More personally, do I, as a non-scientist, intend to eat
genetically engineered foods? I would
like to make this decision based upon current scientific thinking. Unfortunately, as is the case with Climate
Change, there are websites claiming scientific credentials with contradictory
claims. Given the confusion over the
scientific rigor of the claims, it is easy, falling into conformational bias,
to simply believe those claims that are most aligned with preexisting beliefs
or values. I am resisting the urge to
do just that and have been trying to sort out this politicized scientific
debate. I have tried to avoid sites
uploaded by either agricultural concerns with a stake in potential profits or anti-GMA
sites that appeared to be presenting an argument rather than the science of it
all.
A preliminary question might inquire into identifying
genetically engineered foods already on the shelves. There are claims
that 80% of the packaged food on grocery shelves is genetically
engineered. These claims are
misleading. Most processed food contains
some sugar and most sugar beets and field corn from which high fructose corn
syrup are derived from genetically engineered sugar beets and corn. Source
and Source. The “80%” claim may be misleading because the
sources I have cited report that in the case of sugar, the sequence with the artificially
engineered nucleotides is broken
down or eliminated in the refinement process (or perhaps the digestive process,
which is more problematic for me). The
actual components of natural and genetically engineered DNA are the same. If the sequences are broken down into their
component parts, nothing novel is ingested.
There are some genetically engineered whole foods, including
varieties of papaya, sweet corn and some squashes. Furthermore, I presume that as the
agriculture industry becomes more experienced with genetic engineering, the
selection of genetically engineered foods will increase accordingly.
Preparing for the new agriscape, I try to not to let my Liberal
Aversion to New Technology control my choices. On the
other hand I am skeptical of “progress” promoted by industry. Industry has historically disregarded the public commons. Capitalism has no mechanism to prevent
pollution, exploitation of resources or otherwise consider long-term negative consequences of industrial
action. And even if we imagine a fully
responsible industrial decision there is the problem of unintended
consequences.
Genes are composed of DNA strands. DNA informs the
production of proteins. When DNA is genetically engineered, the DNA of an
organism will make new or different proteins and/or suspend production of other
proteins previously manufactured by the non-engineered organism. Proteins, in
turn, play critical roles in biologic function. Proteins have required roles in
the creating and maintaining structures and regulating the function of tissues
and organs. When you change the DNA, the proteins are changed and the organism
is modified.
The promise of genetically engineered agriculture is that crops can be modified so that plants are more disease resistant, more pest resistant, more drought resistant, more resistant to rot after harvest and can produce a higher crop yield. The benefits might include a more abundant and more stable more food supply. These benefits could be more apparent in less developed areas which tend to have more marginal nutrition.
The concerns about genetically engineered organisms include the introduction of toxicity or allergens in the food supply, vertical contamination of the artificial DNA into the naturally occurring populations of the same species and horizontal contamination of the artificial DNA into the other species.
It is beyond the province of science to confirm that genetically engineered foods are safe. Scientific testing is limited to looking for problems, but the absence of an identified problem is not a conclusive finding of safety. It is always possible that the problems have just not been identified. The limits of the scientific method suggest two conclusions. First, it is unreasonable to demand that science prove GMOs are safe. Secondly, the fact that problems have not been identified does not mean they do not exist.
A complicating factor in this discussion is the fact that genes do not necessarily have a one-to-one correspondence with a specific biologic feature. A single gene may affect more than one characteristic of an organism and often genes work in combination with each other. This means that even when a gene is isolated as affecting pest resistance, there may be other functions of that gene acting alone or in concert with other genes that remain unknown.
The promise of genetically engineered agriculture is that crops can be modified so that plants are more disease resistant, more pest resistant, more drought resistant, more resistant to rot after harvest and can produce a higher crop yield. The benefits might include a more abundant and more stable more food supply. These benefits could be more apparent in less developed areas which tend to have more marginal nutrition.
The concerns about genetically engineered organisms include the introduction of toxicity or allergens in the food supply, vertical contamination of the artificial DNA into the naturally occurring populations of the same species and horizontal contamination of the artificial DNA into the other species.
It is beyond the province of science to confirm that genetically engineered foods are safe. Scientific testing is limited to looking for problems, but the absence of an identified problem is not a conclusive finding of safety. It is always possible that the problems have just not been identified. The limits of the scientific method suggest two conclusions. First, it is unreasonable to demand that science prove GMOs are safe. Secondly, the fact that problems have not been identified does not mean they do not exist.
