When people encounter the term “biotechnology,” their typical response is often one of confusion, asking, what does that mean? Frequently, they associate it with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or refer to it as “Frankenstein food,” a term inspired by the fictional character created by author Mary Shelley.
However, biotechnology is not simply a figment of imagination; it is a tangible reality. The term is derived from two components: bio, which comes from biology, the study of life, and technology, which refers to the tools and methods employed to achieve specific objectives.
The term was first introduced by Karl Erchy, a Hungarian agricultural economist, who recognized the inevitable convergence of biology and technology. In 1917, he coined the term “biotechnology” to reflect this emerging field.
Biotechnology is certainly not a recent development. It has existed for countless generations. Spirulina, one of the earliest life forms on our planet, is thought to be what the ancient Israelites referred to as “manna from heaven” in the Old Testament.
So those who think biotechnology is a product of modern science should think otherwise. To prove it, French geneticist Alex Kahn gave this illustration: “In 6,000 B.C. in Egypt, man fermented microorganisms and obtained an alcoholic beverage called beer. In 5,000 B.C., he recreated a vegetal monster, wheat, by crossbreeding three genomes of different sub-species.”
One of the primary reasons biotechnology is currently being advocated is due to the looming hunger crisis that the world is expected to encounter in the forthcoming years. As the population continues to expand and the available land for food production diminishes, it is likely that the world will struggle to adequately feed humanity.
“Somehow, we’re going to have to figure out how to meet a demand for a doubling of the world’s food supply, when it’s impossible to conceive of a doubling of the world’s acreage under cultivation,” Robert Shapiro, chief executive officer of Monsanto Corporation, told those who attended the annual meeting of the Biotechnology Industry Organization in 1988. “And it’s impossible, indeed, even to conceive of increases in productivity – using current technologies – that don’t produce major issues for the sustainability of agriculture.”
Biotechnology has been seen as possible solution to the problem. “I now say that the world has the technology – either available or well advance in the research pipeline – to feed on a sustainable basis a population of 10 billion people,” Nobel Peace Prize winner Norman Borlaug pointed out. “The more pertinent question today is whether farmers and ranchers will be permitted to use this new technology?”
Dr. Borlaug, touted to be the “Man Who Saved a Billion Lives,” was referring to biotechnology. “While the affluent nations can certainly afford to adopt ultra low-risk positions, and pay more for food produced by the so-called ‘organic’ methods, the one billion chronically undernourished people of the low income, food-deficit nations cannot,” the American agronomist deplored.
With the new knowledge in molecular sciences, it is now possible for any gene to be cloned or made synthetically and transformed into any crop by using available techniques. “In classical or conventional plant breeding,” explained Dr. Emil Q. Javier, former secretary of the Department of Science and Technology, “gene transfers are limited to between varieties of the same species; occasionally between species within the same genus, and rarely between species belonging to different genera.
“Transferring novel genes between plant families, much less from bacteria to plants, was impossible. But now with modern biotechnology, very wide introgressions are no longer impossible,” he said.
“This is the fastest growing technology in the world,” added Dr. Nasir A. Saeed, of the National Institute for Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering, during a biotech forum a few years back. “Responsible and safe deployment of modern biotechnology can significantly enhance prospects for improving yield and socio-economic conditions of poor small farmers in developing countries.”
But critics see it differently. “It’s now possible to do stuff that only writers could imagine before and build up completely new life forms. The argument that we need genetically-modified food to feed the world is complete bull,” said Greenpeace International, an activist group, said in a statement.
“There are enough natural resources for us all to be fed,” said Emma Plugge, an official of the Buckinghamshire Health Authority in United Kingdom. “It is inequity of food distribution that results in the starvation of million in poorer nations.”
Most of those who oppose transgenic crops asked whether they are safe for human consumption. “Foods produced using genetic modification are as safe as foods produced using conventional breeding techniques,” assures the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). “Genetically modified foods are as safe as other foods available on the market.”
A review published in 2008 by the Royal Society of Medicine highlighted that transgenic foods have been consumed by millions globally for over 15 years, with no documented adverse effects. Similarly, a report from the US National Academies of Sciences in 2004 stated: “To date, no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population.”
The Geneva-based World Health Organization (WHO) announced that various genetically modified foods undergo a global food safety assessment known as Codex Alimentarius Risk Analysis of Foods Derived from Modern Biotechnology, under which these foods have not been deemed hazardous to human health.
“GM foods currently available on the international market have passed risk assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health,” said the UN health agency in a statement.
“No effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. Continuous use of risk assessments based on the Codex principles and, where appropriate, including post market monitoring, should form the basis for evaluating the safety of GM foods,” it added.
– ###
