Genetically modified foods, colloquially called 'Frankenfoods' by Europeans, are a perfect example of a complex issue being given sound-bite treatment by news media, with predictable results. Advances in genetic engineering are giving researchers the ability to modify the genes of both plants and animals, with the result that new strains of each are appearing. In the 1980s, this came to public attention in experimentation with animals, and ethical questions were raised, especially when people considered the possible consequences of using such techniques on humans.
In the late 1990s, attention shifted to genetic tinkering with plants. Companies like Monsanto have invested billions of dollars in genetically modified foods. The early results have produced plants that are resistant to frost, weeds, or other scourges of food producers. The classic example is grains that are resistant to the herbicide 'Roundup,' also produced by Monsanto. A farmer can plant a field of genetically modified grain, then spray the resulting plants with Roundup, killing all the weeds, and leaving all of the grains untouched, thus increasing the farmer’s yield per acre.
Some of these modifications were produced through transgenic techniques, which is to say, transferring genes from a different kind of plant, or even an animal, to a seed plant. Hence, a certain kind of fish is resistant to freezing waters. If the gene that allows that fish to survive sub-zero temperatures is transferred to a plant, the plant might be better able to resist the ravages of frost. Environmentalists assert that this might have unintended consequences, both in terms of producing superweeds, and in the long-term effects of these transgenic foods on human health. Even though there is no evidence that the latter effect is even faintly likely, this issue has particularly been singled out for fear and loathing. The argument being put forward is that we have no experience with such organisms, and so we must assume they could be dangerous. Given that there are naturally occurring genetic mutations that work their way into the food chain all the time, the chances that this might happen are tiny.
So, for example, some environmentalists started talking about the potential consequences if, for example, Roundup-resistant genes somehow migrated to weeds. This is not an ill-founded concern, as weeds that grow in the same conditions as grains are likely to have other things in common as well, and there have been instances of grains and weeds cross-breeding.
Seed companies responded to this kind of concern by proposing seeds that had been genetically altered so that they would not reproduce. Hence, if a weed did somehow crossbreed and pick up herbicide resistance, it would not reproduce, and quickly die out. Monsanto made a classic marketing mistake in doing this: they called this kind of genetic modification 'the Terminator,' literally creating a monster in public relations terms. Even though this genetic modification has never been introduced or marketed, critics seized on this term both to fan fears of the production of 'superweeds,' and to accuse Monsanto of colonialism. The latter accusation comes from the contention that farmers who bought terminator-modified seed would be at Monsanto’s mercy. They would have to buy all their seed all over again each year as last year’s crop could not be used for re-seeding, and so would be trapped by the commercial greed of Monsanto.
Meanwhile, a group of researchers, working under the auspices of the World Health Organization, have created a genetically modified strain of rice that imparts a high level of vitamin A. Vitamin A deficiencies are a childhood scourge in developing countries. The researchers created this form of rice to eliminate this problem, and deliberately avoided any commercial funding so that there would be no commercial claims on the results. The researchers wanted to be free to distribute this rice to farmers in developing countries without any licensing or patent restrictions. There has been no outcry about this Frankenfood, yet it incorporated genes from other organisms, specifically from daffodils and certain kinds of bacteria. Apparently Frankenfoods are okay as long as nobody profits from them. Where I come from, this is called hypocrisy.
I’m concerned about this debate on many levels. It is being fought as a public relations battle, which means that a technically complex issue is being reduced to sound bites. Yes, there are potential dangers in genetic modification, but they are nowhere near as dramatic, nor as likely as European regulators say. But by simplifying the debate into a black-versus-white, right-versus-wrong simplicity, they are leading us to bad science and bad results.
The motivations among opponents to GM foods are mixed. European governments may have seized on this issue as another form of trade barrier to use against the United States, as U.S. companies are far in advance of European competitors, and so likely to reap most of the early profits. I’m not really sure of the motivations of environmentalists, but suspect that there are several mixed up together. Part of it is custard-headedness: they don’t really understand the issues. Part of it is genuine, well-informed concern that we will create a monster by accident, which, as I said, is possible, but of uncertain probability. And part of it may just be that it is a hobbyhorse that can be ridden because the idea of monsters in our food captures headlines.
My primary concern is long-term. I really don’t care whether Monsanto, Pioneer, and other seed companies make a bundle or go broke. I have no vested interest either way. But I am concerned that these companies have invested billions of dollars in research in this area. If they are made to suffer major financial losses without good cause, they will likely abandon this research altogether, and that may have major long-term consequences.
The world’s stock of arable, productive land is unlikely to expand, If anything it will shrink – on this I agree with the environmentalists. Yet, global population will continue to rise, possibly to double or more over the next 100 years. If genetic modification is shut down as a way of increasing crop yields, then the world may again slip from its present state, of being able to produce enough food to feed everyone (although it’s not properly distributed), to one where scarcity rules certain parts of the world. This may lead to famine and food wars.
People knowledgeable in this area assure me that even without genetic modification, there are enough ways of breeding higher-yielding food crops to compensate. Perhaps so. But it worries me when what could be a major technological breakthrough may be trashed for emotional rather than rational reasons.
Think of it as evolution in action.
© Copyright, IF Research, February 2000.
|
|