A complicating factor in this discussion is the fact that genes do not necessarily have a one-to-one correspondence with a specific biologic feature. A single gene may affect more than one characteristic of an organism and often genes work in combination with each other. This means that even when a gene is isolated as affecting pest resistance, there may be other functions of that gene acting alone or in concert with other genes that remain unknown.
Every genetic manipulation creates a novel set of biologic
questions. This means that every genetic
change must be studied independently.
The fact that a genetic manipulation may have unintended consequences
beyond the specific objective and that some of these unintended consequences
may only surface as a result of long-term studies means that even those
Genetically Modified Foods deemed safe after short-term studies need to be
followed looking for clues as to more subtle and long-term differences.
In Washington State there is an initiative
on the ballot that would require labeling.
If the people of Washington vote to include genetic information on some
food packaging because the information is material to their consuming decisions
because of a host of factors including safety, nutrition and market
centralization, then the food industry will have to adapt and make those
disclosures. I am concerned, however, about
the inconsistencies
in the global market. I believe it would
be in the best interest of Washington, as a stakeholder in international trade,
to push for labeling uniformity in global trade. It seems onerous for our agri-business, if
they must adjust the labeling based on every destination market. I would be a louder voice for labeling, if
the genetic engineering was taking place in Uzbekistan rather than Creve Coeur,
Missouri.
There are environmental concerns independent of human
consumption. Vertical Contamination has
already occurred
in Oregon wheat and caused severe economic problems. The consequences of
Horizontal Contamination are difficult to assess. However, birds, rodents, insects and bacteria
are all regularly interacting with genetically modified organisms. It may be that the chances of horizontal
contamination with animals or even insects are miniscule. However, the risk seems higher with regard to
bacteria or even a virus. In the
non-food sector genetically modified bacteria
could help with Climate Change. It
doesn’t stretch the facts much to imagine that a bacteria with some artificial
protein could worsen Climate Change. I
believe that it is difficult to assess the risks. Some have blamed the Bee Colony Collapse on
genetically modified organisms, although the cause of that problem may be a different
unintended consequence of agri-business pesticide development.
In a situation such as this I believe the Precautionary
Principle is an appropriate standard for setting policy. Unfortunately, given the difficulty of risk
assessment, application of the principle leads to widely divergent
results. A reasonable policy response
would require that environmental as well
as human consumption studies are required for each and every genetically
modified organism taken outside the laboratory.
A requirement that all genetically modified organisms are
sterile and cannot replicate is sensible, but leads to a concern about market
control. Sterile crops require farmers
to purchase new seeds every year from the patent holder. The ultimate result of the requirement of
sterility is that the food supply of the consuming nations becomes dependent
upon a limited number of agri-businesses, such as Monsanto, holding patents on
genetically engineered crops. A
balancing policy would be to require patent-holders to pay for the pre-release
studies and the necessary follow-up studies as well as any remedial action in
the event of a problem in the same way that industries are responsible for
chemical pollution in the event of a spill.
This policy may result in higher prices for genetically modified foods,
but the higher price may be closer to the public cost of the technology.
One argument used by some is that genetic engineering is the
same as selective breeding which is publically accepted. First, selective breeding has led to toxic
crops, so the argument cannot reassure us of the safety of genetic
engineering. Secondly, selective
breeding can only enhance the inherent capability of the organism in question,
while genetic engineering is capable of creating entirely new characteristics. There is a difference in kind between
selective breeding and genetic engineering.
To conclude, I believe that there is no scientific reason to
assume that currently available genetically modified food products are not
safe. I have been and will continue to
consume foods that are genetically engineered.
That being said, I also believe that long-term studies should be carried
out to screen for more subtle or delayed problems. Each new instance of genetic engineering must
be independently studied. Costs and
responsibility for precautions should be borne by patent holders. Studies should monitor environmental
contamination as well as human health concerns.
The issue of labeling is best addressed with a global standard.
The scientific voice I find most compelling in this
politicized debate is the Union
of Concerned Scientists. (Another
UCS page). The UCS has been accused
of being unscientifically cautious, but given the uncertain risk-assessment I
find their voice responsible rather than reactionary.
10/14/13
Further reading:
Sites claiming GMOs are safe enough-
Sites claiming GMOs are not safe enough –
No comments:
Post a Comment