“GENETIC engineering is like performing heart surgery with a shovel. Scientists do not yet understand living systems enough to perform DNA surgery without creating mutations which could be harmful to the environment and our health.”
So says a recent analysis in the Washington Post newspaper.
According to it, genetic engineering (the science of altering genetic material of living organisms such as animals and plants in order to eliminate undesirable characteristics or produce desirable new ones) is like playing with what nature has set straight.
“Any form of technology that seems to compete with nature always has adverse effects,” it concludes.
The analysis was in reaction to the current global debate over the advantages and disadvantages of genetically modified organisms (GMOs which include foods) that has divided the whole world virtually into two main groups.
One group, which includes even scientists, supports the idea that GMOs have brought about a number of solutions to many food problems that face humanity currently, among other benefits.
Whereas the other (which also uses scientific proofs to support its position) opposes the idea altogether on ground that it is detrimental to human health and the environment generally.
As a result, so much confusion has ensued around the issue and in many countries of the world today including Tanzania, much is still not known about the advantages and disadvantages of GMOs.
It is important to note that GMOs are not quite a new idea in Tanzania and sometime in 2005 the former Minister for Food and Agriculture, Charles Keenja, disclosed that the country was carrying out GMO tests with the aim of verifying their negative effects.
However, much of all this is not known by the Tanzanian public.
Recently, the Director of Environment in the Vice President’s Office, Erick Mugurusi, said that there was a dire need to create awareness among Tanzanians about GMOs together with their potential benefits and threats to the environment, humans etc.
“There is need to create awareness about genetically-modified organisms because biotechnology is rapidly developing with more GMOs being released into the environment causing risks to animal and human health,” he said.
He was speaking during a National Biosafety Framework Implementation Workshop that was held in Bagamoyo.
According to him, establishment of a proper mechanism to create awareness so as to enable the public participate in the implementation of biosafety measures was necessary.
“The level of public awareness on biotechnology and biosafety in Tanzania is extremely low, even amongst the scientific community. Information should be availed to the public on GMOs that have been received or denied authorization into the country,” he pointed out.
Though there is no a clear-cut demarcation as to the truth of each side, a brief highlight of the propositions by each of them could shed some light as to the benefits and negative effects of GMOs and thus enable us to take appropriate measures in time.
But before embarking on that, it is useful to trace the background of biotechnology which is the one that gave birth to GMOs.
The Science Technology Encyclopedia of 2005 defines biotechnology as any technique used to make or modify the products of living organisms in order to improve production and disease resistant in plants or animals.
If appropriately integrated with other technologies, biotechnology can be applied for the sustainable development of agriculture, livestock, fisheries, wildlife and forestry, pharmaceutical and medical industries as well as in the protection of the environment, it adds.
It is worth noting that biotechnology is a branch of science that has been in use for thousands of years, probably since the beginning of civilization.
For instance, even here in Tanzania for many years through indigenous knowledge the best animals or crops were cross-bred so as to get strong products.
So the buffalo-like bulls (which are largely hybrid products) have been cross-bred with the indigenous species to get better results.
As it advanced, biotechnology started dealing with the treatment of ailments and alteration of organisms to better production whose general end result was to improve human life. However, most breakthroughs have been a bit current and one of the them are the GMOs.
There are many examples to prove that the adoption of biotechnology has offered higher yields and better ways of crop and livestock production to farmers.
Genetically improved foods have provided higher nutritional value, better taste and longer conservation all to the benefit of consumers and besides, they have also helped to fight hunger and malnutrition by feeding the ever expanding population of human beings.
For instance, with increased nutritional values scientists have managed to add some characteristics in certain foods such as rice that reduce vitamin ‘A’ deficiency which is the leading cause of blindness and a significant factor in many child deaths.
Scientists have also developed certain types of trees with modified cells which when used to make pulp and paper require less processing with strong chemicals and thus reduce negative impact to the environment.
Increase in yields is another benefit derived from GMOs whereby modification in crops has brought about seeds that could boost production more times than the indigenous (original) species.
Tolerance to poor environmental conditions such as diseases and drought is another advantage of GMOs as scientists have managed to come up with crops with characteristics that are resistant to these bad conditions and thus increase production.
Despite all these success stories, there are still doubts even among the scientific community about the potential threats posed by GMOs to human health and the environment generally.
These technologies are still very new and are shrouded with uncertainties over their safety.
For example, the global environmental watchdog, Greenpeace, says that genetically engineered plants contain genes (units inside cells) from bacteria, insects and viruses, which have never been part of the human diet.
“No information exists about their allergic properties. The allergic potential of such exotic, introduced gene products are uncertain, unpredictable and untestable,” it says in its 2004 report on GMOs.
