Although genetically engineered food arouses a great deal of fear, it is not worth ignoring the benefit inherent in it
Food is the basis for the existence of the animal and plant world and we devote a large part of our lives to it. It could be expected that the more humanity is satiated, the less time it will have to dedicate to the subject of food, but the place of food in the public discourse is only increasing. One of the subjects that now focuses the most attention is the composition of food and its effect on our health. For many years, the food industry has developed many products aimed at attracting the buyer and stimulating his appetite. The disillusionment began with the increase in the rate of cancer, heart, vascular and intestinal diseases, and then the pendulum swung back. No more industrialized food but only organic, natural food. This extremism led to the development of movements opposing genetically engineered food, with some of their arguments not being based at all.
Improving crops by means of hybridization has been prevalent in human culture for many years, and has led to far-reaching achievements in agriculture. However, in recent years, genetic engineering has developed, allowing the DNA of various organisms to be changed in a controlled manner. When the change is made to improve agricultural crops, the product is "genetically modified food". From a practical point of view, the process involves transferring genes from one plant to another, so that a transgenic plant is obtained, deliberately enriched with a new desired trait.
More on the subject on the science website
- Are genetically modified plants toxic?
- Transgenic plants - the fear and the necessity
- The transgenic fish are close to the plate
- Will plastic be made from genetically modified plants instead of oil?
The commercial use of genetically modified food began in 1994 with Calgene, which was acquired by the plant biotechnology giant, Monsanto. Monsanto has since developed many genetically modified products that have improved properties such as fast growth, resistance to pests, or are enriched with desirable nutrients.
In the US, many types of genetically modified food have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and accepted by the public without objection. For example, scientists developed a strain of hypoallergenic transgenic rice, which replaced the natural rice which is a strong allergen, especially among children. On the other hand, in Europe, public opposition to genetically engineered food quickly developed. In Britain, Lord Melchett, a social and environmental activist, who was also one of the leaders of "Greenpeace", led stormy demonstrations against genetically engineered crops that influenced public opinion. Contributed to this were several developments of genetically modified food that turned out to be harmful. For example, in the early 90s, the American company Pioneer tried to improve the nutritional value of soy intended for animal feed, by inserting a gene that encodes a protein rich in the essential amino acid methionine, which is low in soy. But it turned out that the genetically engineered soy was allergenic and its development was stopped. In 1999, it became clear that, under laboratory conditions, pollen from transgenic corn harmed the monarch butterfly. These and other findings helped the development of critical public opinion towards genetically modified food, sometimes called "Frankenstein food".
The dispute that developed between the US and the European Union is also related to economic and political considerations. Thus, while the development of genetically modified food was done almost exclusively in the USA, the countries of the European Union greatly reduced the import of certain crops, especially when it became clear that in the USA there were cases of mixing in the field between genetically modified and non-modified crops. In Israel, there is a ban on growing genetically engineered plants for commercial purposes, but there is the import of finished products containing genetically engineered components, as well as the use of imported genetically engineered raw materials in the food industry.
So there is a complex dilemma here. On the one hand, there is a danger from irresponsible developments and applications. On the other hand, genetic engineering increases the amount of crops per unit of area; improves the resistance of crops under stress conditions; enables the development of resistance against various pests; Improves the nutritional quality of crops and extends the shelf life of fruits and vegetables. All this while in developing countries there is a high loss of crops while the rate of population growth is high, severe food shortages are evident and hunger is common. It would be a mistake to stop the development of genetically modified food, which aims to bring many benefits to humanity. Stopping the development of such food would be like "throwing the baby out with the bath water". It is important to move forward in research, but while establishing strict control and monitoring mechanisms for each development and application.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
An extensive article on genetically modified food will appear in the next issue of Scientific American Israel devoted to food and health - the editors
About the authors
Uri Kogan is an emeritus professor in the Faculty of Biotechnology and Food Engineering at the Technion, and the founder of the Kogan Foundation, which helps graduate students in the faculty to participate in conferences abroad.
