Environmental group vs biotech company
Transgenic food is big business
BBC
Tuesday, February 16, 1999 Published at 22:06 GMT
Controversy over genetically modified food is reaching
ever-greater heights.
We brought the two opposing sides of the GM argument
together in a head-to-head confrontation.
Dr Ian Taylor is the Scientific
Political Adviser for Greenpeace,
and Clive Rainbird is Biotechnology
Communications Manager for
manufacturers AgrEvo.
Click on the questions below to see
the views of manufacturers and ecologists on the issues
surrounding GM food production.
Do we need genetically modified food?
What are the effects on human health of eating it?
Should GM crops be subjected to clinical trials?
Some GM crops are designed to resist specific
powerful pesticides. Will the use of these pesticides
harm the environment?
Will pollen from GM crops land on non-GM plants and
create "superweeds"?
Is it wise to directly manipulate genes - for example
putting animal or bacterial genes into plants - rather than
letting nature take its course?
Isn't the whole exercise just a money-making ploy,
designed to make farmers reliant on particular providers
of seeds and pesticides?
Do we need genetically modified food?
Greenpeace: No - and in addition to not needing it, poll
after poll shows that the public does not want it.
There are two arguments put forward saying we do need
it - one is that we need GM food to feed the people of the
world - the other is that it is the way forward for British
and European agriculture.
The fact is that there is sufficient food in the world to
feed everyone. It is poverty and inequality which leads to
people not getting enough.
The production of GM food is
motivated by profit. As far as
agriculture in the UK and
Europe goes, all the
supposed benefits of GM
foods are completely
speculative, yet we know that
it is scientifically, quantifiably
proven that organic
agriculture is healthier.
AgrEvo: Yes. To maintain a
thriving countryside, natural
biodiversity must be
increased while allowing farmers to produce our good
and remain in business to prevent a collapse of country
life.
One way of achieving this without paying higher prices
required for organic production is, along with traditional
plant breeding, the adoption of GM technology.
The key benefits from this new technology are food
security - there is a need to double food supply by 2025
due to population increases, changes in diets and
natural disasters brought about by climate changes.
Less arable land will be available and there will be a
need to destroy more primary habitat unless technology
meets the challenge.
And environmentally, we can make agriculture more
sustainable by lowering pesticide use and by increasing
efficiency through producing higher yields. We need to
produce more food on less land and do so in a more
sustainable manner.
What are the effects on human health of
eating it?
Greenpeace: There is an enormous depth of scientific
ignorance and uncertainty about what the immediate or
long-term effects of placing GM foods into the food
chain.
Time after time the expert community has been proved
to be wrong, and the public is fairly sceptical of its
opinion.
Specific health concerns associated with GM foods have
included the development of soya using a gene from
Brazil nuts. The soya produced the allergic nut reaction.
This was removed because developers knew to look for
the allergy. But what about factors that are not even
known, and not looked for?
Another aspect is antibiotic
resistance. Some maizes
were developed to contain
antibacterial properties. If
those were to be transferred
to bacteria, they could
become resistant to
antibacterial drugs.
AgrEvo: No GM products are
allowed into the food chain if
there is any likelihood of
harm to human health. All
such products are, and have
been, subjected to stringent
regulation at both UK and pan-European levels. This
mean that we can have even greater confidence in the
safety of GM than non-GM food (non-GM foods are not
subject to the same level of scrutiny).
Safety assessments of GM foods are quite different from
those that were applied in the case of BSE which has
reduced the public's confidence in the regulatory
process. With BSE the assumption was that the public
would not be exposed to the hazard (BSE).
With GM foods it is assumed that the public will
ultimately consume it and it is the consequences of
exposure to them that are assessed so that these crops
are only licensed if they are shown to be safe.
Should GM crops be subject to clinical trials?
Greenpeace: At the moment we seem only to be
concerned with acute exposure to toxins - and we test
pharmaceutical products.
But we only ingest a small amount of drugs in a lifetime -
as opposed to tons of food.
AgrEvo: GM crops are
already subject to stringent
environmental regulations
that are designed to ensure
that no crop is licensed if it is
likely to be of harm to the
environment or to humans
who come into contact with
it.
It is the produce from the
crop that would be consumed
by humans that could be
considered for clinical trials.
However, it should be
realised that GM crops are completely different from
pharmaceuticals that are specifically designed to kill
micro-organisms and/or directly affect parts of the
human body.
GM crops are the same as non-GM crops except for one
or two genes out of 50 - 70,000 genes already present in
nature. For this reason there is no justification for
categorising them in the same way as highly active
drugs.
This is also the opinion of the US Food and Drug
Administration, one of the most stringent regulatory
authorities in the world. However, GM crops are
subjected, together with the food products in which they
are contained, to international food safety assessments.
Back to top
Some GM crops are designed to resist
specific powerful pesticides. Will the use of
these pesticides harm the environment?
Greenpeace: Broad spectrum herbicides kill every sort
of weed that may grow in a field.
You would not usually be able to use these pesticides
while your crops are growing, because it would kill them.
