By Gerry T. Estrera
THEY call it GMO or genetically-modified organism. A GMO is a living organism, plant or animal, containing a gene coming from the same or different organisms introduced through genetic engineering techniques.
Genetic engineering is the alteration of an organism’s genetic, or hereditary, material to eliminate undesirable characteristics or to produce desirable new ones.
“With this modern technology, our scientists and plant breeders can make better plants faster by transferring specific and desired characteristics into the plant,” said a coalition of leading Filipino scientists promoting the use of biotechnology in the Philippines.
Biotechnology, of which genetic engineering is part of, has existed since ancient times. Spirulina, one of the oldest forms of life on earth, is believed to be what the ancient Israelites of the Old Testament called “manna from heaven.”
Those who equate biotechnology with modern science, the French geneticist Alex Kahn has this to counter: “In 6,000 B.C. in Egypt, man fermented microorganisms and obtained an alcoholic beverage called beer. In 5,000 B.C., he created a vegetal monster, wheat, by crossbreeding three genomes of different sub-species.”
Dr. Khan, director of research at the French National Institute of Health and Medical Research, warned that the fears and expectations aroused by biotechnology have existed since the beginning of time. “They are entwined with ancient myths, prejudices, and aspirations,” he pointed out.
With the advent of genetic engineering, the border between myth and reality appears increasingly blurred. Is the molecular geneticist to be equated with the magician who could transform a pumpkin into a carriage, or again, with an ancient soothsayer, now able to read the future with powerful genetic tools?
“The molecular geneticist who teaches bacteria how to make human insulin, an anti-hemophile agent or a growth hormone is without a doubt a magician, but should he necessarily be feared?” Dr. Khan asked.
In the Philippines, when the National Committee on Biosafety of the Philippines (NCBP) approved the applications for field testing of Bt corn a few years back, there was a howl of protests.
“Why introduce Bt corn to solve the corn borer problem when small farmers have an inexpensive way of solving this problem by detassling, which takes one farmer only three days to do per hectare?” wondered the Magsasaka at Siyentipiko para sa Ikauunland ng Agham Pang-agrikultura (Masipag).
Bt corn refers to a variety of corn where Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) gene has been introduced or inserted, which makes the crop naturally resistant to the Asian corn borer, the number one pest of corn in the Philippines. Bt is a protein which has been used for almost 50 years by organic gardeners and farmers around the world as a biological insecticide.
“The insertion of the Bt gene into the corn plant allows the corn to produce a Bt protein which when eaten by the corn borer larvae will kill them in one to three days,” explain the coalition of biotech proponents. “This Bt protein is highly specific and therefore will only cause detrimental effects to insects that have specific gut receptors for the toxin, such as insects belonging to Order Lepidoptera, where corn borer and other caterpillars belong.”
In recent years, it has been shown that Bt corn have adverse effects on non-target insects. A study conducted by Cornell University in the United States showed that Monarch butterfly larvae fed with Bt pollen die.
The Filipino scientists who are experts on biotechnology have this explanation: “The Monarch butterfly belongs to Order Lepidoptera which is the host range of the Bt protein. The Monarch butterfly larvae died when it was fed with milkweed dusted with fresh Bt corn pollen under laboratory conditions. In fact, it has been reported that Monarch population in North America has been increasing in the last two years which coincides with the increased plantings of Bt corn. The distribution of milkweed in the field and the behavior and migration pattern of the Monarch butterfly in relation to the growing season in the US minimizes, if not precludes direct exposure of the caterpillars to Bt pollen on milkweed.”
Other issues concerning biotech-derived foods include:
Allergies: Dr. Romeo Quijano, of the Department of Pharmacology of the University of the Philippines College of Medicine, said GM foods are hazardous commodities because they carried new proteins that may cause allergy.
The National Institute of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology (BIOTECH) and its team have this answer: “Contrary to common perception, it is natural foods, not additives and artificial flavors, which account for majority of food allergies like nuts, shrimps, crabs and others. In fact, any food that contains proteins has the potential to cause allergic reactions depending on individual susceptibility.
“Furthermore, extensive food safety evaluation has been implemented to minimize the possibility that allergenic proteins are introduced into commercialized genetically modified crops. There is no single commercialized genetically modified plant that is known to cause any significant risks of allergenicity.”
Cancer: People eating GM foods are likely to be susceptible to cancer. This was discovered in a study conducted by Dr. Arpad Pusztai of the Rowett Institute on genetically engineered potatoes on rats. In his research, he fed rats on two strains of potatoes: one with genetically engineered with lectinfrom snowdrop bulbs and another with ordinary potatoes.
The result of his study: immune systems and brains, livers, kidneys and other vital organs of the rats fed with lectin-spiked potatoes were damaged while those fed with ordinary potatoes showed no damage at all.
“There is no evidence that the technologies used to produced-genetically modified foods are inherently harmful,” BIOTECH and other institutions concluded. Referring on the study done by Dr. Pusztai, they said it was debunked by the Royal Society of London. They found the Pusztai study as “flawed in experimental design, execution and analysis.”
Antibiotic resistance: Dr. Quijano said a scientific data indicate that “the emergence of new diseases, the rapid evolution of virulence and the widespread occurrence of drug and antibiotic resistance are associated with the rise of genetic engineering.”
The BIOTECH team claims otherwise: “The possibility that antibiotic resistance genes built into genetically modified plants could be transferred to bacteria harmful to humans has been thoroughly studied. To date, no reliable and stable transfer has been reported. In fact, there are no known mechanisms for effective transfer of genes from plant to bacteria under natural conditions.
“The probability of this occurring has been calculated as less than one in 1018,” the team said. “That is less than the chance of winning first prize in lotto three times in a row.”
Besides, antibiotics are used only in the laboratory during development process of the GMOs. The GMOs, they claimed, do not produce antibiotics nor do they require application of antibiotics in the field.
Meanwhile, Dr. Kahn argued that right questions about transgenic plants are not being asked. “To ask whether a transgenic plant is dangerous makes no sense,” he complained. “It’s like wondering whether a vegetable plant is dangerous: tomato isn’t, hemlock is.”
Are these plants dangerous for the environment? “For two to three centuries, colonial powers brought back exotic plants and transplanted them on their territory without knowing anything about the environment. The molecular geneticist is probably much less uncertain about what he is doing than the selector who crossbred species at random to make wheat. Genetic engineering should be seen as one manner of apprehending a problem that man has pursued over time: to improve the variety and quality of plant species.”
0 Comments
Oldest