Bracha Reger, Emeritus Professor of Microbiology and Immunology at the Faculty of Health Sciences at Ben Gurion University, President of Ort Israel and Chairman of the Academic Council of Ort Israel. Served as the chief scientist of the Ministry of Health and was a member of the Council for Higher Education.
The article is published with the approval of Scientific American Israel
5 תגובות
There is no shortage of food. There is a problem with resource allocation. Tons of food go to waste every day. Monsanto in general is a company that creates chemicals that kept Agent Orange which was used to eliminate the Vietnamese and prefers that the public forget about it
Genetically modified crops are promoted based on far-reaching claims from the industry and its supporters. such as:
Humans have been causing genetic changes in crops for hundreds of years and genetic engineering is no different.
Genetically modified crops are safe for consumption by humans and animals and do not pose a danger to the environment.
Genetically modified crops increase the amount of crops and reduce the use of insecticides.
Genetic engineering will produce super crops that will be resistant to drought, immune to pests and diseases and will improve the nutritional value.
Genetically modified crops are important as a source of feeding the world's population.
However, based on evidence, these claims are misleading. Genetic engineering is a completely different process from natural growth and improvement through hybridization, and involves different risks. The process causes unexpected changes in the DNA, proteins and biochemical composition of the genetically modified crop that can lead to unexpected toxic or allergic effects and nutritional disorders.
There is no scientific consensus that genetically modified crops are safe. Especially when we take into account the independent scientific community that is not related to the GM food industry. Toxicological studies in laboratory animals and farm animals have revealed harmful and unexpected effects from eating genetically modified food, some of which are already in stores for human consumption and for feeding farm animals. Among the most prominent symptoms are liver and kidney dysfunction.
Many of these studies, including some conducted by the GM food industry and others commissioned by the European Union, misleadingly claim by GM food advocates that GM crops are safe when in fact they show harmful effects. In some cases, the sides of the genetically modified crop admitted that significant differences were found in laboratory conditions in this food but rejected them as "biologically irrelevant". However these definitions are scientifically meaningless.
Most animal feeding studies of GM crops have been relatively short. Between one and three months, technically called medium-term studies. What is needed are long-term, multigenerational studies to see if the worrisome signs of toxicity observed in medium-term studies develop into serious disease. These long-term studies are not required from biotechnology companies by government regulators anywhere in the world.
This and other shortcomings of the regulatory regime for genetically modified crops and genetically modified foods show the weakness of the regulators in protecting consumers from the potential dangers inherent in this technology.
Regulation is extremely weak in the US and poor in most of the world, including Europe.
Genetically modified crops have not fulfilled their promises and on current evidence it seems unlikely that they will provide sustainable solutions to problems facing humanity, such as hunger and climate change.
Claims that GM food technology will help feed the world are not credible in light of the fact that GM food technology has not increased the internal yield of crops. While yields for main crops have indeed increased in the last decades, they are the result of hybridization and conventional methods and not thanks to the genetically engineered crop.
Also, the vast majority of transgenic crops are grown on a large scale in rich countries, crops such as soybeans and corn. Some transgenic crops have also been developed for small-scale farmers in Africa such as sweet potato and cassava varieties designed to be resistant to viruses, but these have failed miserably. In contrast, projects that used conventional cultivation methods were successful even though their cost was minimal compared to the cost of the genetically engineered crop projects.
The GM crops did not reduce the use of pesticides, but increased it. In particular, the widespread adoption of "Roundup" crops has led to an over-reliance on "herbicides", which has led to the spread of resistant weeds. This in turn required farmers to spray even more "herbicides" and chemical mixtures in an attempt to control the weeds.
"Roundup" is neither safe nor benign. It has already been found to cause malformations in laboratory animals. As toxic to humans even in very low doses. Causes genetic damage in humans and animals. Epidemiological studies have found a connection between exposure to "Roundup" and cancer. Premature births and abortions and impaired neurological development in humans. In addition, "Roundup" applications can cause an increase in plant diseases, including infection by parasitic fungi, fusarium, which have a negative effect on yields, as well as produce toxins that can enter the food chain and can affect human and farm animal health.
