Understanding Biotechnology

What is Biotechnology

Overview of Biotechnology

History of Biotechnology

Why do we do biotechnology?

Biotechnology for the environment

Biotechnology for food and agriculture

• its rapid development for the benefit of large agribusinesses with insufficient consideration of potential problems;      
• the poor record to date in setting and policing adequate controls for trials of genetically modified (GM) crops;      
• incomplete labelling that will deny consumers the right to avoid some GM products such as oils and sugars;      
• the ridiculing and marginalisation of scientists who raise issues or disagree with the views of those with a vested interest in the technology.

I am also concerned about claims that genetically modified foods are the solution to feeding an increasing world population.

Theoretically, GM crops could offer better nutrition to people in countries where under-nutrition is a major problem, but the main GM crops being grown are corn and soy for animal fodder in developed countries.  Public relations spokespeople for the GM industry maintain that nutritionally-enhanced products will follow, but no foods with nutritionally superior value due to genetic modification have yet appeared in supermarkets.

In the rush to sign up farmers for GM crops that increase sales of associated herbicides, particular tests that might have reassured consumer groups have not been done. Suggestions for feeding large quantities of genetically modified crops to significant numbers of young animals over a reasonable time period are resisted by those in favour of GM foods who insist such tests are not needed for products they claim are ‘substantially equivalent' to other foods.  Consumers have overwhelmingly rejected such claims, yet their concerns are largely ignored by proponents of GM technology.  Calls for greater consideration of the possible environmental effects of GM crops have also been ignored.

Feeding the poor?

Because: 

• poor people lack money to buy food and land that can sustain crops;    
• infrastructure like roads to get products to market is missing or has been destroyed during invasion and war;      
• trade policies disadvantage farmers in the developing world.

World poverty and food shortages are political issues.  They are made worse by inequities in wealth and excessive consumption in some countries – especially of meat.  If we really wanted to alleviate world hunger, the simplest, least costly and most environmentally-friendly method would be to stop feeding grain to livestock.  Production of lot-fed meat, for example, uses vast quantities of land and water.  Much of the rainforests in parts of Central and South American countries have been destroyed to produce beef.

Growing corn or soybeans to feed cows and chickens is a much less efficient use of limited arable land than growing corn or soybeans for direct human consumption.  Yet 82% of all GM crops grown have been soy beans or corn for animal fodder, making a mockery of claims that GM foods are being developed to feed the hungry.

GM crops are being developed by and for large corporations that need to sell their products at premium prices to cover the cost of research.  The products are primarily designed for rich countries.

Over the last six years, GM crops have not been cheaper than conventional crops.  Any cost savings presumably go to the companies selling GM seed and associated herbicides.  Some farmers report they use fewer pesticides, and this may therefore save them money, although others claim their costs are no different for production of GM crops.  Among experts, opinions about use of herbicides varies.  A CSIRO report notes that "the impact of herbicide-resistant crops on herbicide use by farmers is not clear cut.  The development of GM crops with resistance to new generation herbicides will presumably increase the use of these particular herbicides".  The CSIRO report does mention a favourable reduction in usage of some more persistent weed killers that remain in the environment for longer times – an obvious advantage – but will this situation remain if weeds resistant to safer herbicides develop, as is likely?

There are also reports of poorer yields from GM crops and this increases costs to farmers.  Food industry spokespeople maintain there are increased costs associated with labelling GM foods, but say they will be passed on to consumers.

Nutritional benefits?

Estimates of the amount of golden rice needed to provide enough beta carotene range from 2 to 54 bowls of rice every day.  The International Rice Research Institute in Manila favours the potential benefits of the new rice but also notes the low levels of beta carotene and the fact that a diverse diet remains the best solution to vitamin A deficiency.  Appropriate (and more traditional) vegetables and fruits grown by villagers would provide beta carotene as well as other related and necessary nutrients.

