Genetically Modified Foods: Boon or Bane?

11/13/2011 By Alan Brooks

(sometimes) limited amount of genetic variation in the plants (or animals) in order to cultivate a trait like disease resistance.

The concern among anti-GMO groups is that these modifications will have unintended or dangerous There is a lot of controversy today over genetically results for the environment and for humans. modified organisms (GMOs) within many political groups. The technology itself is not inherently more risky than breeding plants via natural genetic variation. GMO is a recent classification for crops and The key issue is not the technology, but what animals that is a result of the groundbreaking humans do with the technology. Using natural research in DNA sequencing, evolution, and genetic variation, we could create crops with high genetics. levels of toxic compounds (which are common in wild plants but normally bred out of modern In the 1980's, advances in transgenic technology varieties). Doing so would be senseless and allowed scientists to graft DNA segments from one certainly risky. But, we cannot say that using the organism into another. age-old technology of selecting on natural genetic variation is inherently bad. Likewise, we could use One of the pioneers in this field is Dr. Steven transgenic technology to develop plants with traits Tanksley, Professor Emeritus in the Department of undesirable or dangerous to humans. Technology Plant Breeding & Genetics at Cornell University. (including GMO technology) is not inherently good or bad. Rather we should judge what we do with His research led the way in developing food crops technology, says Tanksley. that were resistant to drought, disease, and pests and contained higher levels of certain nutrients and The FDA's stance on GMOs is very moderate. In ultimately culminated in him being awarded the their 1999 brief to Congress on the potential risks prestigious Wolf Prize in Agriculture in 2004. of genetically modifying foods they said: Humans began genetically modifying plants (and animals) approximately 10,000 years ago... For example, the wild progenitor of the tomato produces a fruit about the size of blueberry. Over time, by selecting plants with larger fruit, early humans succeeded in creating a genetically modified plant that produces the large fruit we now think of as the tomato, says Tanksley. The difference between that earlier genetic modification and the methods we use now is the technique that researchers use. Instead of painstakingly cross-pollinating crops by hand and using trial and error over many generations to achieve the desired result (as people used to do) scientists can now add DNA directly into the organism that they want to alter. This means that we don't have to rely on the [The] FDA's process for evaluating bioengineered foods is one in which the public can have confidence that food biotechnology products must meet the law's safety standards. [The] FDA's 1992 policy statement and our guidance documents make clear that premarket clearance is required if there is scientific uncertainty about the safety of food derived from bioengineered plants. The policy also makes clear that labeling will be required if the composition of the genetically modified food differs significantly from what is expected for that food, or if the genetically modified food contains potential allergens. And, according to FDA spokesperson Siobhan DeLancey, the FDA has taken a very laisse faire approach to regulating the development of GM foods. [B]iotech plants are subject to voluntary

consultation. In either case, as with conventional and/or ignoring the conclusions of the scientists foods and dietary supplements, manufacturers are who conducted the studies. responsible for marketing a safe product and face possible enforcement action if they do not meet thatWhile Mr. Smith has an understandable concern standard, she said. about the safety of food and it is good that someone is willing to question the status quo, the facts FDA is neither pro- nor anti- genetic engineering. cannot be ignored; and the fact is that there is no The technology has existed in the research setting scientific evidence of any serious risks associated for many years, and will continue to exist. FDA's with genetically modified foods. goal is to ensure that these products are evaluated to the best of our regulatory authority, said Mr. Smith said that he would like to see labels on DeLancey. GM foods so that consumers can choose which foods they want to eat and he suggested that freeThe opponents of GM foods are a loud, but small market choice could drive BM food producers out group and their ranks are notably bereft of of business. scientists, academics, and researchers. That's not an unreasonable stance, and many Probably the best-known anti-GMO advocate is companies that sell non-GM products are adding Jeffery Smith, a self-published author from Iowa. labels that advertise that fact and consumers should educate themselves on the products that they buy He has written two books on the subject of genetic and remember the old Libertarian nee Roman modification and frequently blogs about the saying Caveat Emptor. dangers of GM foods. Despite that, it looks like GM foods aren't going His stance is basically that the scientists who anywhere anytime soon. They have been such an modify these plants can't possibly predict how the incredible boon in Africa, Asia, and the Middle changes will affect the plants (or the people that eat East (and for American farmers) that GM research them) and that many of the modifications made to will continue to be profitable for many years to plants have been very harmful to humans, animals, come. and other plants. Dr. Tanksley summed up the issue: The reality is The process [of genetic modification] creates that the worlds population is continuing to grow. massive collateral damage in the plant DNA, said Our challenge is to meet world food demands Smith. The only human feeding study ever without totally destroying the environment on conducted showed that genes from soy transferred which our future survival depends. Transgenic to the DNA of bacteria living inside our intestines technology offers us one more tool by which we and continued to function. hope to meet this challenge. A check of the study that Mr. Smith is referencing, published in the Journal of Nature Biotechnology in 2004, revealed a slightly different conclusion. The authors of the report explicitly stated: ...we conclude that gene transfer did not occur during the feeding experiment. This seems to be a recurring theme for the former swing-dance instructor who has made similar claims in his books and fact-checks have shown that he was taking pieces of reports out of context