Because of the failure of the "Roundup" against resistant weeds, the biotechnology industry is developing crops that can withstand even more toxic "herbicides". These crops will lead to an immediate escalation in the use of these herbicides.
It is often claimed that transgenic crops reduce the need for chemical insecticide sprays. But these reductions, when they occur, are in most cases only temporary. Resistance appears in insects and pests and even when the original pests are overcome, secondary pests appear. These developments show that this GM food technology is not sustainable. In addition, genetically modified crops contain toxins that are used as insect repellants, so even if they work as planned, they are not a solution, but they simply change the way pesticides are used.
Proponents of GM food often claim that these crops are safe because insect repellent sprays have been used safely for decades, but these toxins encoded within the genetic makeup of these crops are very different from sprays. The toxins that are encoded in the genetic structure of the crops do not always "break down" in the digestive system and were found to have a toxic effect on laboratory animals and animals that ate this crop in the open field.
Proponents of GM food have long promised crops that would adapt to harsh environmental conditions. But conventional farming has been far more successful than GM food technology in producing such a crop.
It is often argued that genetically modified crops with the addition of sprays are better because there is no need to weed the soil from weeds. But the adoption of these methods has been found to increase the negative impact on the environment of soy crops due to the use of herbicides.
Based on the evidence we have today it is clear that GM food technology has failed to deliver on its promises. GM food technology is fundamentally unsafe and poses proven risks to animal and human health, as well as to the environment. The claims of the advantages of the genetically modified crops are greatly exaggerated and the genetically modified food technology has shown to be unsustainable in the long term.
It is not necessary to take the risks posed by transgenic crops when conventional cultivation, aided by the improvement of natural selection and crossbreeding, continues to successfully produce high-yield crops, resistant to drought, resistant to changing environmental conditions, resistant to diseases and pests, and also nutritious. Conventional cultivation, the biological diversity of crops developed by farmers around the world, and methods of modern agriculture have been proven to be effective methods to meet our current and future food needs.
"Achieving multiple benefits for humanity" is not the goal. Money is the goal, and therefore one can and should be very concerned about the result of abandoning the tremendous power of genetic engineering in the hands of greedy corporations.
A corporation is not a human body and it will do everything legally possible regardless of moral considerations.
If putting cyanide in a donut was legal and it could increase profits they would do it without batting an eyelid.
To the moderator of the universe - you did not mention the most central point, which is that food production causes the population to increase due to a mistaken feeling among people that there is enough food for everyone. If farmers are allowed to use genetically modified species, the world's food production will increase and with it the world's population will grow to the point of dependence on this technology, despite its many disadvantages with almost no ability to turn the wheel back.
Some problems with the overwhelming innocence in the article.
First problem: when an academic suggests continuing to produce genetically modified food "but while establishing strict control and monitoring mechanisms", it is clear that he has never been a partner or an employee or a consultant to an economic business. The control mechanisms will be governmental and therefore will not be strict due to lack of budget. The lack of budget is a hidden result of the big money pressure of the tycoons. If introducing a scorpion gene into a tomato causes the pests to escape, and the entrepreneur to make billions, no government mechanism will stop it.
Second problem: the impossible time gap between the distribution of the engineered product and the health problems that may arise. It is possible for a child who eats genetically modified food to be infertile 20 years later. Who will fix? Who will stand trial? It is possible that there will be no one to blame, for the simple reason that no one thought to do anything wrong, sounds crazy? Search Wikipedia for an anti-nausea drug called thalidomide in the 60s.
Third problem: there is no vacuum in nature. In the battle between plants and pests, the arms race is never-ending. The plants develop defense mechanisms and the pests get better at attacking. When man develops defense mechanisms for the plants, he has no ability to know the peripheral effect on the world of pests, insects, fungi, and more.