|
July 31, 2013
Marc van Montagu couldn't have imagined the furore his discovery would have
caused. He and Jeff Schell discovered a bacterium that genetically modified
plants in 1983.
To his astonishment, bacteria were transferring genes to plants - - what we now
recognize as genetic modification between dissimilar species (transgenesis). If
nature could do it, van Montagu reasoned, so could he. And he did.
He took DNA from the natural pesticide, Bacillus thuringensis (Bt), and spliced
it into a bacteria. In turn, the bacteria did its thing by transferred the
pesticide into a plant.
The discovery revolutionized agriculture. Between 1996 and 2011, genetically
modified crops worldwide increased 100 times to 395 million acres.
The debate over genetic modification has generated more heat than light.
Reasonable people disagree as illustrated in a debate published in New
Internationalist magazine.
Mark Lynas, author and environmental writer, used to oppose genetically modified
plants 15 years ago. "But the world has moved on, and forced me to change my
mind. There is clear evidence from a multitude of sources now pointing to the
benefits of GM crops where they have been adopted." He points to the success of
Bt cotton in India which is now 90 per cent of the entire crop and has reduced
pesticide use.
Not so, says Claire Robinson, research director at Earth Open Source and editor
for GM Watch. "In the US, rootworms are eating GM insecticidal maize, and
herbicide-resistant superweeds are choking GM herbicide-tolerant crops. In
Argentina, GM soy producers have been convicted of polluting a neighbourhood
with agrochemicals, resulting in high rates of birth defects and cancers."
Anti-GM activists claim science is on their side but that claim is far from
clear.
|
There is broad scientific support from many reputable groups, including the
World Health Organization, that GM crops pose no greater risk than
conventional food. No reports of ill effects have been documented in the
human population from GM food.
Other scientists point out higher rates of tumours, hormonal abnormalities,
and kidney and liver problems found in rats fed GM Roundup-tolerant corn.
Charles Benbrook, agricultural policy expert at Washington State University
says "the science just hasn't been done."
The science hasn't been done, in part, because the makers of GM foods are
reluctant to supply scientists with samples to study. And if they do,
scientists aren't free to release of findings without approval by the
makers, especially if results are unfavourable.
Scientists have complained to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: "as
a result of restrictive access, no truly independent research can be legally
conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology."
The public is wary. B.C. and Quebec apple growers commissioned a poll last
year to test how the public would accept a new apple genetically engineered
by a B.C. biotech company that wouldn't brown when cut. They found that 69
percent did not approve of the so-called "Arctic apple" despite the cosmetic
improvement.
The same survey revealed that 91 per cent of respondents wanted mandatory
labelling of GM food. Only 14 per cent would purchase food labelled as
containing GM products.
Food producers are worried. Since 70 per cent of packaged foods on shelves
contains genetically modified soy or corn, the labelling of GM products
would mean that those products would stay on the shelf.
The controversy is not restricted to scientists and environmentalists. The
fight to sway public opinion is a struggle for the minds and hearts of all.
David Charbonneau is the owner of Thompson Studio
He can be reached at
dcharbonneau13@shaw.ca
|
