The direct problems in the studies that were done turned out that the situation is not so simple. First, it was found that RR crops do not necessarily lead to savings in the use of herbicides, in addition, from year to year the weeds become resistant to the herbicides
Shahar Dolev
in his article "Transgenic plants, the fear and the necessity" From issue 60 of 'Galileo', Avi Blizovsky brought the arguments for and against the use of genetic engineering in agricultural crops. The article is enlightening and exhaustive, but suffered from a certain one-sidedness. While the arguments in favor of the use of genetically modified crops were detailed and expanded, the counterarguments were hurriedly reviewed. In this response I would like to expand a little on the problematic side of genetic engineering in agriculture.
Great promise
The main use of genetically modified crops is done in the USA, where 60% of the processed food originates from genetically modified crops. The main varieties are soy, corn and cotton. The most widespread use today is of "Roundup Ready" crops (Roundup Ready or RR), which are crops resistant to the Roundup herbicide. A gene is inserted into the plant that codes for the creation of an enzyme capable of breaking down the active substance in the herbicide, so that the crops can be sprayed with the herbicide without fear because the genetically engineered crop manages to break down the deadly substance before it harms the plant. The claim is that these crops save work: there is no need to cultivate the land and weed weeds - this is a saving of money, but also an ecological advantage due to low soil erosion. In addition, there is a saving in the use of herbicides: the herbicide Roundup is used once or twice on the crops (normal crops must be sprayed four, five times or more), so the total amount of herbicides is smaller than with the old methods. ,
Other transgenic crops are BT crops, in which a toxin-producing gene of the bacterium Bacillus thringensis has been implanted - or 'BT' for short, which is deadly to pests but not to humans. These crops drastically reduce the use of various pesticides (between 20% and 50%) because the plant produces its own pesticide and there is no need to spray.
The big promise of the producers of the genetically modified varieties is that with their help world hunger will be solved. The claim is that less work, high yield, resistance to pests and planting genes for nutritional factors that are lacking in the third world, will lead to improved nutrition in developing countries and the elimination of the risk of starvation.
The direct problems in the studies that were done turned out that the situation is not so simple. First, it was found that RR crops do not necessarily lead to savings in the use of herbicides, in addition, from year to year the weeds become resistant to Roundup and quantities are required
Growth and development of the herbicide. The study found that farmers growing RR crops use 10% to 30% more herbicides per unit area than traditional crops. It was also found that the yield obtained is 5% lower by
10% of the usual. So in relation to the amount of the crop, RR crops require a much higher amount of herbicides than traditional crops, contrary to promises.
One of the claims is that the low yield is due to low nitrogen fixation and the weak immune response of the plant. If this is indeed the case, it will become clear that in the long run the crops will weaken and become vulnerable to diseases, a process that can lead to huge epidemics that will destroy a significant percentage of the crop. So far no long-term research has been done on these effects
Research that was done found that RR crops are more "woody" and therefore fragile - a fact that can be a problem in stormy weather. In addition, a low resistance to heat stroke was also discovered - a problem in hot weather. In general, the introduction of foreign genes can "drag" with it additional genes that will be expressed only in extreme conditions such as high temperature, cold, humidity or an attack by a certain bacterium or virus. Also, since there is no control over the place where the transplanted gene enters, there is a possibility that existing genes were damaged in the process in a way that would be expressed only under certain conditions. It is quite possible that RR crops have a problem dealing with heat stroke, but since they did not test the crop in extreme heat conditions the problem is unknown. Thus, in a particularly hot year, a damaged gene can manifest itself and cause serious damage to most RR crops. ,
BT crops, in which a gene has been added to the BT toxin that is supposed to be harmless to humans, pose another threat: the infiltration of toxins and allergens into the food. It is not clear what the long-term consequences of exposure to the toxin are. There are reports that rats fed BT crops suffered damage to the immune system and developmental problems. Indirect environmental effects were also found: in experiments it was found that 50% of monarch butterfly larvae that ate leaves dusted with corn-BT powder died in a short time. It should be noted that these two reports are controversial and do not amount to unequivocal proof
The clearest example of the difficulty in controlling transgenic crops is related to the Aventis company's BT-corn strain called StarLink. In 1998, during the licensing of corn, it was found to cause an allergic reaction in humans and it was banned for human consumption. Then it turned out that the corn kernels had already been delivered to the farmers and crops had already been harvested and sent for processing. Avantis promised that it would collect all the crops from the farmers, but tests done in 2000 revealed signs that the corn found its way into the food market and products had to be recalled from the stores. Due to the fact that the GM corn kernels were mixed with normal corn kernels, it is not at all clear if all the food products containing the GM corn were returned. In addition, evidence was found that the allergen is also found in non-transgenic crops, probably due to the pollen from the transgenic crops. 24 people reported a severe allergic reaction as a result of eating corn products. It should be noted that the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) conducted an examination in which it was doubted that the allergies were indeed caused by the corn, but from other independent studies the claim arose that the examination was not serious and limited in covering up the facts.
