Title: The Blue Banana and the science of food: A look at Gene technology
Author: Michael Day, Martin Drinkwater & Dorota Kubuj
Category: Current Affairs (feature article)

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.

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?