GM crops thoroughly vetted

I REFER to the recent letters on genetically modified organisms (GMOs): “Let science speak for GM products” (The Star, Nov 6) and “Still wary about GM products” ( The Star, Nov 23).

We need to understand farmers’ plight to ensure seven billion people have enough food to eat. Just like us, the farmers also need technologies to do their job effectively. Farmers are entrepreneurs who embrace technologies that are beneficial to them, regardless whether it is from the private or public sector.

But science-based evidence supporting GMOs is often perceived to be favouring big corporations, forgetting hundreds of GM crops are under research in public institutions around the world.

GM crops were first commercialised in 1996 and the number of farmers who adopted the technology has grown hundred-fold since to 118 million farmers today. They would not keep buying GM seeds if there are no economical benefits. The demand for such crops only calls for more active public research so that farmers can get their seeds at a cheaper price.

However, continuous demonisation of GM crops and the call to raise the regulatory bar will push GM technology to the hands of big corporations as public institutes do not have deep pockets to cover extraordinary regulatory procedures demanded by critics to provide more of the “nice to know” information instead of the crucial “need to know” information.

The writer of the latter letter listed one such “nice to know” information. He says the 90-day feeding study is not enough to ensure the safety of GM foods. Current scientific knowledge on toxicology, food allergy and nutrition is sufficient to tell us if a food will have any adverse effect.

Composition of food is a better indicator than animal or human trials in evaluating whole food. We need to understand that evaluating whole food is different from evaluating a single compound. GM food does not contain any different compounds than conventional food, so human or prolonged ani- mal studies will yield very little useful information.

Moreover, the 90-day study is only part of the very comprehensive process. Numerous other studies are conducted over a period of 13 years that include more than 50 studies on food, feed and environmental safety. None of these studies are conducted for conventional bred crops where genetic modification takes place as a result of irradiation, use of chemical mutagens, protoplast fusion, changing the number of chromosomes and cross-breeding.

In fact, GM crops are vetted using extremely stringent research protocols that make them very safe. More than 2,000 studies have confirmed that GM food does not pose any health risks. At least 250 scientific organisations around the world endorse GM food as safe.

The writer’s information on India is also not accurate. The Green Revolution was not an initiative of big corporations but it is an intergovernmental effort that facilitated technology transfer. Because of the Green Revolution, many superior seeds were developed and with the use of fertilisers and the introduction of proper irrigation, many countries were spared from starvation.

The Green Revolution has nothing to do with GM crops. India adopted GM cotton in 2002 and as a result has become the world’s number one producer of cotton and saved thousands of farmers from poverty.

The critics of GMOs use all techniques and scaremongering strategies to vilify technology, innovation and tools even if it hurts farmers and public sector research.

I support open discussion on GMOs or any other emerging technologies, but the arguments should be based on credible information and sound science. Picking up bits and pieces from the Internet only demean the good work done by scientists, governments and various institutes.

DR MAHALETCHUMY ARUJANAN Malaysian Biotechnology Information Centre