The Truth about Genetic Modification

The battle lines have been drawn and it seems there is very little middle ground in the argument over genetic modification of crops. Both sides have strong cases. Scientists claim that by changing one gene out of a possible 50 000 in an organism, they are creating crops that are drought, pest and disease resistant – all of which is entirely true.

The anti-GM lobby lead by environmental groups such as Greenpeace claim that genetic modification creates unpredictable results and can introduce new allergens and toxins to the environment as well as to the human diet – completely true also.

So where to from here? GM crops are permeating the world economy with astonishing speed and the flow-on effects are already unavoidable so what do people need to know about genetic modification?

What is Genetic Modification?
Dictionary.com defines genetic modification as ‘any alteration of genetic material, as in agriculture, to make them capable of producing new substances or performing new functions; also called genetic engineering, genetic manipulation, gene splicing, [gene technology], recombinant DNA technology.’

How does it work?
Scientists locate individual genes and transfer them to different cells in either the same species or a different one. By transferring the gene, the inheritable trait that gene codes for becomes inherent in the progeny.

Background
In 1953 when James Watson and Francis Crick first discovered the double helix, the stage was set for what is happening in gene technology today. There has long been sci-fi speculation about the creation of super-races but what of real life crops and animals?

Scientists have been tampering with genetic inheritance for centuries. Ever since the first Daschund was bred to hunt badgers – hence the long body and short legs so they could fit into the burrows – or the first seedless banana appeared in a fruit bowl, humans have been breeding desirable traits into useful living things. The difference between the very lengthy process of selective breeding and genetic modification is that there is a much more predictable and immediate outcome with genetic modification.

Most people are familiar with the practice of grafting complementary species together – with plants such as roses and grape vines, wild, disease resistant rootstocks are grafted onto a scion (the part with the stems, leaves, flowers and fruit) of the more delicate species. In a genetic modification scenario, however, the genes from the stronger species would be transferred directly into the DNA of the ‘weaker’ plant. Examples of existing GM crops are corn plants that are resistant to insect attack and wheat plants that are drought-resistant because they need less water to grow. These may sound like neat solutions to problems that have plagued farmers for centuries. However, the long term effects of this mutation are impossible to quantify at this early stage.

The first GM food, a yeast, was approved for use just 17 years ago in the UK. Following this, the first food to include a GM ingredient, a vegetarian cheese, hit shelves two years later in 1992. Between 1996 – 1998, the area planted with GM products worldwide leapt from two to 28 million hectares worldwide, featuring around 60 different crops.

Australia first embraced GM in the form of a blue carnation that was approved for commercial growth in 1995. The following year, insect resistant cotton was grown commercially for the first time. There are currently 31 strains, covering eight different food crops, approved for cultivation by FSANZ (Food Standards Australia & New Zealand). In the case of GM canola, however, the three strains that were approved for cultivation have never been planted due to a moratorium instigated by public pressure on the state governments.

Health Impacts
The main concerns that have been raised by scientists, community groups and members of the public include the fact that new allergens could be inadvertently created and that antibiotic resistance may develop.

Regarding allergen creation, the concerns centre on transgenic organisms (ones that contain the genes from two or more species). For instance, during laboratory testing, a gene from the Brazil nut was introduced into soybeans. The resulting problem was that people with a Brazil nut allergy could also be allergic to the soybeans that had been genetically modified in this way. Having said this, though, no allergic effects have been discovered in the approved GM foods.

Concerns around antibiotic resistance have arisen because of a system whereby scientists insert a ‘marker’ gene to help them identify whether a new gene has been successfully introduced to the host DNA. One of the most common marker genes is identified by a resistance to particular antibiotics. If genes coded for resistance were to be taken up by human’s gut microflora, via the food chain, the outcome would be that the risk of infectious disease would be increased across the affected population. The scientific community have even agreed that these markers should be phased out, despite the risks being very small at this stage.

The real danger in GM foods, like many modern inventions, is that they haven’t been around long enough to truly determine whether there are any long term positive or negative effects. While they have been extensively critiqued by both those in favour and against, the fact is that no one can really know.

Farming
The repercussions of the presence of GM crops are dire for organic farmers because of the strict standards they must meet in order to be certified organic. In Australia alone, the organics industry is worth $400 million to the economy every year, a figure which is growing exponentially year-on-year.

GM cropping and organic farming is fundamentally incompatible because Australian standards prohibit the intentional use of GMOs. While there are no current stipulations for unintentional GM contamination due to cross-pollination or other unforeseen circumstances, the risk is very great if a GM product is not properly tracked or if GM crops border organic farms. With 102 million hectares of land under GM management, compared to 31 million hectares of organically managed land, there is an increasingly great likelihood that shared waterways, animals (such as insects and birds) and wind could lead to cross-contamination of organic crops. Undetected mutations could threaten the integrity of the farm’s output not just for one crop rotation but forever.

For or against?
The truth is simply that there is no conclusive answer. While there are plenty of governments that are approving GMO’s for use in their nations, the fact remains that GMO’s could have a dire effect on their countries’ ecosystems. As the old adage goes, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. If organic farmers are successfully producing foods without chemicals or genetic modification, surely this means that it is not only possible, but also commercially viable.

About Macro Wholefoods Market
Macro Wholefoods Market is Australia’s largest organics retailer. With nine outlets in NSW and Victoria, and three more stores set to open in the coming months, Macro is committed to bringing organics to a wider audience and helping its customers live healthy & environmentally sustainable lives through its products and services. For further information go to the website http://www.macrowholefoods.com.au .

Recent Research Findings
• Links between GM potatoes and the formation of tumours in rats

• Being fed MON863 corn could potentially cause ‘statistically significant’ differences in the kidney weight and blood parameters of rats

• CSIRO’s pea cultivar was found to increase antibodies in the bloodstreams of rats and when applied to lung tissue, caused inflammation. (CSIRO are not seeking approval for this crop).

• In a lab experiment, rats were fed GM soy two weeks prior to conception and during their pregnancy. A resulting 56.6 per cent of offspring of the rats that ate the GM soy died in the first three weeks of life, compared to a nine per cent loss from the rats that ate non-GM soy.