Genetic Engineering Negativity - Mass Hysteria?

All the negativity on genetically engineered foods is more hysterical and emotional than factual and real. This is a similar effect to the terms "Natural" and "Organic" being falsely perceived by a large portion of the public as "Good", while the terms "Man-made" and "Synthetic" perceived as "Bad". The facts are there are good and bad natural, organic, synthetic, man-made, genetically modified and conventionally bred organisms and products. The label has no bearing to the goodness or safety of the item in question. The negative connotations on genetically modified or engineered, synthetic or man-made products serve only an emotional need. A need to sway the vulnerable public against facts and safety of better commodities which may be more economical to produce.

Conventional plant breeding is every bit as risky as the genetically modified. Consider the herbicide resistant canola which was developed by traditional methods. IT LOOKS JUST LIKE an ordinary oilseed rape plant, but farmers in Canada know it as "Smart Canola". Because it carries genes for resistance to two families of herbicides, the farmers can kill off every weed in sight, without fear of damaging their harvest.

The prospect of plants that could in effect conspire with farmers to produce chemically sterilised fields has sent Europe's conservationists into a flat spin. They have issued dire warnings about the perils of agricultural biotechnology and call for moratoriums on GM plantings.

But Smart Canola is not quite what it seems. While European officials agonise over the pros and cons of growing GM crops, they could do little to stop farmers planting this oilseed rape. The reason: Smart Canola is not genetically engineered.

The problems with Traditionally Modified Organisms, those developed by hybridization and random mutations, are the same as those seen with Genetically Modified Organisms. Why then, should they be treated differently? Again, it is an emotional issue. The naysayers appear to have a streak of paranoia in their make-up. Their concerns should be equally with the traditionally developed organisms. Perhaps they should stop eating/using these also! Get Real!

MASS HYSTERIA!!

• Genetically Modified Organisms - A Publication of the Instutute of Food Technologists

"... According to the National Academy of Sciences, genetic transfers between unrelated organisms do not pose hazards or risks different from those encountered by natural selection or traditional cross-breeding between similar species. Moreover, there is no evidence that transferring genes between unrelated species, especially those already in the food supply, will convert a harmless organism into a hazardous one. The process itself by which genes are transferred does not make living organisms harmful.

... The transfer of genetic material between unrelated species will not turn them into each other, such as a fish into a tomato or vice versa. It may simply allow a beneficial trait to be expressed in the organism to which a targeted gene is transferred. As each plant and animal are made up of tens or hundreds of thousands of genes, one or two transferred genes could not alter the identity of an organism.

According to the World Health Organization and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (1991), "Biotechnology has a long history of use in food production and processing. It represents a continuum embracing both traditional breeding techniques and the latest techniques based on molecular biology. The newer biotechnological techniques, in particular, open up very great possibilities of rapidly improving the quantity and quality of food available. The use of these techniques does not result in food which is inherently less safe [to humans or the environment] than that produced by conventional ones.""

• Genetically modified world | STRANGE FRUIT


• Biotechnology - Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada


• Health Canada Information : Frequently asked questions on genetically modified food


• Perspective: Fears or Facts? A Viewpoint on GM Crops

"The technology, it seems, is being judged guilty despite evidence to the contrary."
• Western Crop Protection Association - Genetically Modified Nonsense


• The War Against Agricultural Gene Splicing - By Henry I. Miller

"Gene splicing is not fundamentally new. More to the point, the scientific consensus is that the risks associated with the products of recombinant DNA technology are no different from those associated with their non-gene-spliced counterparts. Every year—without special labels and without review by government regulators—dozens of new plant varieties that result from genetic modification in traditional ways, such as hybridization (crossbreeding), enter the marketplace. Indeed, many such plants are products of wide crosses—hybridizations in which genetic material is moved between species, or even between genera, to create plant varieties that cannot originate naturally. While such products may seem outlandish, they are as mundane as tomato varieties designed to have superior resistance to disease, or to have skin unlikely to become damaged during mechanical picking. Such hybrids with slight but significant alterations have been an important part of American and European diets for decades; they are at farm stands and supermarkets—and in baby food."
• New Scientist Planet Science | Genetically-modified foods and the transatlantic divide

"Rather, it is in what way food has been genetically engineered that is important. If you put in a gene for a poison, you could end up with a poisonous food, if you put in one that boosts nutritional value, you could end up with a more nutritious food. The often asked question "Are genetically-engineered foods safe?" has no general answer. It only stimulates another question: "What did they do to it?""
• New Scientist Planet Science | GM WORLD News Coverage | A question of breeding


• Benefits of Genetically Engineered Plants
• Genetically Modified (GM) Crops Face Heat of Debate

"Part of the barrier separating consumers and scientists concerning GM foods is a misunderstanding of risk. Consumers demand absolute assurances, but science deals with uncertainty. "Is the fear justified? That is the heart of the debate. Are there risks in GM foods? Scientists get into trouble, because they say yes, there is risk. There is risk in every single activity that humans do," says Cove. Iain Taylor, a professor of botany at the University of British Columbia, agrees. "Botanists have been caught off guard at the public response to the spin doctoring of the technology. The public perceives that scientists respond that the danger is not real, or the benefits too great to be ignored, and we'll deal with any problems if and when they arise.""

"Despite scientists' image problem, most don't glibly dismiss possible risks of GM crops. Taylor cites several: the instability of DNA; the degree to which laboratory and field tests mimic reality; whether pollinators spread altered genomes to weeds; and the impact of GM crops on plummeting biodiversity. But many of these concerns also apply to traditional agriculture. Conventional breeding can induce production of natural toxins or move disease resistance genes from wild relatives into crop plants."

"A big problem in public acceptance of GM foods is that evidence for safety is negative evidence, not easily explained or published, either in the scientific literature or tabloids. There is always the possibility, no matter how slim, that something could go wrong. So advocates are quick to invoke the "what if" argument: "We don't know for sure, we can't prove that there's no danger." Science deals in probabilities, but the public has little appreciation for P values, so the few studies purporting specific risks have received disproportionate media play."

Back to TED'S PAGE