|
During
the past few years and months, much has been said about the merits and
demerits of using foods, which were the results of Genetic Modification. While some of this information has been factual in content,
sometimes a lot has been left to the emotions, and a false perception,
full of fallacies has resulted.I will be making a conscious attempt to give only facts so that
each person can come to a rational, informed decision on this most
critical issue.
To
put things into perspective, a basic understanding of the reasons behind
the process and the basic process itself is instructive. Genetically Modified (GM) foods and crops are those, which have
had component ingredient(s), or the plants themselves altered by genetic
engineering. Because of a need to fight "undesirables" such as weeds,
bacteria, viruses and nematodes, while at the same time reducing the
level of pesticides used, genes from bacteria, viruses, other plants and
even animals that have the desired effect, have been introduced into
crops. Other benefits include a reduction in harmful substances in some
crops and the enhancement of the nutritional content of some plants.
As
a direct result of genetic altering of plants the benefits which have
accrued include:
- An
increase in the protein content per gram of seed crops such as soy. This implies that the net yield per acre would be greater
which augers well for efficient land use.
- The
synthesis of y-linolenic acid in seeds. This fatty acid has been found to reduce the incidences of
heart attacks due to cholesterol.
- Manipulation
of the ripening times of crops such as tomatoes. In climates where the summer is short for example, the time
may be shortened by manipulation.
- Herbicide
resistant plants
- Potatoes
with higher starch contents. This allows for a decrease in the absorption of oil during
frying and "healthier" French fires.
- Beer
of lower caloric content and higher alcoholic content, through a
more efficient breakdown of the starch.
|
|
- Improved
taste in lettuce and tomatoes through the introduction of the
monellin gene into these crops
- Canola
oil which is high in stearic acid. This can be used for the manufacture of cocoa butter
equivalents and in margarine stock.
- Canola
seeds high in methionine which can be used in feed formulations
-
Canola
oil low in the toxic fatty acid, erucic acid.
- Firmer
tomatoes with a longer shelf life and better handling capabilities
through manipulation of the gene for polygalacturonase. Tomato paste and juice of high serum viscosity results.
- To
present the balanced picture, some of the disadvantages of gene
manipulation which has been advanced include:
-
Increase
levels of naturally occurring toxicants, such as tomatine in
tomatoes.
-
Plant
metabolic pathways may be perturbed.
-
Reduced
biodiversity.
-
Resistance
of pests to pesticides through their feeding on pesticide resistant
plants.
-
Chain
reaction in nature e.g. removal of weeds through overuse of
weedicides ->no food for insects -> no food for birds
>extinction of some species.
-
Reduced
levels of the prostate and breast cancer fighting agent phyto-estrogen,
in gene modified soybean.
-
Development
of allergies to gene modified crops.
-
Increased
cost to farmers since seeds much be purchased each year.
-
Unpredictable
effects are possible due to the random positioning of the novel gene
within the plants DNA.
|
|
Thus far soybeans, tomatoes, corn/maize, canola, wheat, potatoes,
rapeseed and sugar beet have been gene manipulated and found to be of
some commercial significance. The future should bring an increase to this list based on current
trends.
In
order to be able to make the choice between gene modified and non-gene
modified foods, consumers worldwide have been agitating for the labeling
of these products/crops to be mandatory. However, labelling by itself cannot suffice in protecting the
consumer, only informing him. What should be also mandatory is the conduct of adequate,
documented trials of these crops/foods before introduction into the
marketplace, and continued monitoring thereafter. The latter is critical in preventing false labeling of
gene-modified foods/crops as "organically grown".
The cost of testing could be problematic due to the high cost. This cost is related to the minute changes that occur in the
molecules after manipulation of the genes, and the inherent difficulty
in detecting these subtle changes. If testing were to be conducted at that level of the DNA, the
cost would be prohibitive. One alternative, which is being explored is the use of Nuclear
Magnetic Resonance (NMR).
It would appear that a multi-faceted approach to the problem is needed. The combination of legislation, increased testing and increased
information exchange, would go a long way towards curing the ills of
ignorance, indecision and inaccurate inferences.
|
