GM food: harmful or helpful

Source: SBS Chiara Pazzano

19 March 2010
12: 59:02 PM

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 organizations, 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?