On-Demand Supplier Webinar
Application note
Application note
Strengthen tortillas during manufacturing with gum systems
TIC gums
Not as simple as 'for' or 'against'
Whether you are ‘pro’ or ‘anti’ genetic engineering has become a divisive political issue, but remember that we are talking about technology; it shouldn’t be an ideology.
Last week, BASF said it would stop seeking European regulatory approval for three genetically modified (GM) potato varieties, citing ‘uncertainty in the regulatory environment’. After a decade of research, it’s going elsewhere.
It was a decision welcomed by anti-GM campaigners. Jubilation exploded on various internet forums. But I think it’s a sad indictment of the scientific climate in Europe, when a company that’s invested millions to produce potatoes that are resistant to late blight – a major potato crop disease – is driven out of Europe because regulators can’t decide what to do about divisions in public and political opinion.
In the balance
Genetic engineering shouldn’t be a political issue, no matter how much sci-fi-sensitive individuals might be reminded of the plot from The Day of the Triffids. Plants can be engineered in many ways, and their potential benefits should be balanced with an assessment of their potential detriments – no matter what the technology.
Meanwhile, new GM crops are carefully considered by safety assessors around the world, including by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which, if you’ve been paying attention to its work on health claims, has an excellent record of telling the industry to go back to the drawing board if the science isn’t solid enough.
From my perspective, the reaction from many people on internet forums underlines the need for better science education, not necessarily around genetic engineering, but in order to be better critical consumers of scientific knowledge. In other words, don’t believe everything you’re told.
‘Toxic genes’
Some of the GM conversations I’ve followed over the past week have included phrases like “toxic genes”, “plants that have their genes manipulated to include a pesticide”, and the cartoonish “Frankenfood”. These are inaccuracies at best. Nevertheless, it is the blanket negative viewpoint about all GM foods that bothers me most, one that fails to consider application of the technology.
Opposing GM crops because of the technology itself makes as much sense to me as forsaking computers for fear of a Terminator-type scenario. The machines might stilltake over the world.
Problems with GM
Do I think there are concerning issues in GM agriculture? Absolutely. I don’t like that some companies restrict farmers from saving their seeds from one harvest for the next, or that there is a relatively small number of companies in charge of a large and growing chunk of the food supply.
However, these are concerns that can, and should, be dealt with through legal mechanisms. They are concerns that are independent from safety. Crop safety should be left to highly specialised scientific experts.
I’m not one of them, so I say, no, I am not explicitly anti-GM. Nor am I explicitly pro-GM. I don’t see why I should be either.
P.S. Eating is risky. Certain applications of genetic modification may be risky too. But I also think it is risky to close a door on a whole area of research and innovation.
Since some readers are sure to ask, here’s a list of about 600 studies from peer-reviewed publications that analyse the relative risks of GM crops.
17 comments (Comments are now closed)
It's about technology
Great article!
Don't bash the technology, because irresponsible people are misusing it. Anything ever invented can be misused...
While food industry, and technologists are under constant pressure of the consumers to produce better looking, better tasting, longer lasting food, for increasing number of people; constantly are tools that could help being vilified.
It is time to make an objective assessment of the GM technology, before it is discarded as "being evil".
Report abuse
Posted by Marko Schmitlechner
12 February 2013 | 11h34
Crop Diversity
I have yet to see any advocates for GMO crops address the issue of diminished diversity. Any of the seed crops - notable in the US being corn, soy and wheat, are cross fertilized via wind, insects, a birds.
The fact is that seed crops everywhere all adapt to the micro climate in which they are grown and this creates increased yield and allows farmers to select and save seed fo heartier species. They use of GM seed and it's subsequent cross pollination flattens this particular spike of adaptation.
The Irish potato famine is a great example of the negative side effects of reducing the gene pool.
GM crops appear to be a road to the destruction of the very successful and efficient role of "survival of the fittest". It make no sense to reduce the number of sensibly evolved seeds normally created by the millions of farmers and unknown numbers of micro climates and unique soils world wide. Nor does it make sense to allow a couple of companies to control the food supply.
Bottom line - It is not about feeding people or "science", it is about making money.
Science can be used for all sorts of things - GM seeds are not the best use of science or of scientific brains.
Report abuse
Posted by Gay Timmons
07 February 2013 | 15h53
RTK
I don't understand, if after all the research proving GMO seeds, crops, ingredients, and foods are safe, why aren't the companies, which are promoting, marketing and/or selling GMO foods, proudly showing this on a label?
Report abuse
Posted by Half-Crazed Runner
06 February 2013 | 18h33
Cross pollination - author correction
This article originally suggested that farmers had had to defend themselves in court after their fields were inadvertently pollinated by patented crops. In fact, courts have never upheld this claim.
