GM Food and Crops

By Gaian

In the last ten years, the media has been full of issues and debates surrounding science's latest craze: The genetic modification of food and crops. But even after so much time and research, nobody can totally agree as to whether genetic modification is good or bad. In fact, a MORI poll in 1998 showed that 77% of people want a ban on GM food until it has been properly explored, and 61% of people did not want to eat GM food or food containing GM products.

One of the problems when debating such an issue is that often, people do not know exactly what genetic modification is or what it involves. Most people see it as scientists grafting a human ear onto a mouse, but this isn't always the case. There are three types of GM: Wide Transfer, where genes are moved between organisms in separate kingdoms of life, e.g. Antifreeze from Antarctic deep sea fish being put into strawberries; Close Transfer, where genes are transferred between organisms within the same kingdom of life, e.g. Movement of traits between plants that are closely related, such as the movement of herbicide resistant genes that appeared in wild population of oilseed rape into domesticated varieties; Finally, there is Tweaking, where there is an alteration of the levels of activities of genes already present within an organism, for example, 'tweaking' a cow's genes to make it produce more milk.

It is also useful to understand the other uses of GM in food and crops. The three most common uses are 'Herbicide Intolerance', where the crops are made more resistant to herbicide which can then be used on unwanted plants such as weeds. This way, a farmer can weed his crop fields without worrying about killing his crops as well! The second use is 'Insecticide Synthesis', where crops are modified so that they produce their own natural insecticide which will kill any unwanted pests. The last use is the 'Terminator Gene', where the offspring seeds from the GM plants will not grow if they are third generation or more away from the original plant. This last use has stirred up the most controversy and uprising against its creator, Monsanto. As far as we can see, there would be no rewarding effects of this 'Terminator Gene', and it's only use is to make farmers pay more for seed from Monsanto, instead of using the seed they already have from their previous crops. Many people have pointed out that this is no more than a money-making scheme, and farmers and consumers will not benefit at all from it. Because of this controversy, Monsanto have promised to suspend the development of this usage.

Other uses of GM food and crops range from making 'novel products' such as bananas that have vaccines in them, to increasing the nutritative value of foods. For instance, it is possible to engineer food so that one potato will give you the recommended daily intake of beta-carotene. Useful as this may seem at first, many have spoken out against it, suggesting that instead of putting extra beta-carotene in foods, humans should simply eat more carrots, which naturally contain plenty beta-carotene anyway! There have also been suggestions that engineering food in such a way will lead to 'meals' that will give you every single vitamin, mineral, and nutritional extra that you need, meaning our food will be the same as an astronaut's, taking away the use of food for pleasure and taste, leaving it only as a nutritional practice. If this happened, the whole catering industry would collapse, and life would certainly be very boring! Some even say that there is a possibility that the foods could be engineered to include chemicals or drugs which we don't need, but which the government thinks we do, such as contraceptives to stop us producing as many babies. Of course, we wouldn't know about these added extras! This is a conspiracy theory however, and doesn't hold much weight in the debate against GM.

More uses of GM include increasing the shelf life of food, reducing the amount of fertiliser needed to grow food by making the food itself more efficient at using nutrients, and increasing the yields of crops. This last use can be performed by making plants more pest tolerant, more disease tolerant, and more stress tolerant. Not only is this good news for farmers and consumers, but for the plight of the developing world. More food means that there would be more to give to the developing world, and some say this could combat world hunger. However, some are against this notion, and insist that 'teaching a man to fish' is better than simply giving him a handful of fish.

Many people are unaware that this type of GM is merely a continuation of plant and animal husbandry which has been going on, and developing, for thousands of years. There are records of it in Celtic writings, and in both Sumerian and Egyptian records. One needs to ask, would the ancient Celts have got this far, if they had continued as they were up until this day? And what is the difference between mating different breeds of cow together and mating their genes together? Many say there is no difference at all.

GM foods also reduce labour costs we currently experience, and it could be used to protect endangered species, by safeguarding and altering the species' genes to make them better and hardier. GM would also mean that crops would be able to adapt to their environment more efficiently, and we would not run the risk of the eutrophication of rivers due to fertilisers leaking into rivers through the soil. Many of the current environmental concerns raised through farming could be eradicated. Sounds good, doesn't it? Not to everybody.

