The food of the future?

While many scientists and environmental groups claim the cultivation of genetically modified organisms will have severe ecological and health consequences, advocates of the technology claim with equal vigor that genetically modified organisms (G.M.Os) will feed the world and improve human health and well-being. Greenpeace state firmly: "[we believe] G.M.Os should not be released into the environment as there is not adequate scientific understanding of their impact on the environment and human health." But Monsanto, who dominate 90 per cent of the global market in G.M.Os, say on their Web site: "Crop improvements like [G.M.Os] can help provide an abundant, healthful food supply and protect our environment for future generations." It's complex. Just like nuclear power, genetic modification is a branch of science that has attracted a huge amount of controversy and fierce debate, with both sides claiming the stakes are high. G.M.Os are on the frontline of one of the biggest conflicts of recent years between the science-business community and activist groups. Many of whom feel that, in addition to environmental concerns, with four big multinational companies dominating the global biotech market, the proliferation of patented G.M.Os will give corporations an unhealthy control of food production. While U.S. agriculture has embraced the new crops with little controversy, widespread consumer protests in Europe led to the European Union imposing a moratorium on new licenses in 1998 -- an effective ban on imports and new commercial cultivation; something U.S. exporters are now challenging through the W.T.O. Improving on nature? Advocates of G.M.Os argue that almost every organism that humans use -- whether vegetables, grains, pigs or cattle --- has already been "modified" by centuries of selective breeding that has tweaked certain desirable characteristics and sought to remove less desirable ones. The naturally occurring ancestor of the potato, for example, was toxic until selectively bred for human consumption. "G.M. is just much quicker than traditional cross-breeding," says a spokesperson from The Biotech Industry Organization, a G.M.O. "information, advocacy and business support group." "You can be more precise and achieve change in a generation with biotech that would take many generations with traditional cross-breeding. "In Hawaii biotech saved the day recently. There was a virus that affected the papaya crop, and without biotech the crop would have been permanently wiped out, no doubt about it." Monsanto claim that biotech allows them to produce crops that fight plant pests, are easier to process and contain valuable additional nutrients. G.M.O. skeptics counter-argue that there is a huge gulf between what has happened historically, and the power we have now to put fish genes into vegetables, or clone animals directly from their "parents" D.N.A. They fear that G.M. crops may contaminate the food chain, or that science is taking us into uncharted waters. G.M.Os and the environment "There are serious environmental concerns with G.M.Os," says Clare Oxborough from Friends of the Earth. "They can easily spread outside cultivated areas and there are real concerns about cross contamination with other crops and this poses a real risk to biodiversity." In the UK modified genes from a G.M. crop trial have been found to have transferred into local wild plants, creating a form of herbicide-resistant "superweed." Some farmers in Canada and Argentina who cultivate G.M. soya have also had problems with herbicide-resistant weeds, although these may have developed through natural selection. Experiments in Germany and Canada have observed a phenomenon called "gene-stacking," where crops modified to resist one herbicide accidentally acquire resistance to another. In Spain, the only EU country to have a significant take up of G.M.Os, a study by two Spanish farming organizations and Greenpeace Spain claimed that up to 50 percent of organic maize crops were contaminated by G.M. maize. "It's a complex issue," Julian Morris, director of think tank The International Policy Network. "In many ways G.M.Os will improve biodiversity by increasing yields and so reducing pressure on wild areas. But where there is a risk of cross-contamination, when some naturally occurring plants are similar to crops, as with Rape in the UK, we should introduce G.M.Os with care and study what happens. "The risk is overplayed [by environmentalists], and ignores the reality that many wild plants already contain very powerful natural herbicides and pesticides. "There is no evidence whatsoever that a shift from conventional agriculture, which relies on large amounts of chemicals, to biotech agriculture, which doesn't, will be bad for the environment." But environmental groups argue there are real problems with such a switch. "Sure G.M.Os should mean farmers use less pesticides, but in reality they