Many of the genetically engineered crops, which are already grown on a commercial scale, contain genes, which are resistant to antibiotics used for the treatment of diseases in both humans and animals, it adds.
GMO genes can pass on to other members of the same species and perhaps other species. This can be at gene, plant and ecosystem (the relationship between living things and their physical environment that upholds life on Earth) level.
So far, Greenpeace notes, research on this is inconclusive with scientists divided though there is a scientific consensus that once widely released into the environment, GMOs cannot be recalled.
“GMO contamination of traditional varieties of cotton in Greece, canola (rapeseed) in Canada, soy in Italy and papaya in Hawaii has been reported,” Greenpeace discloses in the report adding:
“Traditional crops of the poor are not protected from contamination with GMOs and because all GMO traits are patented (restricted right to make, sell or use a product), implications of the accidental contamination and dissemination should be addressed.”
This means that the original (traditional) varieties are slowly but surely mixed-up and replaced by genetically modified crops and hence pose a possible danger once such human technologies fail at a time when there would be no original seeds to help the recovery of the crop.
For example, local varieties in Latin America permitted the recovery from the catastrophic potato blight in Ireland in the 1840s, the Greenpeace report says.
Again the impact of ‘terminator’ seeds (the seeds that are planted and harvested only once) is also on spotlight.
These seeds though not yet widely commercialized, they would, if applied, prevent a crop from being grown the following year from its own seed.
This is a great blow to poor farmers as they cannot save seeds for planting the next season other than going to buy seeds every new year.
Biotechnology critics also argue that innovations in agricultural biotechnology are profit-driven and not need-driven and that the fact that genetic research is costly the GMO technologies will continue to concentrate in the hands of a few multinational companies.
In an attempt to recoup their initial investment, research institutions patent biotechnology products hence withhold vital information about the innovations and their impact to humans and the environment.
As a result, farmers do fear that they might even have to pay for crop varieties bred from genetic material that originally came from their own fields when they buy seeds from companies holding the respective patents.
According to Greenpeace, Monsanto Corporation of USA is one of the world's largest chemical companies, and by far the most aggressive promoter of genetic engineering in agriculture.
At the moment, the company is responsible for more than 91 percent of all genetically engineered crops in the world.
It spends millions of dollars trying to convince people that the fate of the world's starving masses depended on the acceptance of its new, genetically engineered crop varieties.
It is obvious that biotechnology is like a mixed blessing. Its products have created some amazing possibilities among many such as the feeding of the world’s ever expanding population.
However, reports of the technologies’ potential negative consequences to human health and the environment force people to think twice about biotechnology and GMOs because some of the effects are feared to be irreversible.
Nevertheless, the fact that such technologies could be here to stay makes it necessary for authorities concerned to work hard in identifying their good and bad sides so as to act in time before the situation gets out of hand.
So says a recent analysis in the Washington Post newspaper.
According to it, genetic engineering (the science of altering genetic material of living organisms such as animals and plants in order to eliminate undesirable characteristics or produce desirable new ones) is like playing with what nature has set straight.
“Any form of technology that seems to compete with nature always has adverse effects,” it concludes.
The analysis was in reaction to the current global debate over the advantages and disadvantages of genetically modified organisms (GMOs which include foods) that has divided the whole world virtually into two main groups.
One group, which includes even scientists, supports the idea that GMOs have brought about a number of solutions to many food problems that face humanity currently, among other benefits.
Whereas the other (which also uses scientific proofs to support its position) opposes the idea altogether on ground that it is detrimental to human health and the environment generally.
As a result, so much confusion has ensued around the issue and in many countries of the world today including Tanzania, much is still not known about the advantages and disadvantages of GMOs.
It is important to note that GMOs are not quite a new idea in Tanzania and sometime in 2005 the former Minister for Food and Agriculture, Charles Keenja, disclosed that the country was carrying out GMO tests with the aim of verifying their negative effects.
However, much of all this is not known by the Tanzanian public.
Recently, the Director of Environment in the Vice President’s Office, Erick Mugurusi, said that there was a dire need to create awareness among Tanzanians about GMOs together with their potential benefits and threats to the environment, humans etc.
“There is need to create awareness about genetically-modified organisms because biotechnology is rapidly developing with more GMOs being released into the environment causing risks to animal and human health,” he said.
He was speaking during a National Biosafety Framework Implementation Workshop that was held in Bagamoyo.
According to him, establishment of a proper mechanism to create awareness so as to enable the public participate in the implementation of biosafety measures was necessary.
