Genetically Modified Foods

 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;
 An apple with a vaccine against a virus that causes childhood pneumonia.

These are some of the benefits promised by biotechnology. The debate over its benefits and
safety, however, continues. Do we really need to fear mutant weeds, killer tomatoes, and
giant corn and will the benefits be delivered?

Conventional breeding is a slow, unpredictable process.

Desired GM organisms can be bred in one generation.

Conventional Breeding versus Genetically Modified (GM) Crops

For thousands of years farmers have used a process of selection and cross breeding to
continually improve the quality of crops. Even in nature, plants and animals selectively breed,
thus ensuring the optimum gene pool for future generations. Traditional breeding methods
are slow, requiring intensive labour: while trying to get a desirable trait in a bred species,
undesirable traits will appear and breeders must continue the process over and over again
until all the undesirables are bred out.

In contrast, organisms acquire one specific gene or a few genes together through genetic
modification, without other traits included and within a single generation. However, this
technology too is inherently unpredictable and some scientists believe it can produce
potentially dangerous results unless better testing methods are developed.

“The Fallacy of Equating Gene-Splicing With Traditional Breeding: Traditional breeding is

based on sexual reproduction between like organisms. The transferred genes are similar to
genes in the cell they join. They are conveyed in complete groups and in a fixed sequence
that harmonizes with the sequence of genes in the partner cell. In contrast, bioengineers
isolate a gene from one type of organism and splice it haphazardly into the DNA of a
dissimilar species, disrupting its natural sequence. Further, because the transplanted gene is
foreign to its new surroundings, it cannot adequately function without a big artificial boost.

Bio technicians 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 behaviour 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.”11

Even genes from bacteria can be used to engineer crops.

One of the main differences between conventional and genetically modified crops is that the
former involves crosses either within species or between very closely related species. GM
crops can have genes either from closely related species or from distant species, even
bacteria and viruses. A typical example of a GM crop in the market in Australia is cotton
known as Ingard.6 this cotton has a gene from a naturally occurring soil bacterium known
as Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). The BT gene renders the cotton resistant to the heliothis
caterpillar, a major threat to the cotton industry. In this example, an appropriate and
selected gene (in a construct containing a promoter, transcription terminator, selection
marker, etc. genes) was inserted into the cotton; unlike in conventional breeding where not
only the appropriate gene was inherited in breeding but other genes as well.10

60% of U.S. grocery food contains GM ingredients.

When combining two crops using standard agricultural techniques, genes are allowed to mix
at random. A typical example is Triticale, a synthetic hybrid between wheat and rye grown in
Europe, which is the result of combining 50,000 largely untested genes, 25,000 from each
species.10 GM crops, in contrast, have specific genes inserted to produce the same desired
effect.

Biotech plants are now grown on about 130 million acres in 13 countries, including Argentina,
Canada, and Germany. In 2001, 3.6 million acres were used for GM crops in the U.S. More
than 60% of all processed foods in the U.S. contain ingredients from GM soybeans, corn, or
canola.1

Benefits: one side of the debate

Growing GM crops is initially costly but cheaper in the long run.

Economical 
GM supporters tell farmers that they stand to reap enormous profits from growing GM crops.
Initially, the cost is expensive but money is saved on pesticides. To produce the GM crops,
modern biotechnology is used which requires highly skilled people and sophisticated and
expensive equipment.7 large companies need considerable investments in laboratories,
 equipment and human resources, hence the reason why GM crops are more expensive for
farmers than traditional crops. GM crops, farmers are told, are a far better option. It takes a
shorter time to produce the desired product, it is precise and there are no unwanted genes.

Farmers need less herbicides in GM fields.

Herbicide-resistant crops 
So what other advantages do GM crops hold for farmers? GM crops can be produced to be
herbicide resistant. This means that farmers could spray these crops with herbicide and kill
the weeds, without affecting the crop. In effect, the amount of herbicide used in one season
would be reduced, with a subsequent reduction in costs for farmers and consumers. For
Ingard cotton, pest resistance was built into the cotton, hence reducing and even removing
the use of pesticides, which are not only expensive but, more importantly, harmful to the
environment.