Report abuse
Posted by Caroline Scott-Thomas
06 February 2013 | 17h51
Genetic Engineering
No industry is self-policing. Therefore we need a long term view of watching the effects of gene manipulation. I am celiac with no prior family history of the disease. When a wheat seed goes from having 8 genes to 40 genes and some of genes are specifically for anti pest control, I believe that the gene manipulation and celiac are connected. Are there long term studies on the affects of these genetic modifications before they enter the food supply for public consumption?
Report abuse
Posted by G. Garfield
06 February 2013 | 17h10
Food Hysteria
Food Hysteria is a big problem in regards to issues surrounding food/ag science and food/ag industries at large.
Activists, who feel they are doing the right thing, spread misinformation and scare others into their cause. Unfortunately, these activists are all pawns of the groups spreading the misinformation as more members and more angry people brings them more credibility and ultimately, more money.
It will never matter how much research is done. 600 studies and over 25 yrs already isn't enough. The real answer is science literacy so people don't fall under the spell of the Mercola, Natural News, and CSPI's of the world.
Report abuse
Posted by Sam Vance
06 February 2013 | 01h33
Ideology works both ways
Supporters of GM technology can be just as ideological when they insist that GMOs are necessary to "feed the world" and trash alternatives such as organic or agroecological farming methods.
When studies are published showing possible negative health or environmental impacts of GM technology, the researchers conducting the studies are usually viciously attacked by pro-GMO supporters.
Is it because this type of research undermines their scientific paradigm that GMOs are safe?
Aren't GM supporters being as ideological as anti-GM supporters? I would say yes.
Report abuse
Posted by Ken Roseboro
04 February 2013 | 21h45
We'll need to evolve to accommodate our technologies
Perhaps some highly allergic individuals will react to GM foods. But we must create technologies to address the food needs of our still-expanding global population. It's likely that GM foods will cause some health challenges, but so does starvation. The anti-GM population is calling for years of safety testing and massive infrastructure change; we don't have time for it. We must move forward despite some collateral damage.
If you read that far, hopefully you caught that it was dripping with sarcasm. I'm a highly allergic individual myself. In all pragmatic seriousness, the pro-GM set hopes that people like me eventually fade away (die off). My guess is that we're canaries in the coal mine though. Large scale evolution occurs over millions of years. The human species is STILL adjusting to its broad adoption of grain-consumption 10,000 years ago. GM companies want to introduce a massive change to the proteins of all staple foods in a matter of decades. Do the math.
The human immune system will not have time to adjust to the large scale modifications to food proteins... Plus many modified and chemically nourished foods grow very well in nutritionally poor soils. That seems a selling point till you consider that these foods can look healthy while not providing the mineral base that the body needs.
We've already seen an increase in osteoporosis, diabetes and heart disease among cultures that adopt Western diets--and that's simply due to a shift toward more processed food. Can we spend the next 20 years doing research into truly sustainable and healthy approaches for addressing the food crisis? It's vital that we set aside short-term greed and think long-term right now--both nutritionally and economically--especially for the developing world.
Report abuse
Posted by Anna Bjorklund
04 February 2013 | 21h17
the conversation and research must continue
I laud Caroline for keeping the conversation going on this issue. Food is one of the primary killers and healers in this era and we need understanding, to move forward safely.
A major concern with GMO is long term safety and association with chronic disease, which has not been resolved. However to first clarify an opinion from the article, is that the most abundant GM crop Bt Corn, does indeed produce a pesticide called Cry1AB toxin, which is expressed by a bacterial gene (Bacillus thuringiensis) that was added to the Bt Corn genome, and is found in human plasma from exposure to GM foods.
The long term safety of this toxin is not understood, a 2012 study on human cells concluded " In these results, we argue that modified Bt toxins are not inert on nontarget human cells, and that they can present combined side-effects with other residues of pesticides specific to GM plants"
Finally the most compelling and plausible threat from GM is the potential that the modified genes are taken up by intestinal bacteria, and then expressed continuously in our guts! Do we all need to be round-up ready? Or full of Cry1Ab? And will Monsanto claim we all have their IP in our feces, and pay royalties? (feces are 30% by weight, bacteria)
These are real risks and need to be addressed!
