GM food: harmful or helpful?
Genetically modified crops are seen by many as the answer to the challenges posed by population growth and climate change, but the debate on whether they are safe is still raging.
BENEFITS: ONE SIDE OF THE DEBATE
GM 'the solution to food shortage'
These are some of the benefit promised by biotechnology.
• Rice with built-in Vitamin A that can help prevent blindness in 100 million children suffering from Vitamin A deficiency;
• A tomato that softens more slowly, allowing it to develop longer on the vine and keep longer on the shelf;
• Potatoes that absorb less fat when fried, changing the ever-popular french fries from junk food into a more nutritional food;
• Strawberry crops that can survive frost;
Many agricultural scientists and food policy specialists view GM crops as an important element in sustainable food security and environmental management.
This point of view is summarized in the ABIC Manifesto: "On our planet, 18% of the land mass is used for agricultural production. This fraction cannot be increased substantially.
"It is absolutely essential that the yield per unit of land increases beyond current levels given that:
"The human population is still growing, and will reach about nine billion by 2040;70,000 km² of agricultural land (equivalent to 60% of the German agricultural area) are lost annually to growth of cities and other non-agricultural uses; Consumer diets in developing countries are increasingly changing from plant-based proteins to animal protein, a trend that requires a greater amount of crop-based feeds."
Economical
GM supporters tell farmers that they stand to reap enormous profits from growing GM crops.
Farmers could spray these crops with herbicide to kill the weeds, without killing the crops, they are told, with a reduction in money spent in pesticides.
And it takes a shorter time to produce the desired product, farmers are told.
Better quality foods
Even animals can be genetically modified to be leaner, grow faster, and need less food, leading to improved productivity for farmers and ultimately lower costs for the consumer.
They could be modified to have special characteristics, such as greater milk production in cows.
Modified crops for animals could perhaps prevent outbreaks such as foot and mouth disease, which has devastated many farmers and local economies.
No such products have been released to date; however, some are under consideration for release.
Drought and salt-tolerant?
Biotechnology companies are even experimenting with crops that can be genetically modified to be drought and salt-tolerant, or less reliant on fertilizer.
RISKS: THE OTHER SIDE OF THE DEBATE
Are GM foods safe?
Another concern is disease. Since some crops are modified using the DNA from viruses and bacteria, will we see new diseases emerge?
What about the GM crops that have antibiotic-resistant marker genes?
We already have a problem with ineffective antibiotics. How can we develop new drugs to fight these new bugs?
The US pro-GM pressure group AgBioWorld has argued that GM foods have been proven safe, while other pressure groups and consumer rights groups, such as the Organic Consumers Association, and Greenpeace claim the long term health risks which GM could pose, or the environmental risks associated with GM, have not yet been adequately investigated.
A 2008 review published by the Royal Society of Medicine noted that GM foods have been eaten by millions of people worldwide for over 15 years, with no reports of ill effects.
Similarly a 2004 report from the US National Academies of Sciences stated: "To date, no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population".
A 2004 review of feeding trials in the Italian Journal of Animal Science found no differences among animals eating genetically modified plants.
The starting point for the safety assessment of genetically engineered food products is to assess if the food is "substantially equivalent" to its natural counterpart.
But scientists such as Milestone, E., Brunner, E and mayer, S. claim that substantial equivalence is an unscientific concept. ('Beyond substantial equivalence', 'Nature' 401)
Virus genes used in the process
Steven Druker, the founder and executive director of the Alliance for Bio-Integrity, in a paper called "Why concerns about health risks of genetically modified food are scientifically justified" says virus genes have to be used in the process.
"Because the transplanted gene is foreign to its new surroundings, it cannot adequately function without a big artificial boost.
"Biotechnicians achieve this unnatural boosting by taking the section of DNA that promotes gene expression in a pathogenic virus and fusing it to the gene prior to insertion.
"The viral booster (called a “promoter”) radically alters the behavior of the transplanted gene and causes it to function in important respects like an invading virus — deeply different from the way it behaves within its native organism and from the way the engineered organism's own genes behave.
"Consequently, not only does the foreign gene produce a substance that has never been in that species, it produces it in an essentially unregulated manner that is uncoordinated with the needs and natural functions of the organism,” he wrote.
Allergies and toxins
Some environmental organisations, such as the European Green Party and Greenpeace, have suggested that GM food might trigger food allergies, although other environmentalists have implicated causes as diverse as the greenhouse effect increasing pollen levels, greater exposure to synthetic chemicals, cleaner lifestyles, or more mold in buildings.
But a 2005 review in the journal Allergy of the results from allergen testing of current GM foods stated that "no biotech proteins in foods have been documented to cause allergic reactions".
Environmental damage
The problem with GM crops is that there is little known about what effect they will have in, say, 20 years time, Kerryn Sakko says in "The Debate over Genetically Modifed foods".
Then there is always the possibility that we may not be able to destroy GM crops once they spread into the environment, Mr Sakko says.
In Europe, for example, a strain of sugar beet that was genetically modified to be resistant to a particular herbicide has inadvertently acquired the genes to resist another, Mr Sakko argued quoting genetech.csiro.au.
Risk to food chain
GM crops may also pose a health risk to native animals that eat them. The animals may be poisoned by the built-in pesticides, Firbark, Les E. and Forcella Frank showed in a study called "GM crops and farmland biodiversity" published on 'Science', 289.
In Britain, a native farm bird, the Skylark, was indirectly affected by the introduction of GM sugar beets designed to resist herbicides. In planting this crop, the weeds were reduced substantially.
However, since the birds rely on the seeds of this weed in autumn and winter, researchers expect that up to 80% of the Skylark population would have to find other means of finding food.
Cross-pollination
Cross-pollination between GM crops and conventional breeding is also an issue of debate.
Critics ask: Will genes from GM plants spread to other plants, creating superweeds and superbugs we won't be able to control?
GM mix-ups
Humans can inadvertently eat foods that contain GM products meant as animal feed, i.e., crops modified for increased productivity in animals.
This happened in the US, where traces of a StarLink GM crop, restricted for use only in feed, were found in taco shells, Boyce Nell showed in his study "Taco Trouble".
So, what do you think? Can we trust GM food?
1. In 5 to 8 sentences answer the following question: Do you believe that GMO’s are harmful or are they helpful. Why or Why Not? Use evidence from the article to support your option.