The
boogeyman du jour is genetically engineered (or genetically modified)
crops. Opponents of this agricultural technique usually have no idea
how genetic engineering actually works, and resort to argumentative
methods that appeal to emotion and castrate reason. Critical thinking
is non-existent. Instead of looking at the facts first, and then
forming a conclusion; the conclusion comes first, and the search for
evidence to support the conclusion ensues.
The
latest push with regard to GM crops is the call for government
regulations to require labeling. On the surface, this seems
reasonable enough. After all, we have the right to know what we're
eating, right? Never mind that most proponents of labeling don't trust the
government any more than they trust corporations. Never mind that
most of these folks are against more government regulation and favor
the free market.
Another
claimed goal of the labeling proponents is education. Maybe we should
demand that our schools educate students about GM crops. It is in
this spirit of education that I offer the following facts regarding
genetically engineered crops.
Every
living organism on this planet has been genetically modified. It is
the engine of evolution. Mistakes sometimes occur naturally when a
cell copies its DNA in preparation for cell division. DNA can also
mutate in response to a natural environmental agent; ultraviolet
light from sunshine or an unfamiliar chemical. Most of these
mutations don't last because the genetic modification is not
beneficial to the organism's survival. Beneficial modifications do
survive, and result in a new or altered trait in an organism.
This is natural selection.
Every
crop that we eat has been modified by man with techniques
such as selective breeding, tree grafting, vine splicing,
and cross-breeding.
Using these techniques,
large amounts of genetic material are passed between plants. Because the number of genes introduced is large and uncontrolled, it is difficult to develop specific characteristics without
incorporating other unwanted ones. It's trial and error. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't.
With
modern genetic modification, the process is more precise. Instead of
combining entire genomes (thousands of genes) and hoping for the
best, modern techniques allow us to identify a specific gene and the
specific trait it is responsible for. That single gene
can then be introduced to produce the same trait in another plant.
The chances of unintended consequences are reduced, and the results
are more predictable.
Think
of it this way. Say you were making soup and
you wanted it to be more garlicky. You randomly add many different
spices and, after throwing away several batches, you hit upon a
combination that works. This is how traditional breeding works. On
the other hand, say you taste the spices first, and then add the one
that tastes like garlic. Not only will you achieve your intended
results on the first try, but you won't have any flavor that
you don't want. This is modern genetic modification, also called
precision breeding.
Let's
look at an example that's been in the news lately. Mon810, a variety
of corn, has an introduced gene that produces a specific protein that
is toxic to certain pests. This gene comes from bacillus
thuringiensis, commonly called BT. BT products are sold in most
garden centers, and have been used safely since the 1920s by organic
farmers and others to reduce insecticide use and control caterpillars
and leaf beetles. Local governments have used BT products to control
mosquitoes and gypsy moths without the use of chemicals.
Because
of the genetic modification, Mon810 does not require pesticides. This
same gene has been used with cotton, soybeans, and other crops. From
1996-2005, the first years of BT cotton and corn production,
insecticide use decreased by 70 million pounds.
There
are many other crops that have benefited from modern genetic
modification: virus-resistant tobacco and tomatoes, herbicide
resistant crops that reduce the need for tilling and reduce soil
erosion, Golden Rice which provides vitamin A for populations with a
vitamin A deficiency, flood tolerant rice used in flood prone
southeast Asia, sunflowers resistant to white mold, salt tolerant
tomatoes that can be grown in salty soil, and ringspot virus
resistant papaya, just to name a few.
The
bottom line, to me, we should let our decisions be guided by reason,
logic, and science; not by fear, frenzy, and ignorance.
This stance is, at best, an uneducated one, and it will only take me a few minutes to completely dissemble this highly subjective, ill-informed argument.
ReplyDeleteWhat you describe as the 'age old tradition of genetic modification' (selective breeding, horticulture) is a non-invasive process conducted at a macroscopic level. It is another animal entirely to transform DNA at a microscopic level through the use of protoplasts. The 'newness' of this method is not, in itself, does not play into, as you put it, the ‘fear, frenzy and ignorance’ of gaggles of kainotophobic peasants. The concern is that this method is not new - it is the same method that has been used by viruses for at least as long as we have been studying them.
Genetic modification in its present state relies upon the following method: 1) Utilization of a virus to open the cell wall, 2) Injecting the cell with new genetic material (genes from bacteria and viruses new to the human food supply). 3) Closing up and going home. Wait - did we forget something? Yes, we forgot to close the cell. Oh right - we cannot do that, with today's biological technology. This literally 'leaves the door open' for the real bogeyman: infectious agents and cell mutation. So we have just enough technology to wreck a brilliant evolutionary system, and not enough to clean up after ourselves.
In refutation to the ‘evolution is genetic modification that retains effective cell mutations’ argument:
What is beneficial to the organism may not be beneficial to the environment. This is not inherently bad – it sponsors competition (and sometimes cooperation) in an ecosystem that has co-evolved simultaneous to this organism over centuries/millennia (depending on the scale of this mutation). However, when a genetic anomaly is introduced into an ecosystem that has not evolved alongside this organism, the effects can be catastrophic. In the case of genetically modified corn, the GM strain coexists in fields alongside the non-GM variety (untreated or otherwise) and all of its predators. These predators are developing an increasing resistance to pesticide (possibly due to ingestion of pesticide-producing organisms – consider the milkweed beetle and monarch butterfly) and hence the amount of Roundup applied to agricultural fields. Recent research conducted by the Denmark and Greenland Geological Research Institution discovered that Roundup used in Danish agriculture is unexpectedly polluting ground water with glyphosate at five times the acceptable level. The results of this study came as a surprise, because research provided by Monsanto indicated that soil bacteria broke down glyphosate before it reached the groundwater. The extent of groundwater pollution is probably significantly worse in the U.S. where the commercial planting of GE Roundup-resistant crops is legal, in addition to the Round-up treated conventional crops found in Denmark.
As for your supposed ‘precision breeding’ – the original argument was that the environmental hazards were irrelevant because Mon810 (brought to us by the creators of Agent Orange and DDT) was designed to be infertile. Several years later, this was no longer presumed to be true, as soaring numbers of rural, private farms were sued and shut down upon discovery that Mon810 was breeding in their fields. Some precision!