Another benefit from GM is that foods could be modified to have higher nutritional value. Crops such as rice could be modified to have higher protein values, fruit and vegetables could have higher vitamin and mineral content and in general techniques have been developed to make fresh produce last longer so that it can ripen on the plant and be transported more easily with less wastage by slowing down any softening. Further examples are that fat content could be reduced, peanuts modified so they no longer cause a life threatening reaction and fruits modified so that they contain vaccines against cholera and hepatitis B.
Future developments include drought resistance which would increase the growing season and the number of places where crops could be grown. This could alleviate famine in developing countries, where low rainfall often leads to food shortages.
Plants are being developed to be frost resistant through the insertion of fish genes. The modifying genetic material was taken from fish that could tolerate extreme cold.
Nuffield Council on Bioethics believe ‘there are no grounds for a ban on GM food’ 3 however consumers retain many concerns. Opponents of GM argue that we do not know enough about the science and that altering genes could lead to unforeseen problems in future generations. Against that it is argued that ‘strict controls are already in place and each modified product is very thoroughly assessed for any difference from its conventional counterpart.’4 In addition, since only the specific genes for a trait are identified and copied the technology is far more precise than trial and error approach of traditional plant and animal breeding.
Those who oppose genetic modification hold concern that ‘the copy genes incorporated into a plant could ‘escape’ and transfer to another species with unwanted or unforeseen consequences’5 e.g. herbicide-tolerant crops could cross pollinate with weeds and become herbicide tolerant themselves thus creating ‘superweeds.’ Some consumers and farmers are also concerned that making crops herbicide tolerant might lead to an increase in herbicide use as the crops could withstand higher doses. Supporters of biotechnology argue that the ‘strict rules that exist control these possibilities and that the development of GM plants will mean a decrease in the use of environmentally unfriendly herbicides.’6
There is a concern that GM crops won’t help solve third world debt, but will instead cause recipient countries greater debt problems. Supporters of GM foods say that ‘crops will be specially adapted to the diverse farming conditions and practices and offer a higher nutritional value and income.’7 The NCB position is that it would be ‘immoral of us to stop using GM’ 8 however opponents think that GM products could reduce the developed countries reliance on crops from the developing countries. This could result in trade and economic damage. Others doubt whether developing countries will actually receive the benefits. In 20 African countries they have published a statement that claims gene technology will not help their farmers but will ‘destroy the diversity, the local knowledge and agriculture systems...and undermine our capacity to feed ourselves.’ 9
Some new crops being developed by biotech companies have a ‘terminator’ gene built in to prevent the farmer from keeping the seeds produced for the following year. This could lead to complete dependence on biotech companies which is a serious concern for farmers in poorer countries who couldn’t afford to buy the seeds every year.
A further concern is that wide use of gene technology will reduce the diversity of crop species grown and so reduce the ‘gene pool.’ This gene pool has already been reduced by modern farming techniques and it is feared that the availability of GM crops will increase the problem.
Most people think that we should not tamper with nature as they are concerned about the transfer of genes from animal to human origin or visa versa. The current consensus among scientists is that whilst the use of human copy genes in food production is theoretically possible it is very unlikely to be pursued and is very much dependent on consumer acceptance. Consumers are also concerned that increasing yields from animals or adapting them to tolerate different environments could lead to distress for the animal. Animal welfare supporters stress that ‘mankind has a moral obligation to care for animals and respect their intrinsic value.’ 10 it is therefore essential that animal production using biotechnology meets recognised standards of animal welfare.
Already many crops have been modified to produce toxins that kill or repel pests. A major concern was that insects would become resistant to the toxins in the GM crops and recent research reveals that ‘GM crops specially engineered to kill pests, in fact nourishes them’ 4. Biotech companies have added genes from a naturally occurring poison (Bt) which is widely used as a pesticide by organic companies as scientists have recognised its potential for creating GM crops that contain their own pesticide, however they found that larvae of the diamondback moth that fed on the
GM crops are being developed for profit. There might be huge benefits but huge sums of money would not be invested if there were not the possibility of huge financial gains for the producers of GM in the future.
To add to the arguments about the safety of GM foods, the question of ethics occupies many people’s minds. Prince Charles summed up these concerns when he said, ‘at the moment, as is so often the case with technology, we seem to spend most of our time establishing what is technically possible, and then a little time trying to establish whether or not it is safe, without ever stopping to ask whether it is something we should be doing in the first place.’ 5
Some people consider that genetic manipulation raises the question of whether it is right for scientists to ‘play God’ with living organisms. Of course, plant breeders over many thousands of years have produced varieties of crops that would have never grown in the Garden of Eden. But nonetheless, genetic engineering does raise new questions.
Many consumers are concerned that GM is not ‘natural’. They might be particularly concerned if genes were to come from animals that they consider sacred or do not wish to eat. The beliefs of some religious groups, such as Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist, may be incompatible with gene technology in general., and they may wish to avoid genes from certain animals in particular. It is understandable that vegetarians would be concerned about eating plant foods containing animal genes, and that everyone would find it hard to eat food containing human genes.
In 1992 the Ministry of Agriculture was appointed to consider the moral and ethical questions of gene food. The committee considered that ‘modifications raising particular ethical concerns will be uncommon’ 1 and concluded that there was no overriding ethical objection that would prevent the use of human genes in food production. But the research for the Consumers’ Association 2 shows that consumers do have anxieties that go beyond these narrow considerations, e.g. some have objections to the patenting of life forms, others fear that biotech companies will dominate the worlds food supplies – a view supported by the Rural Advancement Foundation International, which is concerned that the world’s genetic resources will become concentrated in the hands of a few companies. Already a third of the worlds seed market is controlled by ten leading companies 3
We simply do not know enough about consequences for human, animal and plant life throughout the world of planting GM crops at the moment. More testing needs to be carried out preferably by independent research bodies rather than biotech companies, before GM organisms are released into the world.
GM foods are not necessarily bad, but allowing GM crop planting without proper knowledge of the effects both long and short term is unwise and dangerous. Once biotech companies are sure that their products will have no undue effects on biodiversity, food chains and people’s health, GM crops should be permitted, but until then they shouldn’t be allowed. We must use the benefits of GM but proceed with great caution.
1 + 2: Food for our future – GM modification and food (an information pack produced by the Food Commission)
3: Nuffield Council on Bioethics: www.nuffieldbioethics.org
4:
5:
6: GM Foods: Pros and Cons, An SRT Information Sheet. www.srtp.org.uk
7:
8:
9:
10:
11:
A quote from his speech at the Balfour lecture 1996.
