Original Title: “Will Frankenfood feed the World?”
A general impression about seminars and conferences on Genetic Engineering is to find out if one agrees with the issue or not. One may be asked, “Are you in favor of genetically modified organisms (GMO) and genetically modified food (GMF)? Outside of the hall one may be asked casually of the same question.
Photo Acknowledgement: Time Magazine
It is hard to expect clear yes or no answers. Here is the story to make us understand why – and to help us take side intelligibly on the issue.
We in the older generation have witnessed three revolutions in food production. The first green revolution was the opening of new frontiers, such as the development of Mindanao, the land of promise. The second green revolution was brought about by the so-called miracle varieties, or the introduction and breeding of high yielding crops. In both cases production tremendously increased – horizontally with new lands placed under cultivation, and vertically with higher productivity obtained. The third, which we are experiencing today, is biotechnology, which highlights the radical approach of genetic engineering.
The first Green Revolution pushed production frontiers up to the mountains and down to the sea. Slope agriculture and aquaculture were born. When agronomy succeeded in pushing plants and animals to yield to maximum, we began tinkering with their genes through conventional breeding and atomic radiation. The world proved Malthus to be wrong up to this point.
Today with more than 7 billion people populating the earth and with their geometric increase unabated, the biggest challenge of mankind is how to meet the tremendous increasing demand for food. By year 2050, the world’s population will be 9 billion. Proponents of genetic engineering believe that only by applying the vast potentials of this scientific breakthrough can the world’s burgeoning population be saved from the Malthusian apocalypse.
By-Products of Green Revolution
The main drawback of the Green Revolution I - that of pushing the frontiers of production - has been the irreversible loss of natural environments and species. For GR II, we spoiled our lands, lakes, rivers and seas with pesticides, fertilizers and other chemicals exacerbated by industrial wastes. For GR III – biotechnology – what is causing a lot of fear is Frankenstein-like, a kind of Genie released from the confines of super intellect.
Some even branded GMF as Frankenfood named after Frankenstein, title of a novel written in 1818 by Mary Shelly. It is a story about a brilliant medical student, Victor Frankenstein, who created a monster that terrified the world and at the end turned against his own creator. It is not difficult to associate the concept of genetically altering organisms to Frankenstein syndrome. The story is perhaps the first serious warning on the use of high technology in man’s ambition to play God. GMO is the most controversial issue today that touches all aspects of our life - environmental, health, safety and ethical questions. It is claimed to be anti-God and anti-nature.
The Promise of GMO
“Will Frankenfood feed the World?” is an article written by Bill Gates for Time, Visions of our 21st Century Technology. The multi-billionaire stirs the world on two fronts: GMF has met fierce opposition among the well-fed, but it is the poor and the hungry who need it most.
He admits that even before the warning came – in spite of the information highway – the world was not well informed before hand. There was no global consultation. But GMF is already a part of life of Americans and Europeans. Here are some proofs.
1. A third of the corn and more than half of the soybeans and cotton grown in the US is the product of biotechnology.
2. Since 1992, a total of 70 genetically modified crop plants have been released commercially worldwide. This means that many people have been eating genetically modified food without their knowledge.
3. Only one country in Asia – Malaysia that has not introduced GMO. On the other hand Singapore imports food in bulk from the US and Europe and therefore Singaporeans are likely eating GMF.
4. In the Philippines the most likely GMF we are eating without knowing or being informed about it are those served at fast food stores and PX goods coming from Europe and the US.
But the debate about biotech is tempered by the fact that there is apparent desperate need to feed fast-growing and underfed populations. According to the UN 800 million people around the world are undernourished.
While we cannot rely on conventional agriculture, ironically too, arable land has declined steadily since 1960 and will decrease by half over the next 50 years, according to the International Service for Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA).
_______________________________________________________________
One area of heated debate is in the aspect of ecology. Because the products of Genetic Engineering are new and untested, their effects as they pass through the food chain must be thoroughly investigated. Admittedly very little study has been done on this aspect.
_______________________________________________________
Genetically Modified Organism (GMO): Neo-Frankenstein Monster
GMO Gone Wild in acrylic by the author
All these scenarios have their early beginnings with the DNA (Deoxyribonucleic acid) model proposed by F.H.C. Crick and J.D. Watson in 1953, the two later sharing the Nobel Prize in biology. So precise is the double helix model that with modern tools, one can insert a portion of the genetic material from one organism onto another, causing the latter to carry a desired trait. Thus a gene of a bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis, spliced into the genetic structure of corn produced the Bt corn, the first genetically modified crop. The plant is claimed to be caterpillar-resistant since B. thuringiensis causes disease in caterpillars that destroy corn. Protein gene of one legume can increase the protein nutrients of another. Beta-carotene gene from daffodils, when introduced into rice produces golden rice.
The questions are, when introduced, what extent are the modifications? What kinds and directions will they go? Could an organism, reaching a level of modification, lose its genetic identity, thereby becoming alien to its adopted environment?
We ask these questions in the light of the following premises:
1. A single gene may control one trait, but where there are more traits controlled by multiple, blending genes, the process can get out of hand. The collective expression of modified gene combinations, not to mention the effects of disturbed loci in the genes, can be dangerous. It will take time for us to know the adverse effects of GMO on the human species, and the environment.
2. Every trait of an organism, in one way or the other, has an affect on the environment, and vice versa. This means that if the protein is elevated, the higher protein levels will need more nitrogen, thereby requiring fertilizer subsidy. An increase in milk output means more cattle feeds, and antibiotic input to protect the animal from milk production-related stress. There is a saying in ecology that there is no such thing as “free lunch”.
3. Ecologically, how will a GMO relate to the natural members of the environment? How will the new organism now fit into the ecosystem in which its “parents” were once a part, integrally built by laws governing seres, niches and evolution? We may be only interested in how the organism serve our purpose for the moment, but unaware of its usefulness or destructiveness, when left alone in its own environment.
4. Genetic engineering may increase the number of plants and animals that now depend entirely on man’s care and attention. Many genetically altered breeds and varieties may no longer be able to live and prosper in the open. This is indeed an antithesis of ecological farming, and sustainable agriculture. ~
Continued...
No comments:
Post a Comment