However, the patent on the herbicide Round Up is
running out and manufacturers have developed a plant
that is resistant to it.
The monetary gains for them are obvious, but in terms of
wildlife, all other plants will be banished from the fields at
all times of the year, and the animals which eat those
plants and rely on them, will no longer be able to do so.
Fields will become even more
of a desert than they already
are. Another aspect is that
crops which are engineered
to be poisonous to some
insects are being developed -
but there have been reports
from Canada which say that
they are also killing
lacewings - which
themselves are predators.
AgrEvo: The use of the term
"powerful pesticide" is
misleading, as they have no
more, often less effect on beneficial insects, wildlife and
the wider environment than the older products they
replace.
The perception that they are powerful arises from their
ability to control a wider range of weeds and weed sizes.
However, the ones currently being developed (glufosinate
ammonium and glyphosate) are biodegradable and do
not persist in the soil. Furthermore, in those countries
that have adopted these new crops, farmers and growers
are reporting a reduction in the amount of pesticide being
used. This clearly has major environmental benefits.
Back to top
"Will pollen from GM crops land on non-GM
plants and create "superweeds"?
Greenpeace: We have already seen reports, again from
Canada, that cross-pollination with remnants of non-GM
crops has occurred.
There is also the problem that resistance to herbicides
could transfer to weeds.
This could mean that the present cycle of pesticide use
that farmers find themselves in - where they use the
newest product, and then find in a couple of years that it
is no longer effective.
AgrEvo: Field studies have
shown that plants with one or
more new resistant genes
are just as easy to control by
chemical or cultural means
as plants bot bred to be
resistant to the specific
weedkillers.
Some pollen will spread from
GM crops but independent
studies have shown that this
only occurs at a very low
level at distances greater
than 10 metres.
But even if this does happen, what advantage will this
plant have over the natural population? These plants will
not be "superweeds", they are simply tolerant to one
specific weedkiller and, if they need to be controlled,
they will be susceptible to many other weedkillers and
cultural methods designed to kill the weed.
This does not imply any increase in the use of weedkiller
because these weeds still need to be controlled, whether
or not a GM crop is being grown.
Back to top
Is it wise to directly manipulate genes - for
example putting animal or bacterial genes into
plants - rather than letting nature take its
course?
Greenpeace: In terms of releasing GMOs into the food
chain and the environment, the potential for unpredicted
and adverse effects is enormous.
It is already known that when exotic species are
released into an environment, the consequences can be
disastrous. Rabbits in Australia was a disaster, as were
certain types of fish introduced to Lake Victoria.
People thought there would not be a problem, but there
was. That problem is exacerbated very much if we are
dealing with a very unpredictable technology in the first
place.
In some cases, you are not
even dealing with gene
transference from the same
kingdom, let alone the same
species.
If you are dealing with any
other sort of pollution, there
is some mechanism for
product recall. With chemical
pollution, the substance will
have some form of half life,
but here we are dealing with
self-replicating, biological
pollutants.
AgrEvo: Almost identical genes have been found in
plants and in animals showing their commonplace
inheritance during evolution and, in a few instances,
implying that there are natural mechanisms that transfer
genes between unrelated species.
The techniques used to transfer genes are often naturally
occurring, eg, the Agrobacterium mediated
transformation which utilises the ability of soil bacterium
to transfer some of its genes to plant roots that live
alongside it.
The public needs to be assured that no human or animal
genes have been used in any of the GM crops that are
currently being commercially grown anywhere in the
world.
While the use of genes may be part of a research
project, any crops resulting from it would have to be
approved, before they could be grown, by the stringent
regulatory authorities already in place. The regulators
consider ethical and safety issues relating to human
health and the environment.
Back to top
Is not the whole exercise just a money-making
ploy, designed to make farmers reliant on
particular providers of seed and pesticides?
Greenpeace: There is a scientific fascination in the
analysis of this technology - it offers fascinating
experimental potential. But, this is being promoted by
organisations that exist to generate money - not to feed
the earth.
Their development of things like terminator technology,
where seeds produce plants which do not themselves
produce seeds, is purely in the interests of financial
gain.
They are trying to get a monopoly on food. I do not think
that this is a healthy trajectory for agriculture in the UK,
let alone the rest of the world.
AgrEvo: This technology has the potential to improve
the efficiency of agriculture and to allow sustainable food
production into the 21st Century.
Development of this technology requires major
investment and the companies who decide to become
involved will need to get a return on their investment.
Its goal, to improve currently available food, is the same
as that of the traditional, long-established techniques of
crop breeding.
The major difference is the ability to overcome the
inefficiencies of traditional cross breeding and selection.
We now have the ability to move precise genetic
characteristics from one species to another.
This will improve the quality of food produced and reduce
the amount of chemicals used to protect these crops
from weeds, pests and diseases. In practice, farmers will
be no more reliant than they currently are on companies
developing and selling new varieties.
Farmers will continue to have the choice to purchase
non-GM varieties from a wide range of suppliers.
news.bbc.co.uk |
