Why I’d be happy to eat GM food
AS A school biology student, I believe much of the irrational fear over GM products (Mail) is because people do not understand the processes involved in genetic modification and believe products for human consumption that originate in a laboratory are inherently untrustworthy and dangerous. In fact, they’re not. Genetic modification involves identifying the desired gene in the genome of another organism, plant, animal, bacterium or fungus. It can then be ‘cut’ from its DNA, using restriction enzymes, and introduced into the DNA of the organism to be modified. That involves cutting open the DNA (again with a restriction enzyme), inserting the gene and re-sealing the DNA ‘backbone’ with a ligase enzyme. The organism will then express the characteristics of that gene. Golden rice, for example, will begin producing betacarotene (a substance processed by the body to make vitamin A) in its grains, which it was previously unable to do. Some people think consuming a GM product will somehow lead to serious illnesses, such as cancer, but this is a fallacy. GM products differ only in the characteristics they exhibit due to the genes added to them. They don’t secrete ‘side products’ and the products they do secrete are tested exhaustively to ensure they don’t cause any harm. Beta-carotene in Golden Rice, for example, isn’t a carcinogen or any other risk to humans. On the contrary, it could be a great help in reducing blindness caused by vitamin A deficiency in the Third World. However, knee-jerk reactions and scaremongering mean scientists can’t use GM products to help vulnerable people. Another fear is that GM organisms might breed with wild species and ‘contaminate’ those populations, reducing biodiversity. But wild species (especially plants) interbreed constantly, and the introduction of a GM variety won’t upset the existing balance. Technically, we’ve genetically modified for thousands of years by selective breeding — desired characteristics are expressed and others suppressed. People should think twice about blindly demonising GM foods.
ASHLEY KNIGHTON, Derby. THE risks associated with the push to get genetically modified organisms (GMOs) back in our diets are too high. The real risk comes at an early stage: in the fields where crops designed to be superior to conventional crops are let loose in the environment. They will out-compete conventional crops, making it financially non-viable for farms not to grow GM. And they tend to create a monoculture, the opposite of biodiversity. Whole ecosystems can risk collapse through the fragility of monocultures. In time weeds will evolve to get around the genetic modification, so any benefits GMO crops had will be stopped. But this is a long-term argument, one the economic machine doesn’t understand or care about. A precautionary principle approach would have us avoid these situations. It would advocate not total banning of GMOs but, instead, lots of research to find conclusively if, or how, we can make them safe enough not to cause a risk of ruin. This problem is indicative of an overreliance on technology to solve our problems too quickly and cheaply. This has produced other serious problems: illnesses resistant to antibiotics, the ozone layer hole, and human-caused mass extinctions. These should have taught us that the speedy roll-out of new technology and ‘scientific advances’ can have serious effects, and that we should be cautious about them. But we haven’t learnt from our mistakes and one can only hope the public will act as it has before to defeat this latest attempt to sneak GMOs into our food chain. Dr RUPERT READ and DAVID BURNHAM,
Philosophy Department, University of East Anglia, Norwich.