To date, the licensing tests for genetically engineered crops have been derived from the appropriate process for drugs, which are taken in a defined and relatively short period of time. The transgenic plants will be eaten from the age of zero to 120, so there is a need for special test protocols suitable for the unique and long-term effects of genetic changes in edible plants. An example of the problematic nature of the existing licensing tests can be seen in the story of the 'golden rice', in which a gene for beta carotene was inserted. In the tests done on the rice grains, excess amounts of the substance xanthophyll, which is the yellow pigment in the leaves, were found. This substance is not dangerous, but it is not found in the standard licensing tests, but only in special tests done for the purpose of quantifying beta carotene. This means that the accepted tests are insufficient and there is a fear that dangerous substances will not be detected
The use of antitoxins (in RR crops) can result in a 'spillover' of the antitoxin genes to the wild grasses, thus creating resistant varieties. The canola (a plant whose seeds are used to make oil) in Canada, for example, has become one of the ten most harmful weeds. Wild strains were pollinated from the pollen of canola-RR, thus creating wild strains resistant to 3 different toxins. Farmers are now using more toxic herbicides in an attempt to eliminate these resistant varieties from their fields.
Another problem is related to the genetic engineering process itself: as part of the process, antibiotic resistance genes are inserted into plants, these genes remain in the seeds distributed to farmers. Thus, there is the possibility that these genes will infiltrate the wild crops and even bacteria, and allow the development of antibiotic-resistant bacterial strains. It should be noted that the common perception is that in nature there is no possibility of 'horizontal' gene transfer - between different varieties or between plants and bacteria or animals - but there are several experiments in which such a process has been observed. In a British study from 2002, for example, genes from RR tumors were found in bacteria in the intestines and feces of subjects. What happened is probably as follows: the food is broken down in the intestine, the DNA segments are exposed and come into contact with the bacteria living in the intestine, the bacteria manage to swallow and assimilate the DNA segments.
From this short list one can get the impression that the potential problems inherent in genetically modified food are many and varied. Of course, this does not negate the many benefits of this food, but one must be careful not to take the possible damages lightly because the results can be disastrous. A meta-study done in 2003 that examined the number of scientific articles on genetically modified food found an alarming minority of independent studies - from 1995, only 10 articles were published on the subject.
The indirect problems
Beyond the direct problems, the secondary effects of using genetically modified crops must also be taken into account. The first problem is the reduction of genetic diversity. In a study conducted in China, it was found that the diversity index among insects in BT-cotton fields is lower than what is customary in traditional cotton fields, on the other hand, the pest index is higher. The study suggests that the elimination of the population of harmful worms caused the elimination of the population of their natural enemies, which caused the violation of the ecological balance. It was also discovered that secondary pest populations (aphids, mites, butterfly larvae) grew stronger and rushed to fill the place of the weakened worms. In principle, tests done on transgenic varieties do not include testing the effects on biological diversity. This is how new crops are introduced into the environment whose entire intention is to change the ecological balance, without examining the long-term consequences of the change. In 2000, the British government began a three-year study to examine the effects on the ecological balance of transgenic varieties, but even in this study, only the short-term effects are examined.
