So what is
agricultural biotechnology anyway? It is the term used to refer to agricultural
products that have been modified using biological processes and living
organisms along with science and technology. The products that results from the
use of this technology can be referred to as genetically modified (GM) foods,
genetically engineered (GE) foods, functional foods, or nutraceuticals, which
is derived from nutrition and pharmaceuticals. But where did this idea of
modifying crops even come from. Steve Hughes and John Bryant, professors in the
School of Biological Sciences at the University of Exeter in the UK explain
that humans have been collecting the seeds of plants that showed desirable
traits for over twelve millennia and that “crop improvement, based on making
use of the plant’s genetic makeup, has been a part of agriculture for a very
long time” (115). This traditional method of modifying crops, however, only
produces limited variation due to using the same species with similar traits and
may not exhibit desired characteristics. The “rediscovery” of mendels work in
the early twentieth century led to great strides in the field of plant
modification when breeding between different varieties of a crop was done and
led to an increased variety of products and characteristics. This continuing
progression of plant modification has led to scientists finding new ways to use
science and technology, especially genetics, in order to yield a more desirable
products. These new genetically modified crops, although similar in structure
to their traditionally modified precursors, exhibit a far greater variation of
characteristics. Research on these new crops has shown many benefits in health,
agricultural, and economical fields, but the results are not all positive. Many
problems have also risen due to these products which has fired up both sides of
the biotechnology debate. With this new technology available to us now, there
are many wonderful new ways it can be used to help try to solve some of the
current problems, but there is still much to be learned about this new
technology and the risks must be taken into account as well.
Even
though GM crops have been in development and use for decades now, there still
isn’t any conclusive evidence on whether these crops are a good or bad thing.
That’s because its not that simple. Given all the changes biotechnology can
make to all the different varieties of crops, simply using a blanket statement
such as all GM foods are good or bad is being too critical. Instead, as new
advancements in crop modification arise, they should be viewed in an individual
manner to assess the possible risks and benefits along with any other
concerning factors before they are made commercially available. Because this is
still a relatively new technology, the data for comparison of these products is
limited, but not non-existent. We can use the research and trials done in the
past few years to help provide a better picture of what areas GM foods clearly
provide a benefit and what areas could be improved.
One of the most well-known modifications of a crop is its
insect resistance. This is done by using the bacterium Bacillus thuringienis (Bt) which is naturally found in the soil and
has an a plethora of insecticidal proteins. The spores of this bacteria can
survive extreme weather conditions and remain undisturbed in the soil for a
very long period of time. The way this toxin works to provide insect resistance
is when the insect ingests the Bt spores, the spores open up to release their
insecticide toxins which attach to the stomach of the insects and make them
unable to absorb nutrients and therefore eventually leading to their death
(Nottingham 47). Having these modified crops that have this bacterial gene and
are able produce their own Bt toxin inside the plants helps to ward off insects
while decreasing the amound of insecticide farmers need to use. Having to spray
less insecticide means problems associated with spray drift will be decreased
as well as less contamination of the surrounding farmland and groundwater.
Because Bt is biodegradable and only targets certain insects, it is safe for
organisms other than the target insect. The use of Bt spray also has beneficial
effects on human health in the fact that reducing the amount of insecticide
spraying that needs to be done due to the incorporated insect-resistance of the
crop, it will decrease the incidence of spray operator poisoning. Another
benefit to human health is while using GM crops with the Bt gene, you know what
is present and the effects it will have. In contrast to Bt spray, if a chemical
insecticide is used, which commonly includes some mix of insecticides,
herbicides, and fungicides that contain compounds harmful to human health, then
the chemical residue left on the crops would pose an even greater health risk
while using conventional unregulated plant breeding methods versus the highly
monitored and regulated biotech method (Nottingham 55). An additional benefit provided
by crops that are insect-resistant is the reduction of cancer-causing fungi in
those plants. An article written in The New York Times explains that
“Contamination by carcinogenic fungal toxins, for example, is as much as 90
percent lower in insect-resistant genetically modified corn than in nonmodified
corn. This is because the fungi that make the toxins follow insects boring into
the plants. No insect holes, no fungi, no toxins” (Fedoroff).
Even
though Bt technology provides us with all these agricultural, economical, and
health benefits, these benefits do not come without a cost. A major concern
regarding this technology is the possibility of producing Bt-resistant insects.
If the amount of Bt toxin from the plants is not at a high enough level to kill
the predator insects, the insects may start to develop resistance to the toxin.
Unfortunetly this is not just a theoretical concept, as field studies have
shown the development of resistance in predator insects about a decade after
the spray started being used (Nottingham 55). If this resistance continues to
grow, then Bt technology will become ineffective against pests and farmers will
have to switch back to chemical pesticides, therefore losing the benefits that
Bt technology provided in the first place.