“The level of public awareness on biotechnology and biosafety in Tanzania is extremely low, even amongst the scientific community. Information should be availed to the public on GMOs that have been received or denied authorization into the country,” he pointed out.
Though there is no a clear-cut demarcation as to the truth of each side, a brief highlight of the propositions by each of them could shed some light as to the benefits and negative effects of GMOs and thus enable us to take appropriate measures in time.
But before embarking on that, it is useful to trace the background of biotechnology which is the one that gave birth to GMOs.
The Science Technology Encyclopedia of 2005 defines biotechnology as any technique used to make or modify the products of living organisms in order to improve production and disease resistant in plants or animals.
If appropriately integrated with other technologies, biotechnology can be applied for the sustainable development of agriculture, livestock, fisheries, wildlife and forestry, pharmaceutical and medical industries as well as in the protection of the environment, it adds.
It is worth noting that biotechnology is a branch of science that has been in use for thousands of years, probably since the beginning of civilization.
For instance, even here in Tanzania for many years through indigenous knowledge the best animals or crops were cross-bred so as to get strong products.
So the buffalo-like bulls (which are largely hybrid products) have been cross-bred with the indigenous species to get better results.
As it advanced, biotechnology started dealing with the treatment of ailments and alteration of organisms to better production whose general end result was to improve human life. However, most breakthroughs have been a bit current and one of the them are the GMOs.
There are many examples to prove that the adoption of biotechnology has offered higher yields and better ways of crop and livestock production to farmers.
Genetically improved foods have provided higher nutritional value, better taste and longer conservation all to the benefit of consumers and besides, they have also helped to fight hunger and malnutrition by feeding the ever expanding population of human beings.
For instance, with increased nutritional values scientists have managed to add some characteristics in certain foods such as rice that reduce vitamin ‘A’ deficiency which is the leading cause of blindness and a significant factor in many child deaths.
Scientists have also developed certain types of trees with modified cells which when used to make pulp and paper require less processing with strong chemicals and thus reduce negative impact to the environment.
Increase in yields is another benefit derived from GMOs whereby modification in crops has brought about seeds that could boost production more times than the indigenous (original) species.
Tolerance to poor environmental conditions such as diseases and drought is another advantage of GMOs as scientists have managed to come up with crops with characteristics that are resistant to these bad conditions and thus increase production.
Despite all these success stories, there are still doubts even among the scientific community about the potential threats posed by GMOs to human health and the environment generally.
These technologies are still very new and are shrouded with uncertainties over their safety.
For example, the global environmental watchdog, Greenpeace, says that genetically engineered plants contain genes (units inside cells) from bacteria, insects and viruses, which have never been part of the human diet.
“No information exists about their allergic properties. The allergic potential of such exotic, introduced gene products are uncertain, unpredictable and untestable,” it says in its 2004 report on GMOs.
Many of the genetically engineered crops, which are already grown on a commercial scale, contain genes, which are resistant to antibiotics used for the treatment of diseases in both humans and animals, it adds.
GMO genes can pass on to other members of the same species and perhaps other species. This can be at gene, plant and ecosystem (the relationship between living things and their physical environment that upholds life on Earth) level.
So far, Greenpeace notes, research on this is inconclusive with scientists divided though there is a scientific consensus that once widely released into the environment, GMOs cannot be recalled.
“GMO contamination of traditional varieties of cotton in Greece, canola (rapeseed) in Canada, soy in Italy and papaya in Hawaii has been reported,” Greenpeace discloses in the report adding:
“Traditional crops of the poor are not protected from contamination with GMOs and because all GMO traits are patented (restricted right to make, sell or use a product), implications of the accidental contamination and dissemination should be addressed.”
This means that the original (traditional) varieties are slowly but surely mixed-up and replaced by genetically modified crops and hence pose a possible danger once such human technologies fail at a time when there would be no original seeds to help the recovery of the crop.
For example, local varieties in Latin America permitted the recovery from the catastrophic potato blight in Ireland in the 1840s, the Greenpeace report says.
Again the impact of ‘terminator’ seeds (the seeds that are planted and harvested only once) is also on spotlight.
These seeds though not yet widely commercialized, they would, if applied, prevent a crop from being grown the following year from its own seed.
This is a great blow to poor farmers as they cannot save seeds for planting the next season other than going to buy seeds every new year.
Biotechnology critics also argue that innovations in agricultural biotechnology are profit-driven and not need-driven and that the fact that genetic research is costly the GMO technologies will continue to concentrate in the hands of a few multinational companies.
In an attempt to recoup their initial investment, research institutions patent biotechnology products hence withhold vital information about the innovations and their impact to humans and the environment.
