|
There's a Gene in my Soup Genetically Modified Food If you're having trouble making sense of the debate over genetically modified foods, you're not alone. To make things a bit clearer, here's a summary of some of the arguments from both sides. Genetic engineering (GE) is a process of manipulating the genetic code (DNA) of a living organism – for example, in plants, animals or humans. Basically one or more genes are taken from one organism, modified, and then put into the DNA of another organism. The characteristic of the inserted gene(s) will theoretically be introduced into the host organism. Genetically-modified (GM) or GE food is food produced from plants or animals or organisms which have had their genes changed in the laboratory by scientists. Sometimes genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are referred to as LMOs, living modified organisms. What do the supporters of GM food say? Advocates of GM food argue that it is a technology which literally can feed the world, and there is little to worry about in terms of adverse effect. They claim, for example, that • GE is just an extension of the ways genes have been mixed and matched for centuries — either by natural evolution, or by traditional cross-breeding of plants, animals and micro-organisms. The only difference is that GE is faster, more efficient and more precise. • GE is one of the best solutions to the problem of world hunger. It can increase production and/or reduce the cost of food — essential at a time when 15 per cent of the world's population is starving, and total numbers are still growing. • It can do this without damaging the environment further, and can actually decrease non-renewable inputs like pesticides and fertilisers. • Without sufficient investment in gene technology, countries that are agricultural producers will not be able to maintain this role. Food production and exports will decline; jobs will be lost; food prices, imports and interest rates will go up.
What do the critics of GM food say? Despite the attempted reassurances and promises of the advocates, the issue remains extremely controversial. Protests and actions against GM food have escalated, and lobbies both for and against it have grown more intense at international forums. Doubts about GM food centre on the science (which includes possible harmful effects on health and the environment), the politics and the ethics of the whole process. For example, they include observations that: The Science: • The ability to move genes across the species barrier is very new. Although precise methods have been developed to search for and locate specific genes controlling a desired characteristic, the technique used to introduce the gene into the host organism is imprecise. Scientist cannot control exactly where the modified gene will locate itself in the host DNA (more specifically with transgenic plants and animals and also in gene therapy), though the location of the injected information is important in the outcome of the whole process. For this reason, all potential side-effects of products developed using these techniques cannot be predicted. • The introduced gene may act differently when working within its new host. • The original intelligence of the host will be disrupted. • The new combination of the host genes and the introduced gene will have unpredictable effects and therefore there is no way of knowing the overall long-term effect of genetically modified food on the health of the consumer. • GE has not been tested rigorously enough to ascertain health risks. We do not know enough to foresee the risks in the real world. We should therefore take a cautious approach to gene technology. Health Concerns • Consumers of GM food are inadvertently being exposed to unintended toxins or allergens. Ingestion of certain kinds of GM food has been known to seriously affect the consumer's health. (Supporters, however, argue that the risks are small, and safeguards are in place to test for any ill effects. They also claim that gene technology can help allergy sufferers by having the potential to disable genes that produce allergens.) • There may be a loss of quality and nutritional value in food. (Supporters argue that gene technology will achieve the opposite.) • There is also the risk of reducing the efficiency of antibiotics in clinical (or veterinary) use. This can be a problem when 'marker' genes used in the GE process are taken from bacteria resistant to antibiotics. The risk is that this resistance could be transferred to bacteria in the human (or animal) gut. Supporters assess this risk as small. Environmental Concerns • Because of the uncertainty of the behavior of GMOs in the environment a number of things can happen when GMOs are released, intentionally or otherwise. Transgenic DNA can persist in the environment and transfer horizontally to unrelated species. Possible effects include: • Contamination of air, water and soil; • Disturbance of ecological balance – may create new viruses and hence new diseases; • Loss of biodiversity in crops – crop contamination and genetic pollution; • Creation of herbicide-resistant weeds, insect-resistant crops; • Increased use of chemicals on crops and hence increased contamination of our water supply and food. • There are already alternative and more sustainable ways of producing food, such as organic farming and Integrated Crop Management (ICM — a mixture of careful use of chemicals along with other pest control methods). Gene technology is merely another 'quick fix' — a solution that suits the commercial interests of big companies. The Politics • Who is determining the need for GE? The vigour with which large multinational companies are pursuing GE may hide the fact that in reality no one needs GM food except the companies investing in it. Is the only reason for its existence to increase profits? • Who decides what research gets done and who owns it? The ownership of GE technology will exacerbate the gap between those that 'have' (multinational companies) and those that 'haven't' (for example, the poor and the Third World), as has happened with other new technologies. • What opportunities are there for individual members of society to participate in decisions about GM food? The huge lobby by multinational companies to stop the labelling of GM food is just one indication of their power and their refusal to allow consumers to make a proper choice. In addition, the potential health effects of GM food can only be tracked with full, mandatory labelling. Their persistent lobby again-st labelling shows that companies investing in GE aren't interested in accountability. This is also seen in their lobby against other international initiatives with regard to movement and trade in GE products. • World hunger has little to do with inadequate production of food or poor quality food. The answers lie rather in redistribution of wealth, equity and power. The Ethics • Should we be tampering with genetic codes in the first place? Where will it stop? If laboratories and multinational companies are in control, how can we hope to have ethical issues safeguarded? • Many religious groups have expressed serious reservations about the ethics of interference in human or other organism's genes.
What is the situation now for Malaysians?
There is unfortunately relatively little discussion in this country whether within the media or elsewhere about GM food. The fact is that all the question marks about the process and the implications are relevant to all of us. There is an increasingly strong movement to reject GM food by consumers, manufacturers and retailers in the North. This comes from mounting evidence of the dangers of GM crops and food, doubts about supposed higher yields, growing public awareness of the potential risks and revelations of flawed regulatory systems in major producer countries. Yet the product is already made and so the companies will need to dump it somewhere and countries like ours, in the South, are the most likely dumping grounds. As things stand, it is unclear how Malaysians can know if they are consuming GM food. At the international level, the companies have blunted or curtailed strong action to track or control GM foods. Although there is now an international treaty that specifically regulates the transboundary movement of GE organisms and the exporter is obliged to give notice of a shipment and provide information for a risk assessment on the GMOs, the bulk of GMOs, including commodities for food, feed and processing, have been made exempt. We would do well to pressure for safeguards against the possible dangers of GM food and ensure the formation (and implementation) of a regulatory framework on GE as well as legislation to provide for mandatory labelling of GE products.
|