The
resistance of pests and their link to human health is also shown in the
possibility of antibiotic resistance. While using Bt technology, the harm to
human health was that if the pests developed a resistance, it would cause
farmers to have to switch back to chemical pesticides which are less
agriculturally friendly and would need to be sprayed more often, which would
cost the farmers more and also increase their risk of pesticide poisoning. With
antibiotic resistance, the health effect is a lot more direct. During the
testing phase of GM crops, “marker genes are routinely integrated into
transgenic crops to select transformed plants from untransformed plants. A
common way of doing this is by transferring genes that confer antibiotic
resistance into plants” (Nottingham 93). Sometimes this antibiotic gene, which is used
for testing purposes only, remains in transgenic crops. The fear is that if
these resistance markers happen to escape from a controlled laboratory setting,
then pathogens capable of invading the human body could assimilate this
antibiotic gene. If this happened and the pathogen entered a human host, the
antibiotics we as humans would usually take to combat this pathogen would
become less effective or even worse, completely useless. Dr. Stephen
Nottingham, Ph.D., a biologist who specializes in crop protection who has been
involved in research groups in the UK and projects in the US aimed at
developing novel insect pest control methods as well as having worked for the
USDA clarifies that “a number of studies have claimed that antibiotic
resistance genes present no risks to humans or animals. However, there is
concern that antibiotic resistance genes will be transferred to bacteria living
in the guts of humans or animals” (Nottingham 93). These potential negative
effects create strong opposition to this technology from anti-GM advocates such
as Laura and Robin Ticciati, authors of Genetically
Modified Foods: Are They Safe? You Decide. who voiced their concerns by
explaining that “unlike chemical or nuclear contamination, new living
organisms, bacteria and viruses will be released into the environment to
reproduce, migrate, and mutate. They will transfer their new characteristics to
other organisms” (Ticciati 5). While it’s true that this is a possibility,
“there is something wrong with the perception of risk” (Ferber) claims
microbiologist Abigail Salyers of the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
She continues by citing the conclusions made by several panels of
antibiotic-resistance experts where “unanimously, the verdict has been that the
chance of antibiotic-resistance genes getting into intestinal bacteria is
minuscule” (Ferber), and even if they did, “the virtually unanimous verdict is
that it wouldn't matter” (Ferber) due to the fact that these same resistance
genes are already found in a number of bugs. The conclusions of these panels
support the studies Nottingham cited and both agree on the fact that
antibiotic-resistance genes have limited if any risks to human health.
While the previous applications of biotechnologies focus
on factors involved in GM crops and their effects on human health, a much more
direct health effect is whether or not there is enough food and it provides us
with the nutrients we need to survive. This problem was partially addressed
thanks to The Green Revolution, a combination of research, development, and
technology devoted to increasing agriculture production in the U.S. around the
mid-1900’s. Thanks to advancements in science and technology, maximization of
yield potentials was possible and led to an increase in food production. While
the U.S. was lucky to have experienced a green revolution which would help
adequetly feed its population, other countries were not so fortunate. Many
countries, especially in Africa, have not had a green revolution and still
depend on traditional farming methods using chemical pesticides, damaging the
health of the land and the farmers. The lack of science and technology in the
development of their agriculture leads to the production of minimal food yield
which is not adequate to feed their populations. Scientists at the State
University of Iowa, Seed Science Center explain how “GMs are crops that are
genetically formulated with improved traits or characteristics such as drought
resistance, shorter growth period, improved nutritional content among others
and it is one of latest technological breakthrough in agriculture and food
production” (Hassan). They continue to explain the benefits of GM crops provide
by adding “pest resistance, high yield, tolerance to herbicides such as striga,
cold resistance, high nutritional content and drought tolerance among others”
(Hassan). Despite these benefits, GM crops are met with high resistance
“especially in African countries due to speculations that they are not safe for
human consumption” (Hassan). It’s understandable that the countries are looking
out for the safety of their people, but regardless of “speculations on the
safety of GM foods, no one has been able to prove that the technology is
dangerous or harmful to human health. According to the United States Department
of Agriculture, GMs have been tested and proven to have no negative effect on
human health whatsoever and is a technology that can help overcome the
challenge of improving food production both in terms of quality and quantity”
(Hassan).It may be true that just because no one has been able to prove there
are no negative effects doesn’t mean there aren’t any, but is the possibility
of a future problem worse than a very real current problem? While many African
countries continue to refuse GM foods, the government of Kenya is making what
it considers to be a controversial move by allowing the importation of GM food
in order to help fight the hunger and starvation of its people. Even though it
is still illegal to grow GM crops in Kenya, it’s good to see that they realized
that not embracing these new technologies and allowing the “2.5 million people
in Kenya that are in urgent need of food” (Kahare) to die of starvation because
of a speculation doesn’t seem like it’s the best option.
No comments:
Post a Comment