Download Genetically Modified Foods

Looking beyond Today's Genetic Engineering
The Futurist Sept-Oct 2005 v39 i5 p38(5)
Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2005 World Future Society
The promise of genetic engineering to conquer world hunger has not yet been realized.
Researchers have produced genetically modified (GM) crops that are useful and interesting,
but where are the high-yielding new varieties that were supposed to feed the masses? An
element of fear has also crept into public consideration of genetic engineering's future. In the
public's mind, genetic engineering's risks still outweigh its benefits--at least so far.
In this time of environmental crisis, genetic engineering and other new technologies should
be examined for possible flaws that indicate they might be environmentally hazardous or
disruptive. On an ecological balance sheet, genetic engineering should be credited with both
assets and liabilities. Consider these hits and misses in biotechnology's history:



Toxic-waste cleanup -- a hit (potentially): Genetic engineering is now addressing the
problem of toxic waste site cleanups by, for instance, modifying the genes of chemicaleating bacteria in order to improve their ability to detoxify waste. With many GM
bacteria at work, a toxic site might be cleaned up less expensively than by using
conventional treatments. Of course, field tests must be monitored carefully to detect
unforeseen problems. The GM bacteria may be shown to be excellent performers, but
it is also possible that natural bacteria may have the edge over their modified brethren.
Nitrogen fixing -- a miss: Finding a way to use nitrogen-fixing bacteria more
extensively has been a dream shared by many biologists. The bacteria colonize near
the roots of alfalfa and other legume plants, and they provide their hosts with nitrogen
obtained from the air. Corn, wheat, and other crops that do not have a symbiotic
relationship with bacteria require applications of nitrogen fertilizer. Using genetic
engineering, scientists tried to develop nitrogen-fixing bacteria that would live
contentedly with non-legume host plants. Some experimental trials in the laboratory
were somewhat promising, but field trials failed. The research was discontinued.
Safer pest control -- hits and misses: Insecticides used to protect field crops are
expensive and environmentally hazardous. Geneticists have succeeded in helping
plants produce their own insect-killing toxin. From the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis,
they obtained a toxic gene, which they cloned and then transferred to plants. Cotton
and corn genetically engineered with the Bt toxin genes are able to produce their own
insecticide.
On the negative side, there are still unanswered questions regarding the Bt experiment.
Butterflies feeding on corn pollen have been killed by the Bt toxin, and other beneficial insects
may be harmed. Also, if some target insects become resistant to the toxin, they will survive
and breed new strains of hard-to-kill pests. Only time will tell if the Bt experiment was a
success.