The transgenic plants do not grow in a closed space, as a result the pollination from transgenic plants does not allow to limit the distribution of the transgenic genes to the sown fields only. As mentioned, BT and RR genes were found in wild varieties and edible crops that did not undergo genetic changes. In a study done on food crops from the 2000 harvest in the USA, remnants of transgenic genes were found in all the crops tested, even organic crops. In Canada, it is no longer possible to grow organic canola in the province of Saskatchewan because the environment is contaminated with wild plants that pollinate the crops with powder containing RR genes. In Denmark, in an examination of organic crops, 40% of them were found to have gene marks from transgenic crops. ,
So the procedure of inserting the transgenic genes is one-way. Once a transgenic variety is sown, the new genes will also appear in non-transgenic crops. And if it is found that the gene is harmful in the long term, it will be many years before it can be 'cleaned' from the gene pool if at all.
In order to profit from the sale of the genetically engineered seeds, the biotechnology companies issue patents on the seeds. Thus, by law, they prevent farmers from using crop seeds from one cycle for sowing in the following cycle ('saving seeds'), and oblige the farmers to buy the genetically modified seeds every year. In Canada, a seed company sued a farmer in whose field genetically engineered crops were found - according to him from seeds blown by the wind - on the pretext of patent infringement. ,
In order to prevent the possibility of 'stealing' seeds, biotechnology companies began to implant a gene that causes the seeds in the next generation to be sterile. In this way, the companies guarantee that it will not be possible to use the crop for re-sowing without the need to threaten lawsuits for patent infringement. With the sterile seeds, the companies increase the farmers' dependence on them. According to a UN survey, 1.4
One billion farmers in the world (the third, mainly) are based on 'saving seeds', a sweeping transition to genetically modified crops could cause the collapse of these traditional farms. An ActionAid study conducted in Pakistan showed how farmers who were tempted to grow genetically engineered 'magic' cotton collapsed financially due to
The high price of seeds. The study warns against spreading genetically modified seeds in developing countries before a comprehensive study of the economic and social effects of the move is carried out.
Genetic engineering will not solve the problem of hunger
With all these shortcomings, it is not at all certain that genetic engineering will live up to its great promise - ie: solving the world's hunger problems. If we take Ethiopia as an example, it will be seen that the hunger problems stem from a lack of infrastructure, education and basic resources. All of these combined with a constant war with Eritrea prevent the possibility of balancing the market and a fair distribution of food. Thus, in the 90s, Western methods were introduced to Ethiopia as a response to the famine of the 80s, under pressure from the World Bank to privatize agriculture, cancel subsidies to farmers and introduce free market economic methods. Under government pressure, the fields were sown with corn and grains using modern methods (without genetic engineering).
The initial result was an increase in yield until Ethiopia became a food exporter, but the process caused the disruption of the social balance, the disintegration of the economic order and finally the collapse of most agricultural farms. The result is that this year again we heard about famine in Ethiopia. In other African countries, as well as in India and now also in South America, the general description is similar. ,
From all of the above, one can get the impression that the problems of hunger have a political and economic basis, not a technological one. Solving the political problems today could bring relief to the hungry, while food shipments or flooding the farmers with genetically engineered crops will only further undermine the social and ecological balance, but will not solve the problems of hunger. ,
In conclusion, I will point out that, like any technology, genetic engineering also has positive and negative sides. In order for the positive side to outweigh the negative, the genetically engineered crops and their use must be strictly monitored. The outbreak of BSE (mad cow disease) in Great Britain taught us that there are effects that are revealed only after many years and escape all existing tests. The examination of the side effects of transgenic crops in China showed far-reaching effects on the ecosystem. The study of the effects of mechanized agriculture in Africa has shown that undermining the social and economic order can lead to disastrous results. On the other hand, the distribution of genetically modified crops is a one-way process - after the seeds have been sown, the genetically modified genes will appear in wild and edible crops for many years. ,
Since in the playground of the big players - the giant American corporations - whose only goal is to make money, there is a great fear that genetically modified crops are put on the market hastily, without all the side effects being tested, especially the long-term effects. There is great doubt if there is a body in the world that can stand against their economic and political power. Therefore, it is no wonder that Europe and Japan oppose the end of genetically modified soybeans, because they know that in its wake a flood of genetically modified varieties will come and, together with the economic power of the American corporations, will be able to drown them.
Sources
The Grains of Truth, contains many useful references
a>
Poison Plants? Scientific American, July 1999
The Risks on the Table, Scientific American, April 2001
Safety aspects of genetically modified foods of plant origin, World
Behind the Famine in Ethiopia: Glut and Aid Policies Gone Bad, Wall Street Journal, July 1, 2003
One response
Great plants