Genetically Modified Nonsense
You know what puzzles most genetic scientists? That there’s any controversy at all. After reading about a field of GM potatoes being grown nearby to myself I figured I’d do my bit to set the record straight.
There never was and never will be any health risk to humans from GM foods. It’s quite simply impossible. There is, however, quite a large health risk to humans from starvation.
The high priests of the anti-GM movement (Largely “greens”, paradoxically) have founded what approaches religion with their hate filled rhetoric which has no foundation in reason or fact.
The basics of genetic modification are really simple. Genes control what proteins a cell manufactures and how. What we do is take a section of this control code that does something we want it to do and add it to the existing code. In the above link, the potatoes, the scientists took a gene which makes the potato roots emit a certain chemical, which nematode worms use to locate roots to eat. They then broke the gene so it doesn’t work; The roots no longer emit that chemical, the worms can’t find them, the potatoes aren’t killed.
We could do, and have done, the exact same with selective breeding. If you think your pet dog isn’t genetically modified, think again. It’s not a wolf, we genetically engineered it into the dog by thousands of years of selective breeding; This is genetic modification. Same for the cow from the auroch. The pig from the boar, the chicken, the turkey, all staples on our dinner tables, all genetically modified and not found in nature.
What science is giving us are tools to do those same modifications in years rather than in millennia. Now we can directly modify the traits and characteristics of plants and animals; A good example are fungal infections in plants. We can spray on bacteria which poison the fungus, or we can include the genetic code from the bacteria which produces that fungicide into the plant’s own genome and make plants which are immune to the fungus and we don’t need to spray on the bacteria.
So what’s the problem? Well, we make ’supercrops’ which could escape into the wild and out-compete native plants. Which, of course, we’ve been doing for millennia! Rapeseed plants (Canola over the Atlantic) are springing up all over the European countryside. Wheat grows wild, but doesn’t even exist in nature. This environmental ‘disaster’ that the high priests of anti-GM preach their sermons on isn’t just a ‘disaster’ but it’s already happened and has been since we first invented agriculture 8,000 years ago! As we can see just by looking outside (I can anyway), the original forest of Britain has been almost entirely obliterated to make room for agriculture. The prairie of the US has had its herds of bison massacred and wheat planted, roads cut across it.
We’ve already done the disaster. Let’s just make the best use of the land we’ve claimed so we don’t need more. Genetic engineering allows us to make that best use. The anti-GM high priests would rather have us slash and burn rainforests than be content with what we have already; With that objective in mind, can they ever label themselves ‘environmentalist’ with a straight face?
“There never was and never will be any health risk to humans from GM foods. It’s quite simply impossible.”
Except you can’t prove it’s impossible, you can only prove that a given change isn’t harmful.
But how can you you do that without long-term effect trials that last most of a lifetime?
If it was possible to prove things safe for human consumption, the FDA wouldn’t have such a difficult job with drugs (see: vioxx), unusual foods (see: stevia, which is a grown foodstuff that they want to see proof that it is safe before approving it for consumption) and the panics about phthalates wouldn’t happen. In fact, if it was possible to prove GM foods safe, there wouldn’t be any uproar because it would be easily countered by providing proof of their safety.
There must be differences between foods which are edible and foods which are not, are they all known?
“”" In the above link, the potatoes, the scientists took a gene which makes the potato roots emit a certain chemical, which nematode worms use to locate roots to eat. They then broke the gene so it doesn’t work; The roots no longer emit that chemical, the worms can’t find them, the potatoes aren’t killed.”"”
We can say that they were either emitting a certain chemical because it helped their survival or because it was no hinderance to their survival. Who can say for sure which?
It’s extremely easy in, say, programming to make a change which has knock-on consequences that aren’t seen for a long time, or which don’t seem to be related to the change, or which aren’t seen outside some particular set of circumstances.
I am suspicious of GM foods because I’ve heard of many cases where things once thought neutral or even healthy are now known not to be. See: transfat, asbestos, vioxx, acrylamides in charred foods, smoking, powdered lead face paint, lead paint in general, thalidomide, uranium tinted drinking glasses, radium impregnated warm blankets, unregulated unmeasured-dose x-ray shoe fitting machines,
Want me to stop worrying about GM foods? I don’t know if you can - I’m a habitual worrier. :p
Si
10 May 08 at 20:30