Science Matters: Better than Nature?
![[Article Image]](http://s3.amazonaws.com/the_mark/wide_photos/507/original.jpg?1253736902)
Genetically modified foods are being approved before we understand their long-term health effects.
Photo by Darwin Bell available under a Creative Commons License
Email to a friendCo-authored by Faisal Moola
In gearing up for the 2010 release of its super-genetically modified corn called “SmartStax,” agricultural-biotechnology giant Monsanto is using an advertising slogan that asks, “Wouldn't it be better?” But can we do better than nature, which has taken millennia to develop the plants we use for food?
We don’t really know. And that in itself is a problem. The corn, developed by Monsanto with Dow AgroSciences, “stacks” eight genetically engineered traits, six that allow it to ward off insects, and two to make it resistant to weed-killing chemicals, many of which are also trademarked by Monsanto. It’s the first time a genetically engineered (GE) product has been marketed with more than three traits.
Canada approved the corn without assessing it for human health or environmental risk, claiming that the eight traits have already been cleared in other crop seeds – even though international food-safety guidelines that Canada helped develop state that stacked traits should be subject to a full safety assessment as they can lead to unintended consequences.
One problem is that we don’t know the unintended consequences of genetically engineered or genetically modified (GM) foods. Scientists may share consensus about issues such as human-caused global warming, but they don’t have the same level of certainty about the effects of genetically modified organisms on environmental and human health.
A review of the science conducted under the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development in 2008 concluded that “there are a limited number of properly designed and independently peer-reviewed studies on human health” and that this and other observations “create concern about the adequacy of testing methodologies for commercial GM plants.”
Some have argued that we’ve been eating GM foods for years with few observable negative consequences, but as we’ve seen with things such as trans fats, it often takes a while for us to recognize the health impacts. With GM foods, concerns have been raised about possible effects on stomach bacteria and resistance to antibiotics, as well as their role in allergic reactions. We also need to understand more about their impact on other plants and animals.
Of course, these aren’t the only issues with GM crops. Allowing agro-chemical companies to create GM seeds with few restrictions means these companies could soon have a monopoly over agricultural production. And by introducing SmartStax, we are giving agro-chemical companies the green light not just to sell and expand the use of their “super-crops,” but also to sell and expand the use of the pesticides these crops are designed to resist.
A continued reliance on these crops could also reduce the variety of foods available, as well as the nutritive value of the foods themselves.
There’s also a reason nature produces a variety of any kind of plant species. It ensures that if disease or insects attack a plant, other plant varieties will survive and evolve in its place. This is called biodiversity.
Because we aren’t certain about the effects of GMOs, we must consider one of the guiding principles in science, the precautionary principle. Under this principle, if a policy or action could harm human health or the environment, we must not proceed until we know for sure what the impact will be. And it is up to those proposing the action or policy to prove that it is not harmful.
That’s not to say that research into altering the genes in plants that we use for food should be banned or that GM foods might not someday be part of the solution to our food needs. We live in an age when our technologies allow us to “bypass” the many steps taken by nature over millennia to create food crops. We can now produce “super-crops” that are meant to keep up with an ever-changing human-centred environment.
A rapidly growing human population and the deteriorating health of our planet because of climate change and a rising number of natural catastrophes, among other threats, are driving the way we target our efforts and funding in plant, agricultural, and food sciences, often resulting in new GM foods.
But we need more thorough scientific study on the impacts of such crops on our environment and our health, through proper peer-reviewing and unbiased processes. We must also demand that our governments become more transparent when it comes to monitoring new GM crops that will eventually find their ways in our bellies through the food chain.
Take David Suzuki’s Nature Challenge and learn more at davidsuzuki.org.