While scientists may be trying to solve a real problem, it is naïve to think beta-carotene-enriched rice will go to those too poor to pay much for it when an alternative would be for food companies in wealthy countries to pay high prices so it can be added to high-priced ‘value-added' functional foods complete with health claims.

Genetic modification could theoretically be used to produce more nutritious foods but this avoids confronting the real problems.  We already know that vegetables and fruits have health benefits, but few people in developed countries eat enough of them.  They have been convinced by marketing and advertising campaigns to choose highly processed foods instead.  The idea of genetically modifying another food to include nutrients already found in vegetables and fruits is a nonsense.  Which brings us to another problem.

Literally hundreds of studies show that those who eat the most vegetables and fruits have lower levels of many chronic diseases including obesity, type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease and some cancers.  But we do not know which factor, or more likely, which factors, are responsible for this protection.  High consumption of vegetables and fruits also displaces foods with a negative nutritional impact.  How do we genetically modify some other food to provide the hundreds of components of vegetables and fruits when we still don't know their relative value and whether they need their natural companions for benefits to occur?

It's easy to make incorrect assumptions about nutrient needs, especially if they satisfy a market.  This occurred when scientists used traditional techniques to breed linseeds without their long chain omega 3 fatty acids (which oxidise readily and are a problem for food manufacturers).  Just when the new linseeds were ready, other researchers discovered the main value in linseeds lay in the very fatty acids that had been removed.

Nutrition is a young science and we don't yet have all the answers.  Making assumptions based on what suits agribusiness or food manufacturers does not always benefit consumers.  Canola is being genetically modified to contain larger quantities of lauric acid, a saturated fatty acid that can raise blood cholesterol levels.  This may suit manufacturers of biscuits and confectionery, but will have adverse nutritional effects for consumers.  Had public health and consumer advocates not been successful in lobbying against some sections of the food industry for food labels to include saturated fat content, consumers would not have known the undesirability of this new ingredient.

GM foods and sustainability

When scientists developed pesticides, they assured us all they were safe.  Toxicity tests on individual products looked fine and no one saw a need to look at combined effects.  Fertilisers and irrigation were promoted with enthusiastic promises of increased yields and little appreciation of salinity and the adverse effects on rivers which are now apparent.  With GM crops, potential problems are still being ignored in favour of short term gains.  For example, reports that GM crops alter soil microbiota could have adverse long-term effects, but companies and regulators do not appear to take this into consideration.

Social and cultural issues have also been generally ignored.  Rural communities in Australia are now suffering the consequences as are those in developing countries where crop recommendations have destroyed local biodiversity and changed family farming practices.

In 1998, the Australian Food and Grocery Council's submission to the government recommended that the Convention on Biological Diversity be restricted only to issues that could be assessed by scientific disciplines, and not by economic, social or cultural considerations.

It is little wonder the community has a distrust of science and industry and their ‘solutions', many of which ignore social and environmental issues, including sustainability.

There are claims from some proponents that GM crops will improve sustainability with better crop yields and less land clearing.  There is no proof of the latter and even if increased crop yields were assured, the desire for greater profit from successful GM crops is more likely to lead to clearing more land to produce even more profit, as has occurred with conventional farming.

Nor is there adequate proof of increased yields.  Independent analyses, such as those from Nebraska University's Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources, show yields from GM crops are not always better.  Where increased yields do occur with some crops, they appear to be small and do not apply to all crops in all places.  Use of herbicides does not necessarily decrease and some GM crops still require heavy use of pesticides.

Who are their real beneficiaries?

Even if GM food products could produce some genuine benefits that take account of social, cultural and environmental factors, other alternatives also need consideration.  These include:

• a change away from using resources that results in more useless food products for overfed populations; 
• a move away from grain and legume-fed meat and poultry;      
• more research to establish efficient organic food production.

It would be a tragedy if these and other necessary actions were not taken because of an over-riding mistaken belief that GM foods can solve the world's food problems.