One of the main concerns about GM food is the possible risks. Nobody knows for sure how genetics work, and we are far from understanding the effects of GM. Due to this, we may not be able to control the side-effects caused by GM, because we cannot predict what they will be. Adding to this is the claim that GM is far too risky, and any mistakes made could be more than catastrophic. Even more concern is raised due to the fact that once a GM organism is released into the environment, we have no way of bringing it back. And because of our absent knowledge of GM, the released organism could upset the natural balance and ecosystems. If ecosystems become unbalanced, species die out and some become over-populated. We have no idea how to rectify such damage, and thus, some people conclude that to go ahead with GM food at this stage in it's development would be foolish.

It is also well-known that GM crops (And indeed all crops!) are by no means free from natural forces such as wind, rain, and soil water. Through these processes, GM crops could contaminate other crops which may be organic, thus violating the right of those who choose to eat only organic food, and the rights of the farmer who chooses only to farm organic food. Because GM crops would be so efficient, the labour costs would reduce, and many jobs in rural areas would be lost: A prospect not at all pleasing to the farmers.

Another objection to GM crops is rather Darwinian, claiming that weeds could accidentally be cross-pollinated to produce a herbicide-resistant weed, which could overtake the crops' space. This is the same with pests, which could become resistant to the insecticides produced by the GM plants, thus creating 'Super Bugs', whose offspring also has the resistance to insecticides. It has happened before, and it is inevitable that it will happen again.

Some people object to GM because they insist that it is not being done for the good of the environment, but instead for the profit of the companies who sell farmers the seeds, such as Monsanto. If you control the source of food, you control the country. As well as this, some say that the farmer himself is put at the mercy of the big companies, buying more seed from them every year instead of using what he already has (A result of the Terminator Gene), and even then, a higher crop yield is not guaranteed by GM seeds: It is more likely, but not guaranteed.

The final debate is a moral and religious one, and is largely based on the idea of dominance over the Earth. Some people say that it is our God-given right as intellectual, thinking, rational beings to use our resources to their full extent and to our full knowledge. It is all part of our responsibility for Nature, and as GM becomes better we can benefit the environment and the world's impoverished masses more. Not everyone is entirely happy with this claim though. Some say that it is actually our God-given right to care for the planet, and protect it, and that this responsibility does not entail using the planet as we will simply because we 'can': to argue this is the argument of the playground bully.

There are accusations of GM being 'un-natural'. However, paragliding, car driving, and taking an aspirin are all 'un-natural'. We still do all these things, most of us without considering that they are un-natural at all. Does it make them morally wrong? I am sure many people will agree that driving a car and taking aspirin are not morally wrong, and if this is the case, surely the claim that GM is un-natural will not have any affect on whether or not it is immoral.

Gaianists and eco-Pagans also have a lot to say about GM crops, and with their views of the planet and Her role, it is hardly surprising. Believing that as it stands, humans are no more superior to other animals or the Earth, we have no right to use them in this way. We are manipulating our surroundings more than we should, and the effects of this are detrimental to Mother Earth. Considering Earth is one big living organism, and humans merely another species living on Her, we should be grateful to Her for sustaining us for so long: It would be easy for Earth to just wipe us out with an earthquake or flood, but She doesn't. Like a true Mother, She has shown infinite patience and love towards us, and She doesn't deserve the treatment She gets in return. If strawberries were meant to have antifreeze in them, they would have been grown originally with antifreeze in them! Nature is no fool: It constantly shows signs of design - everything works perfectly and interacts with everything around it perfectly, so we can only assume that strawberries are perfect without antifreeze. Darwin's survival of the fittest still applies, whether the plants be organic or GM, and strawberries, of course, have survived perfectly without antifreeze!

So, is GM good or bad? Ultimately, it is up to the individual to decide, however, time will tell the truth if we do go ahead with GM. Will all our crops be wiped out by some bug that forgot to bow down to GM rules? Will we die of some freak disease caused by an overdose of antifreeze in our strawberry cheese-cake? Or will we finally conquer world hunger, and the eutrophication of rivers, and bring about world-wide prosperity, all because of the gene?

It is a nice dream to have, but we continually need to ask ourselves if it is really this easy.