Report abuse
Posted by Marco Aurilio
04 February 2013 | 20h47
Adverse health effects
I'm opposed to unlabeled GM foods, because I have adverse health reactions to them. Severe stomach pains, among other serious reactions. I've had to avoid them for many years, and were getting sick from GM foods, before I even knew they existed. I have Celiac, food and environmental allergies, so it may not be too surprising that I can't tolerate the adulterated GM foods. However, my husband has never had allergies or intolerances, but has been getting reactions from eating some products that contain GMOs. Canola oil gives him giant hives, every time he eats foods that have even trace amounts. So, for those of us who have allergies or intolerance to GMOs, our concerns should not be dismissed, or ignored. GMOs are certainly not safe for everyone. Considering the amount of people who have already become allergic to corn and soy, and the allergies to them and others are skyrocketing at an alarming rate, perhaps GMOs are not safe for anyone. Add to that, the amount of people with serious stomach and digestive issues. Nobody seems to see a pattern there? Don't look, don't find, I guess.
Report abuse
Posted by DJ
04 February 2013 | 19h23
Nice article
Caroline, that is a great article. I think it is important to realise that most people are probably open to the technology, but are bullied by a loud shouting minority. The rather agressive anti-GM, anti company, anti business comments we sometimes see are from a very very small group of not very bright people (because otherwise they would write better). Such loud shouting minority needs to be compensated by a more outreaching attitude of the scientists. In this respect it is a shame that seed companies have made important blunders, like trying to prevent clear labelling of GM products. This made it look as if GM was suspicious. The wrong message when you want to introduce something new to the market. I always argued for labelling because it sends a much better message: "This product is good for you because it is GM". I have personally eaten a GM tomato with reduced pectinase levels, beautiful red colour and sweetness, yet maintaining the bite because the pectins aren't digested. That product could be advertised positively: "No need for modified starch as emulsifier/thickener, GM tomato have enough natural pectins to make a smooth ketchup!" If you don't tell people why something is good, why should they buy and eat it? It is also a shame that GM crops are mainly focussing on crop protection rather than manufacturing new products. Potatoes with increased protein content, or rice with increased vitamin content are not only easier to engineer but it is easy to see that you would not get such specific traits by accident (hoping for natural mutations). The scientific community needs to come up with more success-stories before the tide will turn, and the technology needs to be much better advertised.
Report abuse
Posted by Jurgen Denecke
04 February 2013 | 18h38
Knowledge
The question that comes up for me is that of knowledge. I would like to know if the food that I am buying contains or is made from GMO. We need to be able to make a choice. Whether that choice is rational or not, whether that choice is scientifically based or not, if I don't want to purchase or eat something made from or containing GMOs, that's my choice. I don't know why the companies who generate GMOs would want us, the public, not to know and to disallow us to make that choice and also to lie about the cost to the farmer. As usual it seems to be a matter of profit for the company. They know that the public in general, right or wrong, doesn't want to eat GMOs but they have chosen to withhold the information from the public and the heck with what the public wants to do or wants to know.
Report abuse
Posted by Carlo Silvestri
04 February 2013 | 18h23
Author response
Considering that this slur often comes up, I initially had a line in the article making it clear that I am not accepting sweaty brown envelopes of cash to write this commentary - but decided it wasn't necessary considering the criticisms I put forward, and the fact that I say I'm not pro or anti-GM.
To clarify, no cash changed hands and I'm not doing favours for chums in the industry. These are my opinions.
Report abuse
Posted by Caroline Scott-Thomas
04 February 2013 | 16h38
Patented Unique DNA (proteins) =Allergy Stimuli
Creating plants that withstand poisoning and that can deliver bug killer....something not normally part of the food supply, present as a unique organism (humans have never-before been exposed to them) and likely cause an immune system response or allergic symptoms. They may be small, large or imperceptible but that likelihood of their causing some distress is high. GMOs are engineered for agronomic effects not for human nutrition. An examination of the GMO patents will show that the majority of claims refer to the organisms as "commodity plant product" rather than health supplement.
Report abuse
Posted by Nathan Lane
04 February 2013 | 16h32
We have to wonder whose payroll the author is on
Monsanto, lied to D.o.D. in VietNam and swore that "Agent Orange" would only kill vines. The tiger hasn't changed his stripes. Monsanto's goal is to control the food supply in (at minimum) the U.S. He who forgets his history? ....
Report abuse
Posted by John C. Campbell III
04 February 2013 | 16h18
Market control and patents for seeds
The author fails to comment about the trend to market monopoly through patents for genetic engeneering of crop seeds, lobbying at governmental agencies, and failure on the part of biotech industries to disclose full facts about research affecting human and animal health and the environment, among other non-sustainable and ethical aspects. Regulation is good, provided it is for the public interest and not private companies'interest.
Report abuse
Posted by Augusto Freire
04 February 2013 | 15h43
Balanced artice
Nice balanced article Caroline
Report abuse
Posted by Butch Johnson
04 February 2013 | 15h01
Read all comments (17)