May 4, 2000 / The Stanford Daily / Martha Roberts, Stanford U.
STANFORD, Calif. -- Apples with fish genes in them. Tomatoes with a few
bacterial genes stuck in them. Information about genetic engineering has,
writes Roberts, rarely gotten beyond this sensationalist category of hype in
the United States, and Americans, with their indomitable faith in science,
have usually yawned and flipped the newspaper page whenever an informative
article appears.
Europeans, however, says Roberts, are heavily educated about the growing
seed industry that does genetic research to implant certain specific genetic
traits from any sort of plant, animal or bacteria into what she calls
innocent farm crops. And Europeans are furious. They stomp on biotech
research plots dressed up as mutant broccoli; they protest Monsanto and
Novartis, two prominent producers of biotech seeds, as spreaders of genetic
pestilence. But most importantly, they refuse to allow their nations to
produce or import genetically engineeredcrops.
Why are Europeans so angry? What is this information that they know and that
frightens them?
Barely 10 years ago, says Roberts, genetic researchers began taking genetic
material including the helpful trait from any organism and implanting the
DNA into vegetables. They created crops with pre-added preservative for
longer shelf lives, or crops resistant to herbicide, so that entire fields
could be sprayed en masse without killing the crop.
Roberts says the Food and Drug Administration speedily approved these
entirely new crops, with no genetic relatives anywhere in nature and
genetically engineered varieties now account for the vast majority of seeds
grown for many crops. Their increasing prevalence means a startling decrease
in the genetic diversity of farm crops. And as any Hum Bio major knows,
decreasing genetic diversity exponentially increases the opportunity for
appearances of disastrous diseases and pests. Moreover, because biotech
foods were inadequately tested before being put to widespread use, there is
the potential for them to cross-pollinate with wild relatives of farm crops.
There are already examples of genetically modified wild mustard seed
appearing in Canada next to farmlands growing biotech rapeseed, a member of
the mustard family. Organic farms located next to areas where genetically
modified crops are raised have turned up crops with these unnaturally added
traits. The genetic independence of our planet is at risk, with the
possibility of genetic pollution, of cross-pollinated superweeds taking
over.
Roberts goes on to say the main danger of genetic engineering is
consequences we don't even know about. These new crops manipulate Nature in
a new, intensively invasive manner, yet the FDA rapidly approved these
revolutionary products without sufficient testing to monitor the long-term
effects of biotech crops on genetic drift, local insect populations and
ecosystem viability. The potential for unknown disastrous consequences is
frighteningly high, and the potential to reverse inbred genetic pollution is
infinitesimally small. Weak arguments for genetic engineering claim that
they will reduce pesticide dependence and increase food yields. The former
argument is untrue - most new crops either produce their own pesticides,
like the Bt crops, or are genetically engineered to be resistant to
pesticides, meaning that chemicals can be mechanically sprayed over the
entire field rather carefully and specifically only onto weeds - and the
second irrelevant to America, since we already have a troublesome grain
surplus that is lowering food prices and driving farmersinto bankruptcy.
The best argument for genetically engineered crops is the opportunity they
present to help people with insecure food supplies. In developing nations,
some farmers live off 60 cents a day. Giving these farmers seeds genetically
modified to resist drought or increase yields can give these poorest of the
poor the opportunity to survive and even pull themselves out of poverty.
Also, genetic engineering can modify seeds so that they produce crops
fortified with vitamins. Millions of impoverished children develop
night-blindness every
year because they lack a good source of vitamin A in their diets. The
potential to help the Third World is real and cannot be ignored.
(posted without permission)