Biotechnology companies are even experimenting with crops that can be genetically modified
to be drought and salt-tolerant or less reliant on fertilizer, opening up new areas to be
farmed and leading to increased productivity. However, the claims of less herbicide usage
with GM crops have till now not been independently supported by facts.

Better quality foods 

Even animals can be genetically modified to be leaner, grow faster, and need less food. They
could be modified to have special characteristics, such as greater milk production in cows.
These modifications again lead to improved productivity for farmers and ultimately lower
costs for the consumer. Modified crops could perhaps prevent outbreaks such as foot and
mouth disease, which has devastated many farmers and local economies.

No safety studies have been done on GM salmon.

No such products have been released to date; however, some are under consideration for
release. For example, GM salmon, capable of growing almost 30 times faster than natural
salmon, may soon be approved by the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) in the U.S. for
release into open waters without a single study on the impact on human health or the
environment.5

The following are some examples of food plants that are undergoing field trials: 10

 apples that resist insect attack

 bananas free of viruses and worm parasites
 coffee with a lower caffeine content
 cabbage that resists caterpillar attacks
 melons that have a longer shelf life
 sunflowers that produce oil with lower saturated fat
 Risks: the other side of the debate

The major concerns of those who oppose GM foods centre on the:

 potential danger to the environment

 possible health risks to humans

Environmental damage 
The problem with GM crops is that there is little known about what effect they will have in,
say, 20 years time. The genetic structure of any living organism is complex and GM crop
tests focus on short-term effects. Not all the effects of introducing a foreign gene into the
intricate genetic structure of an organism are tested. Will the pests that a crop was created to
resist eventually become resistant to this crop?

Will herbicide resistance pass on to weeds?

Then there is always the possibility that we may not be able to destroy GM crops once they
spread into the environment. 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.7 This was discovered when farmers attempted to destroy the crop in
Britain, France and the Netherlands, where it was being tested, and 0.5% of the crop
survived.7 More noxious herbicides had to be used to remove the remainder of the plantation.
What if this herbicide resistance passed on to weeds?

The Skylark and the Monarch butterfly were affected by GM crops.

Risk to food web 

A further complication is that the pesticide produced in the crop may unintentionally harm
creatures. 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.4

GM crops may also pose a health risk to native animals that eat them. The animals may be
poisoned by the built-in pesticides. Tests in the U.S. showed that 44% of caterpillars of the
monarch butterfly died when fed large amounts of pollen from GM corn.8

Will genes from GM plants transfer to other organisms?

Cross-pollination 
Cross-pollination is a concern for both GM crops and conventional breeding, especially with
the more serious weeds that are closely related to the crops. With careful management this
may be avoided. For example, there is a type of maize that will not breed with other strains
and scientists are hoping that it could help to prevent cross-pollination. 3 Genetic modification
to herbicide resistant crops could insert the gene that prevents the problem. The number of
herbicide-tolerant weeds has increased over the years from a single report in 1978 to the 188
herbicide-tolerant weed types in 42 countries reported in 1997. 6 They are an ever-increasing
problem and genetic engineering promises to stop it. But will genes from GM plants spread to
other plants, creating superweeds and superbugs we won’t be able to control?

The taco scandal in the U.S. heightened awareness of GM risks.

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 U.S., where traces
of a StarLink GM crop, restricted for use only in feed, were found in taco shells. 2 Apparently
no one became ill but other such occurrences may lead to health problems.

Allergies and toxins 

Very little scientific information exists about the risk of GM food on human health. One major
report by Dr. Arpad Pusztai, published on this web site, explains how GM foods could trigger
new allergies and contain toxins that may be harmful. 9

Will GM food increase the problems with resistance to antibiotics?

Disease 
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? Marker genes are used by scientists to determine whether their
genetic modification of a plant was successful. Will these antibiotic-resistant genes be
transferred to microorganisms that cause disease? We already have a problem with
ineffective antibiotics. How can we develop new drugs to fight these new bugs?

My view on this topic:

Until further studies can show that GM foods and crops do not pose serious threats to human
health or the world’s ecosystems, the debate over their release will continue. Living
organisms are complex and tampering with their genes may have unintended effects. It is in
our common interest to support concerned scientists and organizations, such as Friends of
the Earth who demand “mandatory labelling of these food products, independent testing for
safety and environmental impacts, and liability for harm to be assumed by biotech
companies”