Re:Marks
“ I tend to agree with Gareth's statement, that it's impossible to say that non-GMO products are more "natural". That being said, however, the major problem I see is that the food and ag industry seems to be hell-bent on ignoring its customers and insisting that they really know what's best for them. I have worked for many years as a reporter covering the agriculture beat, and I think the first thing that I ever heard anyone say at a farm meeting was something along the lines of "It's a shame people think their food comes from Safeway." Well they're now facing a growing group of customers that are interested and motivated to find out more about their food. But the industry better beware, because it's about to get what it asked for. But the problem with an informed public is that it's clearly a public that's going to have an opinion. You can spend all the time in the world you'd like arguing that they shouldn't be concerned, there's no scientific basis, etc. But in the end it doesn't matter. Because they've been encouraged by generations of consumerism to expect product differentiation, and I'd hate to be the business that denies them that. I mean think about it for a minute. We're talking about consumers here that are buying a product they're actually putting in their bodies. And we've spent generations convincing them there are clear and substantial differences between the preferred brands of coloured and flavoured sugar waters. Now we expect them to believe there's no basic difference between GM and non-GM products? Good luck trying to make that sale. So the basic issue here is one of freedom and consumer choice. And if we really live in a free society, and we don't all have to wear the same uniform and consume the same soylent green three times a day, we have to accept that the folks paying the bills get to pick what's going into their bodies. Why, oh why, does everyone pretend to love market signals right up until they're suddenly on the receiving end of one. The ag industry better be careful or they'll go the way of Detroit. People might need to eat. But they don't necessarily need to eat what you're growing, raising or processing.
“ I don't know where you shop, but each and every time I observe grocery shoppers walk by the 'organic fruit and vegetable" section, they walk right by and do not buy much of it.--------------When given the choice, very few people will choose organically grown products. I don't care what the official word is on that but by simply being the observer while people buy groceries the story will tell itself. --------------But perhaps you see different things happening in your neighbourhood.
“ I feel unable to properly argue with someone of the likes of David Suzuki. He's done more for science than I think I could ever possibly imagine. However, I'll call this pure hogwash. Alllllll of the foods we eat are genetically modify. All of the foods that our great, great grandparents ate were genetically modified. And no, they didn't necessarily happen slowly. If a bannana plant was found that had a trait they liked, they ate it! The fact is, scientifically speaking, there is a *chance* that GM foods could be dangerous. However, there is also a chance that aliens really are abducting people. I just don't think either is high. Am I saying that it couldn't happen? Of course not. It might even happen. But, I think that screaming about GM foods being evil makes us miss the real evil. That real evil is the idea of *owning* a genetically modified plant. That we can't use new strains of food to feed the world. That companies like Monstanto *own* a type of corn. That to me, is sick and weird. The types of studies that Mr. Suzuki is proposing are absolutely impossible. Making sure that people ate only one sub-strain of corn for 30 years is a rediculous idea. Besides, do we want to wait for a 30 year long-term study before we feed the world or end obesity? Genetic engineer is a necessary part of mankind's future. Long before we even discovered it, we stopped natural selection in the foods we ate. And, as a result, we have very little hunger in the world compared to historic levels. People are taller, we live 50 years longer, our brains are larger, etc. All because of genetic modification. Calm down people! Be rational. There is a risk, but its worth it.
“ It is interesting that corn is the highlighted crop in this piece, since corn, in fact, is not a natural crop at all, by most anti-GMO or GMO-skeptical definitions. Corn was created from a plant called teosinte over a long period of time, by Native Americans somewhere around 8,000 years ago. The desirable traits, like yield, and accessibility to nutrients, were selected, increasing agricultural efficiency enormously. In other words, the farmers genetically modified corn over a long period of time, but when compared to the rate of evolutionary change, the transformation was quite rapid. That is why it is very misleading to title the piece "Better than Nature," and to say "But can we do better than nature, which has taken millennia to develop the plants we use for food?" Nature did not create corn as North Americans have enjoyed for quite a while unless we consider such active witting human interference natural. This point doesn't treat or reflect on any concerns stemming from Monstanto's product specifically, but it does mean that any argument underpinned by "nature knows best" or "things unnatural should by default be treated by the precautionary principle" or "should be distrusted" or even "are a perversion of nature" is invalid especially with respect to corn. Pragmatic arguments about pros and cons can go on, but there is no default ethical or scientific basis for resisting GMO corn. Gareth Chantler, News Analyst, The Mark
Gareth Chantler