Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BigFatBuddha (talk | contribs) at 23:13, 26 April 2003 (I tried to avoid typos...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

A genetically modified organism or GMO is any organism (plant, animal, microorganism) that has had its DNA modified in a laboratory rather than through natural mutation. For instance, a bell pepper may have DNA from a fish added to it to make it more frost-tolerant.

Controversy

Genetic modification itself, beyond current genetic manipulation methods, is the subject of controversy in its own right - some believe that the science itself should be forbidden.

Genetic modification within agriculture is an issue of some debate in the United States, the European Union, and some other countries.

Proponents of genetic modification argue that it allows great advances in agriculture (for instance, making plants more tolerant of certain diseases or of water shortages, increasing their nutrient value, or decreasing their cost of production), as well as allowing other beneficial creations such as the petroleum-eating bacteria. Opponents generally argue that the ultimate results of releasing genetically modified organisms are not predictable and may have unexpected and irreversible effects on the environment; since genetically modified organisms, like conventional organisms, are patentable under some laws (such as the U.S. law), GMO crops can theoretically harm agriculture itself, by leaving independent farmers unable to purchase seed each year. (see biopiracy).

These concerns have varying impact, depending on particular national circumstances. Some argue that the patent issue is not necessary valid in developed nations as some hybrid crops seeds (already eligible for patents) are likely to be purchased anyway (e.g. corn).

Proponents typically dismiss published concerns as bad science and alarmism. They state that genetic modification offers enormous benefits in terms of improved agricultural efficiency and the resulting beneficial health effects of better nutrition. Opponents typically point to the many unstudied issues and warn that mistaken assumptions about safety could result in disaster. This controversy is many years from being resolved. (see precautionary principle).

The practice of genetic modification, as a scientific technique, is unrestricted in the United States; individual GMO crops are subject to intense study before being brought to market and are common in the United States and estimates of their market saturation vary widely. Many countries in Europe have taken the opposite position: that genetic modification has not been proven safe, and therefore that they will not accept genetically modified food from the United States or any other country. This issue has already gone before the World Trade Organization, which determined that not allowing GMO food into the country created an unnecessary obstacle to international trade.

It is almost certainly true that not all genetic modifications have the same effects on health or on the environment; those policies that classify all genetic modifications as good or bad are thus overgeneralized. However, indefinite postponement of policy decisions may not be in the public interest.

Besides, those arguing for application of the precautionary principle insist one of the risk of using GMO is the one of seeing natural species being contaminated by GMO (for example, natural canola aquiring the new GMO canola genes through cross-pollination). They fear natural non transformed species could be led to disappear (due to the genetic selective advantage of the transformed species), resulting in loss of biodiversity.

The standard agricultural practice of applying certain (but not all) pesticides to crop plants has been shown (cite the research) to result in short- and long-term harmful effects in humans. There is therefore some question as to whether genetically-modified crops that confer pest resistance might be harmful to humans as well. Current pest-resistant strains use a relatively innocuous toxic protein derived from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). However, harmfulness is an area of great controversy not only among the general public, but among scientists as well.

Research conducted by scientists at Imperial College London and the Universidad Simon Rodrigues in Caracas, Venezuela recently revealed that the diamondback moth grew 56% faster when fed cabbage genetically modified to contain Bt than it did when fed cabbage without the Bt. Scientists speculate that the moth is metabolizing the Bt and using it as an additional food source.

References:

• http://www.biotech-info.net/pusztai_article.html reviews a number of toxicologic studies and concludes that there were design and/or model flaws in most.

• http://www.aces.uiuc.edu/~asap/expanded/gmo/sci_main.html describes more of the controversy, also citing studies.

Recent evidence shows that genetically-modified plants may "escape" from fields in which they were planted and out-compete unmodified plants in surrounding fields.

References:

• BBC News article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/753586.stm by environment correspondent Alex Kirby. Discusses possible pollen escape in the U.K. and includes links to other articles on the same topic.

• 'Allison Snow, an Ohio State University professor who received Scientific Americans first annual Research Leader in Agriculture award, has reported (http://www.osu.edu/researchnews/archive/sungene.htm) on several studies showing the strengthening of weeds due to genetic escape of the Bt variant.

• Independent article on the study showing that diamondback moths grow faster on cabbage engineered to contain Bt than they do on cabbage without it. http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=392044

See Also

genetic engineering, environmentalism, gene therapy, pesticide, bt corn, protein engineering