don't," says Oxborough. "The evidence seems to suggest that as time goes on weeds become resistant and more and more toxic herbicides need to be employed to get the same effect. "With G.M.Os bred to be insect repellent there's a real risk to non-target species, such as butterflies and moths or beneficial soil organisms. We just don't have enough information. The question is: Should we really be taking a risk with something we don't need?" Feeding the world Many pro-G.M.O. advocates say the rich northern hemisphere is guilty of being overly precious about technology that could transform the Third World. "There is massive potential to improve yields, especially in marginal areas with poor soil," says Morris. "Plants can be made more heat, drought or salt tolerant. By improving yields we can produce more food from less land and so prices will fall, which will benefit the poorest people the most." "In addition it's possible to include traits for certain nutrients. Many health problems in the Third World are related to malnutrition, something G.M.Os can address. For example G.M.O. Golden Rice has high levels of Vitamin A/Beta Carotene [C.H.K.], the lack of which is responsible for 1000s of cases of childhood blindness and immune deficiencies. "It's not a magic bullet -- many Third World problems are political, not agricultural. But scientifically it has the potential to make a real difference." In 2003 the then-director of lobby group The Center for Global Food Issues Dennis Avery lambasted the EU for its skepticism: "It's unconscionable. To go to famine areas and say the [G.M.O] food aid is poison, how different is that from crying fire in a crowded theater? Except the scale is larger and the victims are harder to find afterwards." But environmentalists believe the industry is picking a particularly emotive issue to give them public leverage. "This is the one thing that will convince people, if they are going to be convinced, about the benefits of G.M.O.," says Oxborough. "But the reality is the technology has been being researched for thirty years, and we've heard these arguments over and over, but nothing is currently commercially available that can do this. "95 percent of the G.M.O. crops grown worldwide are soya, rape, maize and cotton; the vast majority of this goes into animal feed to support intensive meat agriculture. "G.M.O. is about cash crops for export, not feeding hungry people. It's all about profit. Meanwhile conventional breeding is coming up with answers to the problems." Healthy or health concern? Much of the opposition to G.M.Os focuses on "Frankenstein Foods," and there is considerable public concern about eating G.M.Os. Something refuted by advocates of the crops. "There's no scientific evidence that G.M.Os harm humans," says Morris. "Quite the contrary: The health benefits of G.M.Os, in terms of food security, better diet and nutrition will be overwhelmingly positive." "It's more a question of uncertainty than clear evidence," admits Oxborough. "There is plenty of evidence suggesting the kind of things that could be happening to us when we eat G.M.Os -- such as an increase in allergies -- we just don't know. We don't have the studies to prove it's safe to push these products through. "It's very difficult to trace health problems back to a specific cause, because people have such varied diets. While of course anything acute would have been picked up, G.M.Os could be contributing to cancers and allergies without us knowing. The point is: Should we be talking a risk with something we don't understand?" "Most G.M.Os undergo rigorous lab testing to check human and animal tolerance," argues Morris. "If something is found to cause an adverse reaction, it is not put on sale, it's as simple as that. Conventional crops don't have that advantage." But, says Oxborough: "All the testing is carried out by the G.M.O. companies. There's no independent scrutiny. We think that warning signals are being ignored." "The biotech industry asks scientists to do the research," said a spokesperson from The Biotech Industry Organization, "then in the U.S., for example, the Food and Drug Administration looks at the data and draws its own conclusions. The R&D for a new product is rigorous and takes 6 to 12 years. No products are rushed out." The debate rages on. Few technologies are as controversial as G.M.Os, and there's no shortage of opinions, and convincing arguments on both sides: There isn't much that's more political than the food we eat. But whatever the industry and experts argue, ultimately you -- the consumer -- will have to weigh up the choices available, and decide. "Source":[ http://www.checkbiotech.org/root/index.cfm?fuseaction=newsletter&topic_id=5&subtopic_id=25&doc_id=12699]

---

Related articles

Resistance to New Foods Has Been the Norm - That some people would question the safety of novel foods — like food developed using biotechnology — is nothing new (12.2.2007)