Higher-yield crops -- raising concerns. The GM crops most popular with growers--corn,
soybeans, and cotton--are high-yielding and possess other good qualities. For peak
performance, GM crops require heavy applications of synthetic fertilizers, insecticides,
and weed killers--chemicals that can damage the environment.
But farmers who want to help save the environment are disappointed by present-day GM
crops, because they believe the crops' dependence on chemical treatments is a serious
deficiency. Also of concern to environmentalists is GM crops' limited genetic diversity. The
spread of crop diseases is deterred in areas where farmers plant a number of different crops-and each crop is represented by many varieties with different genetic germlines. Today's
mono-cropping--corn or soybeans as far as the eye can see--invites crop disease epidemics,
and the problem is compounded by the widespread planting of genetically uniform GM crops.
In the future, GM crops need to be tailored to the requirements of farmers who want to grow
healthy, productive crops without incurring environmental damage.
Science and the Common Good
Scientific research in the public interest has long received support from the government. In
1861, when the U.S. Congress passed the Morrill Act, it seemed clear to legislators that the
people should receive the benefits of government-aided research. This legislation created the
land-grant educational system, with the objective of bringing to farmers, mechanics, and
other working people valuable, practical information. Research projects supported by the
Morrill Act were to be directed at aiding the common good. Agricultural research programs,
for example, included breeding experiments that produced new varieties of corn, wheat,
barley, and other crops. All work was for the public good, not tailored to the specifications of
special interests.
Today, procedures for reviewing research proposals now vary considerably in federal
agencies, and it is likely that review boards do not always carefully consider the proposed
research's relevance to the common good. "Is this proposal in the public's interest?" is a
pertinent question in any setting where proposed research is being evaluated. Wherever
public funding of research is involved, decision-making groups definitely should consider how
new discoveries might impact the common good. But money has a way of clouding decisions.
Universities now see an influx of dollars from corporations contracting for use of patent rights
garnered from government-funded research. Among the many troublesome questions this
issue raises in the research community is whether genetic engineering research could be
compromised by catering to the interests of corporations rather than the public good.
Needed: A Genetic Science Commission
Unfortunately, even the scientific community has historically shown indifference to the social
consequences of genetic engineering research--an indifference mirrored by policy makers.
But the issues are too critical to ignore. Right now, there is no central planning and policyframing agency overseeing genetic engineering in the United States, although other nations
have such agencies. Recognizing the importance of atomic energy, the United States created
the Atomic Energy Commission. It is past time to establish a Genetic Science Commission.
Currently, three U.S federal agencies share the responsibility for reviewing genetically
modified organisms (GMOs). The U.S. Department of Agriculture is concerned with protecting
the welfare of agriculture and forestry; it appraises environmental risks that GMOs may pose.
The Environmental Protection Agency, as watchdog for the environment, looks for
environmental risks. The Food and Drug Administration, regulator of food, food additives,
cosmetics, and drugs, evaluates GMO products from a consumer-protection standpoint. What
is missing is long-range planning, careful analysis of biotechnology's problems and
opportunities, and also a system for prioritizing research programs on the basis of national
and global needs.
The patent system now has a powerful influence on scientific research and development.
Since 1980, the patentability of GM products issuing from federally funded research has
helped the biotechnology industry grow to giant proportions. As long as the goal of research
is to create profitable products rather than to solve agricultural problems, as some critics
have charged, we may be developing GM products that sell well but that are not agriculture's
most-needed products.
Biotechnology research could be strengthened by a central agency that defined and
prioritized genetic engineering research goals from the standpoint of the common interest.
Researchers would be aware of these guidelines and would understand the rules that would
be used in the awarding of federal research funds.
Biotech's Global Ramifications
When Monsanto Chemical, a biotech/chemical firm, announced plans to market seed of GM
wheat, American wheat growers were upset. Economists had told them that world markets
disliked GM food commodities, that a shift to GM wheat would cut U.S. wheat exports by half,
and that this would cut crop prices by a third. The wheat growers protested loudly, and
Monsanto suspended its GM wheat venture. When GM corn, soybeans, and canola finally
won widespread adoption by U.S. farmers, export demand for these commodities declined.
More than 35 countries now have restrictions on the importation of GM food.
Much of the opposition to GM food is linked to safety concerns. Consumers are not able to
prove GM foods are hazardous, but they are suspicious. Biotech supporters insist GM food is
safe, but they cannot prove their point, either. Our experience with GM food has been brief,
and it is possible that some genetically modified foods may contain allergens or toxic
compounds. At this point, we just don't know.
Instead of trying to convince the European Union and the rest of the world that they are
wrong about GM food safety issues, the United States might end the present impasse by
using a policy of accommodation. Expanded testing and analysis of GM foods would indicate
the United States is serious about food safety. Also, it would be appropriate to pass a law
requiring GM food labeling, which many countries have done. In the United States, food
labels already carry a lot of information useful for the consumer's health and safety, so
providing additional information on GM content of food would give consumers more choice. In
opinion polls, a majority of Americans (up to 58%) say they would prefer to buy GM-free food
if they had the choice. And, since international trading partners need to maintain good
relations, GM labeling might help end today's global food fight.
On another front of the global GM food battle is the relationship between patent hunters from
biotech companies in the industrialized North and farmers in the developing South.
"Patenting plant varieties from Third World countries robs farmers of their livelihood, and can
have widespread repercussions," notes Mae-Wan Ho, director of the London-based Institute
of Science in Society. New GM-food crops introduced into developing countries represent a
foreign technology--one that is highly mechanized and dependent on costly chemical inputs.
Sustainable farming systems for the Third World would add better soil and crop management
to the crop-production practices traditionally used in an area. Biological control of insect pests
and crop diseases could be achieved without use of chemicals. By helping Third World
farmers construct practical, environment-friendly farming systems, the Northern specialists
could make an enduring contribution to the people of the South.
Tomorrow's Genetic Engineering
The newness of agricultural biotechnology is partly illusory. Gene manipulation, leading to the
creation of new life-forms, is a brand-new technique, but the genetically modified crop
varieties currently available were designed to meet the requirements of an outmoded
agricultural production system--one that relies on large inputs of chemical fertilizers,
insecticides, and weed killers. The system is ecologically flawed, and today's GM crops do
not correct agriculture's chemical dependency problems. Sustainable agriculture, with its lowinput, environment-friendly programs, offers constructive alternatives.
We need to reappraise production systems and their components--judging them not by
economic performance alone, but also on the basis of safety and sustainability. In such a
reappraisal, some of genetic engineering's current products would fail to meet the mark.
However, promising new developments are in prospect. For example:




New genetically modified crops appear to thrive in saline soils and in stressful
climates.
GM bacteria may perform useful functions in waste disposal, in environmental
monitoring, and in giving plants protection from frost damage.
Scientists are trying to engineer disease resistance into American chestnut trees,
which are highly susceptible to chestnut blight.
Genetically modified plants may someday be an important energy source,
supplementing our dwindling oil reserves.
Continuing biotech research will bring new achievements. It is entirely possible that
environmentalists and biotechnology specialists will learn to work together. The core problem
of our time is how to make the world a more livable place--for ourselves and for future
generations. Through their intensive searching for new GMOs, biotechnologists will contribute
some answers. Additional answers will come from environmentalists who are intent on
avoiding environmental damage and on minimizing depletion of natural resources. But
cooperation between the two camps is complicated by unresolved issues, such as:





Genetic pollution. Genes from GMOs may be transmitted to natural, unmodified
organisms. This is a serious matter, say environmentalists, pointing out that the
integrity of a gene pool infested by GMO genes has been compromised forever. But
genetic change is inevitable, many researchers say, and genetic pollution may
sometimes be beneficial, argues geneticist C. Neal Stewart Jr. A species that is under
attack by a serious disease might get a new lease on life if it encountered genes from
GMOs engineered for disease resistance, he points out.
The precautionary principle. Genetic engineering development should proceed
carefully under the close supervision of government regulators, environmentalists
maintain. They cite the precautionary principle, which calls for careful consideration of
all possible dangers before action is taken in a risky field filled with unknowns. Using
this principle, Europeans are proceeding with a go-slow policy in regard to genetic
engineering development. However, the American biotech industry wants to expedite
development, not delay it. While some geneticists think today's regulatory system is
adequate, others see the need for tightening regulations. How extensive the tightening
should be is an open question.
Role of the public. Genetics is a highly technical field of study, and many geneticists
do not believe that ordinary citizens are competent to make intelligent decisions
concerning genetic engineering. Environmentalists want to have the public involved in
all decisions affecting public policy. To raise public awareness, they conduct teach-ins,
forums, and other educational activities.
Labeling GM food. Some advocates of genetic engineering say widespread demands
for labeling GM food are nonscientists' emotional response to issues they do not
understand. Others disagree. Paul F. Lurquin, a geneticist, says people should "be
able to choose whether or not to consume food products containing foreign genes."
Isolating GM crops. GM plants that produce pharmaceutically active proteins could be
hazardous if grown in open fields. The place for them, it is generally agreed, is in
secure greenhouses. If "pharm" plants must be prevented from crossing with other
plants, why not restrict other GM crops? The idea of isolating GM crops has come up
in political debates in many parts of the world. Bans on transgenic crops have been
ordered for entire nations or merely for some lesser areas. Europe seems to be
moving toward an area-by-area approach for segregating GM crops from regular
crops, and the issue is alive in the United States.
Partnerships between biotechnology and sustainable agriculture could enrich rural
development programs in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. The "godfather" of India's green
revolution, M.S. Swaminathan, is establishing "bio-villages" throughout the southern part of
his country. In each bio-village, sustainable farming methods are taught to impoverished rural
people. Putting their new knowledge into practice, the villagers are improving southern India's
ecology. In a bio-village, genetic engineering has a place alongside organic farming. To clean
up wastes or polluted soil, villagers use waste-eating GM bacteria. They develop young trees
through micro-propagation techniques and eventually plant them in reforestation groves.
Dealing with the difficulties and unique possibilities of genetic engineering will require
foresight, innovation, and strategy--and a level of institutional support that a national or even
global Genetic Science Commission could provide. In the years ahead, we will need to avoid
trying to solve momentous problems with quick fixes. Genetic engineering--impressive though
it is--cannot by itself cleanse and revitalize the global environment. Working in cooperation
with conservationists, ecologists, and sustainable agriculture specialists, geneticists could
help work out solutions to many of the world's most-pressing environmental problems.
About the Author: Clifton E. Anderson is a University of Idaho professor emeritus in the field
of agricultural communications. This article draws from his essay, "Looking beyond Today's
Genetic Engineering," in Foresight, Innovation, and Strategy: Toward a Wiser Future (World
Future Society, 2005).
Document Number: A135506530
(c) 2005 by Gale Group. All rights reserved.
Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation company.