”
Editing by Jim Impoco and Walter Bagley
10
Agriculture and Climate Change Issues
The accelerating pace of climate change threatens food security everywhere,
but especially in poor rural areas of Asia and Africa, according to numerous
studies by national and international groups.
Climate change, agricultural production and food security will be key issues
discussed at the annual World Food Prize forum to be held in Des Moines,
Iowa, from Oct. 14 to 16.
The forum spotlights those making key contributions to improve the world’s
food supply and is sponsored by the World Food Prize Foundation, an
organization started 23 years ago by the late Norman Borlaug. Borlaug, called
the “Father of the Green Revolution,” won the 1970 Nobel Peace Prize for
pioneering post-war work in improving crop yields.
Here are some highlights about agriculture and climate change from a
September 2009 study by the International Food Policy Research Institute, a
Washington-based think-tank.
• Although there will be gains in some crops in some regions of the world,
the overall impacts of climate change on agriculture are expected to be
negative, threatening global food security.
• Populations in the developing world, already vulnerable and food insecure,
are likely to be the most seriously affected. In 2005, nearly half of the
economically active population in developing countries – 2.5 billion people
– relied on agriculture for its livelihood. Today, 75 percent of the world’s
poor live in rural areas, the World Bank says.
• Climate change will have varying effects on irrigated yields across regions,
but irrigated yields for all crops in South Asia will experience large
declines.
• Climate change will result in additional price increases for the most
important agricultural crops – rice, wheat, maize (corn), and soybeans.
Higher feed prices will result in higher meat prices. As a result, climate
change will reduce the growth in meat consumption slightly and cause a
more substantial fall in cereals consumption.
• Calorie availability in 2050 will not only be lower than in the no-climate-
change scenario, it will actually decline relative to 2000 levels throughout
the developing world.
• By 2050, the decline in calorie availability will increase child malnutrition
by 20 percent relative to a world with no climate change. Climate change
will eliminate much of the improvement in child malnourishment levels
that would occur with no climate change.
• At least $7 billion per year in additional funding is required to finance
“adaptation” programs – the research, rural infrastructure, and irrigation
investments needed to offset the negative effects of climate change on
human well-being.
 the future of food november 2009

India’s food dilemma:

high prices or shortages
By Himangshu Watts

For a man who will inherit vast tracts of fertile

farmland in Punjab, India’s grain bowl, Jaswinder
Singh made what seemed to him a logical career
move – he took a job with a telecoms company in New
Delhi.
“I can’t go back to the village after an M.B.A. Delhi
has more money, better quality of life. The job is more
satisfying, and you don’t depend on the weather or
prices set by the government,” said Singh, who earns
rent from his farm, while a tenant tills the land.
Singh’s choice reflects a growing and worrisome
trend in the nation’s agriculture sector: Indian farms
are failing to attract capital or talent, either from
rich landlords like Singh, or the 21,000 students who
graduate from India’s 50 agricultural and veterinary
universities.
“At present, most of the farm graduates are
either taking jobs in the government, or financial
institutions, or in private sector industry. They are A farmer carries vegetables in a field on the outskirts of Agartala, the capital of India’s northeastern state of
seldom taking to farming as a profession,” a report by Tripura November 3, 2009. Indian farms are failing to attract capital or talent, either from rich landlords or the
21,000 students who graduate from India’s 50 agricultural and veterinary universities. REUTERS/Jayanta Dey
the M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation said.
The views of the foundation – set up by M.S.
Swaminathan, who led India’s Green Revolution in
the 1960s that helped make this vast nation self-
sufficient in food – were echoed in a poll by the
National Sample Survey Organisation, a government
body. The survey showed 40 percent of Indian farmers
would quit farming, if they had a choice – an alarming
revelation for a country where two-thirds of the
billion-plus people live in villages.
for the complete story, click here.

For more information contact:

Alden Bentley, Commodities Editor, Americas
+1 646 223 6041
alden.bentley@thomsonreuters.com
Jim Impoco, Enterprise Editor, Americas
+1 646 223 8923 COVER PHOTO: Razack Munboadan (2nd L) and Hanumatha Rao (C), managers with Karuturi, an Indian company
jim.impoco@thomsonreuters.com with four commercial farms in Ethiopia, check the corn harvested by workers at Karuturi’s farm in Bako, central
Ethiopia November 6, 2009. For centuries, farmers like Berhanu Gudina have eked out a living in Ethiopia’s central
Claudia Parsons, Deputy Enterprise Editor lowlands, tending tiny plots of maize, wheat or barley amid the vastness of the lush green plains. Now, they find
+1 646 223 6282 themselves working cheek by jowl with high-tech commercial farms stretching over thousands of hectares tilled by
claudia.parsons@thomsonreuters.com state-of-the-art tractors – and owned and operated by foreigners. Reuters/Barry Malone

© Thomson Reuters 2009. All rights reserved. 47000827 11309

Republication or redistribution of Thomson Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is
prohibited without the prior written consent of Thomson Reuters. ‘Thomson Reuters’ and the Thomson
Reuters logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of Thomson Reuters and its affiliated companies.

thomsonreuters.com