As a result, farmers do fear that they might even have to pay for crop varieties bred from genetic material that originally came from their own fields when they buy seeds from companies holding the respective patents.
According to Greenpeace, Monsanto Corporation of USA is one of the world's largest chemical companies, and by far the most aggressive promoter of genetic engineering in agriculture.
At the moment, the company is responsible for more than 91 percent of all genetically engineered crops in the world.
It spends millions of dollars trying to convince people that the fate of the world's starving masses depended on the acceptance of its new, genetically engineered crop varieties.
It is obvious that biotechnology is like a mixed blessing. Its products have created some amazing possibilities among many such as the feeding of the world’s ever expanding population.
However, reports of the technologies’ potential negative consequences to human health and the environment force people to think twice about biotechnology and GMOs because some of the effects are feared to be irreversible.
Nevertheless, the fact that such technologies could be here to stay makes it necessary for authorities concerned to work hard in identifying their good and bad sides so as to act in time before the situation gets out of hand.
2 comments:
Dear Emmanuel,
I liked reading your article in The Guardian June 27th and also the fact that The Guardian both gave you so much space and that you also added your e-mail address.
But let me first introduce myself: I am a catholic priest, name of Fr.Athanas Meixner, and have been working in Tanzania with small farmers for 40 years. At the same time I am the son of a farmer and an honest-to-God farmer myself.
In congratulate you and The Guardian for getting the debate on GM foods started, because people and especially farmers in Tanzania - both big and small ones - need more information on GM crops.
Allow me first to point out some inaccuracies contained in your article, probably due to the fact that what people in Tanzania read mostly comes from Greenpeace, Earth Institute, NGOs, rarely from scientists.
I list some of them here:
leaving aside the propaganda that genetic engineering is like performing heart surgery with a shovel, these are:
1. "One groupt, which includes EVEN scientists.... (I put the questionable statements in Capital letters). This "even" implies that there are only some scientists supporting GM crops. In fact, it is practically ALL scientists who support them. Even here in Tanzania I was told by the leader of a crop research institute that "practically all scientists in the country are in favour - I mean crop scientists - while journalists, NGOs and people like them are against.
2. Your say "The other group (which also uses SCIENTIFIC PROOF)". There is no scientific proof for detrimental effects to human health and the environment genenerally..
No other crop ever licenced has been so thoroughly studied for possible negative effects. NONE HAVE BEEN DETECTED.
All groups like Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth have to go on is scare-mongering and their demand to prove a negative (which is scientifically impossible)namely that such crops will never ever cause even the slightest harm even in 1000 years time.
NOW I WANT TO PRAISE YOU FOR SOME POSITIVE STATEMENT:
1."It is worth norting that biotechnology is a branch of science that has been in use for thousands of years...
Or instance ...cross-breeding
2. "Treatment of ailments" i.e. medicinal biotechnology. Here it was used even before GMO crops were developed and it CONTINUES TO BE USED EVEN IN CASES WHERE HARMFUL SIDEEFFECTS HAVE BEEN DOCUMENTED.
3. "Increase in yields"
4. "Tolerance to .... dieseases and drought".
To all these positive and very important points you are listing - just how important would a drought tolerant maize variety be for our farmers - I must add one most, I would say, the most important advantage of GMcrops so far on the market, namely THAT THEY DO NOT NEED WEEDING.
As a practical farmer I can tell you that the necessity to laboriously hand-weed all crops IS THE ONE AND ONLY REASON FOR RURAL POVERTY IN AFRICA.
Our farmers cannot farm more than 2-3 acres for one reason only WEEDS. Please you educated people understand the importance of weeds in the rural or farm economy. Even when the plough was invented in Europe - I mean the mouldboard plough - it was invented not for turning over the soil - soil does not need to be turned over - but for BURYING WEEDS and to get rid of them at least temporarily.
So please please, you of the ruling class in this country, you who call yourself educated, get down on your knees and see the poor farmer. You blaspheme against him, say that he is lazy, has no drive. Just for one year, take a hoe, an axe and an upanga and try to live for one year in the bush. And then come and slander our farmers. Perhaps Chairman Mao was not so wrong when he started the Cultural Revolution from 1966-76 and relegated, rusticated really, all students and professors to the countryside. He cleared out colleges and universities and toll them "learn from farmers".
And then, 2 years later, from 1978 onwards, the Chinese economic miracle happened.
(As a piece of advice to you: you should read "STARVED FOR SCIENCE." "HOW BIOTECHNOLOGY IS BEING KEPT OUT OF AFRICA." by Robert Paarlberg
Yours
Fr.Athanas Meixner OSB
Post a Comment