People's views on genetic modification....?

Question

I'm a science teacher with a background in biochem. I've just been on a global citizenship course where genetic modification was mentioned once or twice in a very negative manner. I feel very strongly that children should be presented with a balanced view from adults - yes there are potential risks, but there are also lots of benefits. As a student I was apalled that the union canteen advertised GM free food, when this was one of the cutting edge areas of research at the university!
I am interested in peoples opinions on this - and specific examples of the benefits of GM foods in particular.

To put this more into context - we were discussing the following kinds of issues: sustainability, fair trade, ethical living, environmental impact, exploitation of workers, carbon footprints etc. I felt that GM was being lumped into the same category as 'you shouldn't buy from Nestle' but without any justification. I'm looking for ways to get people thinking of the bigger picture. Thanks for the comments so far!

Answer 1

As a scientist, I can actually see it both ways:
First, in theory, there is nothing about a minor genetic modification that should significantly change the food value of a plant (or even animal). It should be realized that GM has been done for centuries, albeit in a crude way (selective breeding of animals, crossing and grafting of plants). So, if you can add a gene that strengthen a food's resistance to insects, then perhaps you can reduce or eliminate the use of chemical pesticides, which are known to be dangerous.
On the other hand, life is an incredibly complex system, and virtually no gene has a single, isolated function. Adding an apparently-innocuous gene to induce pest resistance may accidentally introduce a new, unexpected function. Perhaps some people will be allergic to the new protein? Perhaps the expression of the new gene will modify expression of other genes, leading to changes in the nutritional value of the item?

Overall, I don't think there is a simple answer; however, case-by-case evaluation, rigoroous scietific scrutiny, and ample testing should make GM foods safe for consumption.

Answer 2

Read the mythology of Pandora's Box. The benefits are clear and well-known, as are the benefits of other kinds of engineering. If we discover that curved girders in bridges are bad engineering, we can simply stop making them. If we discover that a GM insect successfully destroys the boll weevil but that it (or a mutation of it) has no enemies, we might not be able to stop it until the entire world's food supply is gone. That's a fundamental problem with self-reproducing life. There are already many examples of GM organisms going beyond containment and endangering other organisms simply because they are better competitors for their food supply.

Besides this philosophical issue, many people don't want to eat GM foods simply because their long-term effect on the body hasn't been adequately studied. They haven't been around long enough yet. If we discover a GM corn strain that blocks animal reproduction in the second generation, we will have already polluted the gene pool in an unrecoverable way. People would discover that they would never have grandchildren when it was far too late to do anything about it.

No other technology has this much potential for the destruction of entire species, all animal life, or perhaps even all plant life. The chance of this happening might be very small, but the consequences enormous. People worried about nuclear weapons haven't even begun to consider the implications of GM.

Answer 3

Most foods that are grown as crops have always been "genetically modified", just not using current lab techniques. Just as there is no actual difference between distilled spring water and distilled horse sweat, there is no practical scientific difference between "GM" foods and foods that are the product of generations of selective breeding by farmers.

Every technology has potential for negative side effects, but for some reason the "public" have a harder time thinking about this logically than they do almost anything else. For instance, chlorinated compounds in our drinking water almost certainly raise the lifetime risk of some forms of cancer, but if we did not chlorinate the water supply, we'd all die in our teens of cholera or worse!

The great ant biologist & environmentalist Edward O.Wilson (who probably "invented" ecology as much as anyone else) has said that he believes, on the whole, GMOs are a good thing. That's good enough for me.

Most of the anti-GMO lobby are the same type of folks that wore leather shoes when they were vegetarian, and smoke cigarettes when they are marching to protest pollution.

Common sense should tell you it is better to take minimal or even unknowable risks if the benefits are high enough. I have no problem risking contaminating all the wheat with something we may not understand yet if it means ending starvation in some Third World country; we are smart enough as a species to resolve almost any problem we are dumb enough to create.

I'll get off my soap-box now!

Thanks for being a science teacher.

Answer 4

There's plenty of justification to be worried about GM crops/food, but they're more socio-economic than "scientific". The benefits are largely if not wholly to the agrochemical/biotech industries rather than starving humanity and farmers as they'd have you believe. At the moment, there is no pressing need for GM crops at all, if anything they are doing more harm than good.

I also don't think enough is known about how GM organisms interact with wild/natural varieties at present. There is plenty of evidence that shows the modified genes are spreading into the environment, hopefully with no negative consequences.

From a purely scientific/humanitarian viewpoint then GM food could eventually be valuable, but not in the way it's used/sold now.

I think genetic modification of humans could be even more valuable in the future when applied to diseases caused be genetic defects.

Answer 5

I'm not in favour of it, not so much because of the scare tactics of genetic modifications spreading, because it promotes unsustainable living. It allows crops to be grown in greater quantities and for longer periods than the land can naturally sustain, and the development of pesticide and herbicide resistant strains encourages the use of harmful chemicals.

The benefits of increased food production are I think short term only, and the claim of increased food production for the third world doesn't hold up too well when you hear about the creation of 'terminator' genes to prevent people from having a sustainable, renewable crop.

Answer 6

I have no problem with improving food production by using whatever means are available after all we have done this through selecting the strongest strains of seed etc for centuries.
My problem is with attaching genes from another species which is against nature. If we dabble with genetic structures, what guarantees do we have that it will nor have a detrimental effect on human genes in the future.
I have the same worries about the use of steroids in cattle that we eat. If fish have been affected in rivers from such things, what is it doing to us?
PS a local scientist has mixed the genes of a dog with a giraffe and got an animal that barks at low flying aircraft!!!

Answer 7

I disagree with GM plant not for gene changes but for social reasons. The GM crops are resistant to certain pesticides so those pesticides are heavily used on those resistant crops. Heavy pesticide use leads to a heavy handed imbalance in nature no insects no birds the natural food chain is broken the non GM hedges and wild flowers suffer as insects do the pollination Biodiversity declines and our world resources suffer. I don't like the idea of more poison getting into the water courses.

Answer 8

I don't think that GM is inherently bad, but the association with Monsanto et al. is hard to shake. It amuses me when people lump "organic" food in with "fairtrade" food. The hypocrisy is astounding. You want to help the starving Africans? Then give them some GM crops which can produce high yields in harsh conditions! You think organic food is so great and everyone should eat it? I guess half the world's population will have to go hungry then, because traditional farming cannot produce that much food!

Answer 9

Free food? Wow. Sign me up.

GM foods typically have one or more of these modifications:
1. Resistance to Roundup
2. Resistance to some kind of insect(s)
3. Resistance to some kind of fungus

The insect resistance may be bothersome. It causes the plant to make several thousandfold more of some kind of insect hormone, than it would naturally. A high concentration of something like this might have an effect on us. Then again, it might not. Ditto on the fungus resistance. I'm okay with GM food, as long as the effects have been adequately tested. *shrug*

Answer 10

When dealing with any kind of genetic modification, I believe we're in a mined filed. We're not so equipped or informed to know exactly what we're doing. Yes, I agree that there's some benefits, but are they worth taking the risk? I presume, that if we don't know all the potential damage we're better off not messing with it, since you don't want to actually do more damage than good.
It's like with the new drugs that constantly pop out every so often, they have one - two, max three benefits, and they do a whole lot of damage in so many areas, that you're better off not taking them at all and deal with your condition longer.
this field of genetics is soo wide and we know so little, I really think we should explore it a whole lot more before we actually make any decisions to mess with the genes... we do know a lot, but there's like a whole lot we don't. To engage in a war without knowing your enemy is foolish!
For what is worth.