| The
Blue Banana and the science of food: A look at Gene technology
Michael
Day, Martin Drinkwater & Dorota Kubuj
GM
Foods – What??
A blue banana may sound a bit far out, but with gene technology
anything is possible. As a result, genetically modified
food has become one of the latest scientific areas of
controversy.
A
food can be said to be genetically modified when the genetic
structure of a given plant (or animal) is changed by either
taking a gene from another biological organism or synthesising
a gene in the laboratory. In lay terms this means that
scientists can change the taste, texture or colour of
foods and modify their ability to resist insects and herbicides.
With this power, even something as improbable as a blue
banana is possible.
There
are many supporters for gene technology and just as there
are many opposed, but perhaps the greatest concern is
that people do not feel informed. With so many issues
and so much information out there, it is often hard to
get a sensible and definitive answer. What are the risks
and benefits of GM foods? What are the major social and
economic issues surrounding GM foods? And finally, how
is the Australian government keeping the public safe from
adverse effects?
It
can’t be all bad - can it? What is the big fuss?
Taking antifreeze genes from an Antarctic fish and putting
them in commercial tomatoes sounds totally acceptable;
right? There is hot debate all over the world on GM foods,
and if you are having trouble making sense of it all,
you are not alone. For simplicity’s sake, let us look
at the "for" and "against" arguments.
We Want GM, We want GM
Although
such statements satisfy many people, they do not sum up
all the benefits of GM food. At a time when over a tenth
of the world's population is starving, it is essential
to produce more food faster and to produce it in severe
climates. Some say that gene technology is the answer.
The
ability to engineer crops means greater productivity with
greater efficiency. Making plants self-resistant against
pests -- for example, making the crops deadly to locusts
-- will mean a decrease in the use of pesticides, which
we can all agree benefits the environment.
Ethically, supporters merely see gene technology as hastening
natural evolution on earth. Plants naturally change over
time, so what is the big deal? Many also say that without
sufficient investment in gene technology, Australia's
role as an agricultural producer will wane. Food exports
will decline. Jobs will be lost. Australia will plummet
into another depression, starvation will reign, and ultimately
we will all die. Well maybe not that extreme, but you
get the picture.
Ban the Blue Banana
So
far so good, but can we rely on science to foresee all
risks? After all, scientists once argued that nuclear
reactors would provide cheap and clean energy!
The
introduction of gene technology could have detrimental
effects on the environment. It has been shown that the
genes of herbicide-tolerant plants can spread into their
weedy relatives. The result? The creation of new weeds
invulnerable to herbicides. These "super weeds"
may wreak havoc in stable ecosystems, mutate into intelligent
beings, and eventually take over the world (wink, wink).
New
allergens could be created by accident. As you are munching
away on your morning’s apple, suddenly your tongue recoils
in an allergic spasm, and you choke to death. Why did
your grocer not warn you? Because they simply did not
know. Also, known allergens could be transferred from
one food to another. For example, when a gene from a Brazil
nut was introduced into soybeans, it turned out that people
allergic to the Brazil nut were also allergic to the soybeans.
It has also been proposed that new viruses could evolve
from large-scale plantings of virus-resistant crops, as
viruses are known to change their genetic make-up with
ease.
Many
say we already have sustainable ways of producing food.
Organic farming and careful use of chemicals and pesticides
makes gene technology seem less necessary. The technology
is just another "quick fix" for the economic
interests of big business, it is argued.
So
now I hear you say “OK, so we have twice as much wheat,
but what do we do with it”. Ultimately, the problem lies
in the uneven distribution of the world’s wealth. Having
more food is useless if it does not get to those who need
it. The real problem lies in the self-interest of governing
institutions. Many people believe capitalist pigs will
take advantage of any new technology to increase profits.
However, those who may be labelled capitalist pigs counter
that such progress will result in more jobs for unemployed
workers, so everyone benefits via enlightened self-interest.
So what’s the deal in Australia?
A
problem that is currently confronting lawmakers is who
owns the intellectual property associated with GM? Clearly,
those who control the technology will want it use it as
they desire. This leaves GM open to abuse by unscrupulous
people. Some say the way to fix this is to make genetic
engineering “Open Source” (free to the public), but then
who would do research into new GM products without the
promise of profits to pay for all of that research? It
seems logical to conclude that government must allocate
more funds to the regulation and advancement of GM technology.
Laws
concerning GM foods are two fold in Australia. They regulate
what GM foods you can buy at the supermarket and how those
foods are labelled. In May of 1999, the Australia &
New Zealand Food Standards Council made it illegal to
sell any GM foods without an assessment notice from the
Australian New Zealand
Food Authority (ANZFA) and government approval.
The
first GM food approved was Roundup Ready soybeans. This
soybean variety was developed by US biotech company Monsanto
to be resistant to its best selling weed killer, Roundup
(a development that works out kind of nicely for them,
right?). Since June 2000, five other GM food products
have been granted approval to be sold in Australia --
canola, corn, potato, sugerbeet and cottonseed. They are
found in oils, fried foods, confectionary, snacks and
other processed foods.
However,
there are GM products for sale in Australia that have
not yet been assessed by the ANZFA.
As many biotech companies were slow to present their GM
commodities for assessment by ANZFA, an amendment was
made to the law allowing the foods to remain on the shelves
as long as:
- Companies have submitted an application for a safety assessment;
- The food is already being sold in an overseas market; and
- ANZFA has no evidence that the food is unsafe.
The laws in Australia also deal with the labelling of GM foods. Foods MUST be labelled if they contain any foreign DNA or protein or if the food has an altered characteristic. “Well that's ok”, I hear you thinking. If everything is labelled, everyone will be well informed, and free choice will reign. Bring it on! Unfortunately, in July 2000, amendments took some of the free choice out of our hands. State and Federal health ministers resolved that some foods would be exempt from labelling requirements.
The most controversial of the amendments was the exemption of ingredients from GM labelling where they contain up to 1% of genetically modified material, but only when its presence is unintended. Now, I do not know how that sounds to you, but I would have thought that an ‘unintended' genetic modification would be the one that the public would most like to be informed about. So, the government has left room for commercial development but also, some would say, room for concern.
Where does this scientific and regulatory situation leave us? Up in the air and completely confused? The debate is so involved, including distinguishing what is ‘natural' from what is ‘engineered', that there is no doubt that argument will continue long into the future. Given the contentiousness of this arena, why bother with seemingly petty modifications of food? Great be the day when we simply punch "Pizza" into our molecular reconstructor, and ‘presto': a steaming meat-lovers appears, hot and ready for our greedy delight. Sounds plausible? That is the bottom line, some would say. What do consumers want, and what are they willing to pay for it, out of pocket and long term? A blue banana to match your outfit, anyone?
|
