Genetic modification can save the world.

People have different points of view about whether the genetic modification of food is a good thing – in fact it is quite a controversial topic. Those involved in the biotechnology business insist it is safe and that genetic modification can increase yields, reduce waste and improve the flavour and keeping qualities of products. For example, soft fruits can be made firmer to prevent spoilage during transportation. People in favour of genetic modification also say that better use can be made of agricultural land as crops can potentially be modified to grow in hostile conditions, such as those of a drought; this will help in feeding the world. The later is a vital issue. The same goes for improving the nutritional value of foods. More than 800 million people still go hungry, and 82 countries (half of them in Africa) neither grow enough food, nor can afford to import it. In India alone, 85% of children under five live below the normal, acceptable state of nutrition.

Many, if not all Southern countries, posses the indigenous genetic resources – requiring no further genetic modification – that can guarantee a sustainable food supply. For instance, in a single village of northeast India, 70 varieties of rice are grown… Farmers repeatedly used and enchanted some varieties that were resistant to disease, drought and flood, some that tasted nice, some that were coloured and useful for ritual purposes and some that were highly productive. It seems obvious that there is no need for genetically modified crops. On the contrary, they will undermine food security and biodiversity. The best thing is to sustain existing indigenous agricultural diversity as the basis of a secure and nutritious food base for all. [6]

 

 Genetic modification can be dangerous and unpredictable.

But on the other hand, many professional independent observers believe genetic engineering is unpredictable and dangerous. They think that the risks are not worth taking, especially since they are not safe. This science is too new to guarantee that problems will not occur in the future. When moved from one species to another, genes can create new unknown dangers. Small changes could have big impacts. Once released into the natural environment, genetically modified plants interbreed with those in the wild. The spread of modified genes from one organism to another in the wild is technically termed “a gene flow”. It has already led to the creation of new strains of “super weeds” that are resistant to herbicides. Perhaps most worrying of all, there is no way of recalling a genetic modification. Once released into the environment, genetic pollution cannot be cleaned up; it will survive so long as there is life on Earth. The environment will be irreversibly altered. Natural plants and animals could be driven out.

Mistakes have already been made in genetic engineering. Use of genetically modified bacteria in the food supplement Tryptophan may have caused 37 deaths in the USA since 1989 as well as permanently disabling thousands of people.

A company called Pioneer Hi-Bred developed a variety of genetically modified soya spliced with a Brazil nut gene to increase its protein content. When it was discovered that individuals allergic to Brazil nuts also reacted to the modified soya, the company had to withdraw the product.

In a 1994 field test, natural potatoes were planted at a distance of up to 1,100 metres from a batch of genetically modified potatoes. When seeds from the unmodified potatoes were later collected, it was found that 72% of the natural plants grown near the modified batch had absorbed the modified gene, and 35% of those grown further away had also done so. In another study in the same year, scientists at the Scottish Crop Research Institute found that pollen from genetically modified rapeseed had fertilized plants up to 2.5 kilometers away.

The company Ciba Geigy PLC recently introduced genetically modified maize, which is altered to be resistant to a herbicide and contains a marker gene for resistance to the widely used antibiotic ampicillin. Microorganisms in the stomach could absorb the gene for resistance to the antibiotic and spread into the environment, leaving a vita medical resource useless. The European Parliament expresses fear that consumption of the maize might weaken the effect of some antibiotic medicines in the human body. And the finite risk could be absolutely catastrophic if it occurred.

A soil bacterium was modified to break down a particular herbicide. It did so, but the unexpected end result was a substance highly toxic to vital soil fungi, which were destroyed.

Now just twenty-odd years since this was discovered, experiments have produced genetically modified types of most major food crops and these have recently started to be given legal approval despite opposition from thousands of organizations who have high lighted the dangers, and without informed public debate. A report by 100 US scientists suggested that genetically modified organisms could cause “… irreversible, devastating damage to the technology”. British scientists have also spoken out – Dr. Michael Antoniou, a senior molecular biologist who has experience in conducting genetic engineering experiments in the laboratory said: “This is an imperfect technology with inherent dangers”. The Prince of Wales also speaks out about genetic foods. He urges scientists to stop playing God by tinkering with food. He says there is no way of knowing the long-term consequences of producing and eating genetically modified crops, and points to the “man-made” BSE[1] disaster an example of the dangers of the quest for cheap food. The Prince says that genetic engineering “takes mankind into realms that belong to ‘God and to God alone’, “and raises ethical and practical considerations. “Apart from certain highly-beneficial and specific medical applications, do we have the right to experiment with and commercialize the building blocks of life? We live in an age of rights – and it seems that it is time that our Creator had some rights too.” Later, an article from The Daily Telegraph continues, “We simply do not know the long-term consequences for human health and the wider environment of releasing plants bred in this way … The lesson of BSE[1] and other entirely man-made disasters on the road to “cheap food” is surely the greatest cause for concern. Even the best science cannot predict the unpredictable.”

The author of a report on genetic engineering from Brussels, Doug Parr, says, “It’s like the genie in bottle: once it’s out, you cannot put it back. Already there are too many cases of things going wrong.”

Susan Leubuscher of Green Pease’s European Unit in Brussels says, “The science of genetic engineering is unpredictable, but few, from scientists to governments, dare raise the fact that today’s Golden Goose of industry is laying some rotten eggs.” [6]