The fourth revolution in agriculture

The history of agriculture combines some major technological changes with a series of evolutionary changes. It is usually difficult to determine if agriculture is in a major shift or just slowly changing, but it seems to me that perhaps the past decade is seeing the beginning of agriculture's fourth major revolution.

As I see it, the first revolution was the cultivation of food, feed and fiber crops and the domestication of animals for meat and draft power. Eventually people grew more food than they needed and moved beyond subsistence agriculture. They began to specialize, moved off the land, and modern civilization began.

The second revolution occurred a few years ago with the application of fossil fuel-powered vehicles to till soil, harvest crops and substitute for human labor in many menial chores. It accelerated the migration of people away from the land as the need for labor declined and farming became less profitable.

The third revolution is the petrochemical revolution. Agriculture embraced pest control by chemicals as a replacement for cultural approaches and hand labor. Far more capital was required to farm at a level needed to provide a living. The expanded use of manufactured inputs increased the farmer's reliance on technology and external markets.

Accompanying the petrochemical revolution were advances in the knowledge and techniques of plant breeding. Crops can now withstand some of our most potent herbicides, even resist certain insects, but these advances have not helped farmers grow better crops or see higher profits. Application of precision agriculture technologies and continued improvement of crop yield through plant breeding and cultural methods have made farming more efficient than ever.

The fourth revolution centers on plant genetics. It is fueled by spectacular technical advances in genetic engineering-the insertion of genes (often from other species) to change the characteristics of the plant-in ways that would not be feasible with classical plant breeding. Genetic engineering has produced only a few commercial products but promises crops with special characteristics not thought of just a few years ago.

Genetic engineering also has produced much controversy. There has been a major consolidation of life science and agrochemical companies in what many see as a dangerous concentration of power. It has given rise to grave concerns about the suitability of U.S.-produced feed grains by people in many European countries, and threatened the exports of our grains.

The products of genetic engineering will challenge sustainable agriculture in the first decades of the next century. Ecological effects from gene escapes, harm to nonpest species such Bt corn pollen's lethal effect on the monarch butterfly, overuse of herbicides, and formation of insect and weed resistance are but a few of the possible dangers of this technology. In the rush to create profits, most life science companies are choosing to ignore the natural resource consequences of their products. Government intervention and regulation appear weak at best, and only one with a perfect view of the future knows how-and if-intervention in the product development and release treadmill is even necessary. The universities are not yet stepping in with creative ways to evaluate the ecological and environmental consequences of the new wave of engineered crops. Public funding is essential to provide unbiased answers to questions posed by the public.

However, there are many possible benefits to genetic-engineered crops. Done properly, agriculture could see a revolution producing healthier and more nutritious crops, grown with far less chemical inputs than before. New crops more fitting to the environment are possible. But industry giants must develop them because universities have given up too much ground to be leaders in biotechnology. This is where sustainable agriculture must enter the discussion. We must insist that the profit motive be set aside in joint efforts to produce beneficial crops.

Can the genetic revolution turn agriculture around? It is worth a try. But only if sustainable agriculture enters the debate in a positive way will there be a chance for a good ending to this revolution.

Aldo Leopold spoke of the progress of the science of agriculture:

We end, I think, at what might be called the standard paradox of the twentieth century; our tools are better than we are, and grow faster than we do. They suffice to crack the atom, to command the tides. But they do not suffice for the oldest task in history; to live on a piece of land without spoiling it.

As guardians of Leopold's land ethic, we must consider the land, its resources and its people as we evaluate and try to influence the direction of the genetic engineering tools that science has brought to agriculture.