Ecology: The Biology of Interaction. 6.22. (Supplement) Should We Fear GM Products?
One of the topics attracting considerable attention from conservation organizations and lay ecologists is that of transgenic or genetically modified (GM) organisms and the food products derived from them. In introducing the category of GM organisms, we group them not on the basis of shared properties...
Ukrainian Language (latest version) / Russian Language (update stopped)
6.21. (Addendum) Main Stages of Anthropogenesis
D. Shabanov, M. Kravchenko. Ecology: Interaction Biology Section 6. Human Ecology and Nature Conservation
6.23. (Addendum) Principles of Rational Environmental Ethics
6.22. (Supplement) Should We Fear GM Products? One of the topics attracting considerable attention from conservation organizations and lay ecologists is that of transgenic or genetically modified (GM) organisms and the food products derived from them. In introducing the category of GM organisms, we group them not on the basis of shared properties but on the criterion of using a particular method to produce them — the transfer of genetic information from one species to another at the stage of obtaining the initial material for subsequent selection. Examples of GM organisms: — tomatoes that can be stored for several months at 12 degrees Celsius and then ripen rapidly when placed in warmth (optimal for ketchup production); — so-called golden rice, enriched with carotene, intended to combat vitamin deficiency in impoverished countries; — soya resistant to Roundup (a pesticide whose application to fields is guaranteed to eliminate weeds); — soya whose protein amino acid composition (and nutritional value) is brought close to that of animal products; — potato that accumulates a toxin from a soil bacterium lethal to the Colorado beetle but harmless to humans; — crop plants resistant to diseases, droughts, frosts, and soil salinity (both food crops and industrial crops such as cotton); Currently on sale are sausages, pâtés, chocolate, sauces, crisps, carbonated beverages, and other products containing transgenic proteins and DNA. In some cases the manufacturers themselves may be unaware of all the characteristics of the raw materials they use. The situation can, however, be clarified by analysis that detects the presence in a product of DNA sequences characteristic of the vector systems used in the GMO procedure to introduce new information into the genome of the modified species. The first transgenic plant was grown in 1983, and in 1992 the use of GM organisms in agriculture began (in China). The growth of the agricultural sector in the United States and attempts to supply cheap GM products to Europe gave rise to a powerful public movement directed both against American economic expansion and against the technology itself (anti-globalisation protests are partly linked to the involvement of transnational corporations in the creation of GM organisms). Having won one battle in Russia, the opponents of GM lost a more important one in Western Europe, where supplies of GM agricultural products were eventually permitted after a lengthy ban. Nevertheless, the campaigning achieved a degree of success. Difficulties in marketing GM products slowed the growth of their production, although the United States, Canada, Argentina, Brazil, India, and China continue to expand their output. Because of the intense heat of the controversy, it can be difficult to assess the arguments put forward by either side. A typical tactic of opponents of GM products is to investigate some unfavourable property of a particular food not in its natural form but in its transgenic version. For example, proteins from the Brazil nut can cause allergic reactions. If these proteins are transferred to soya, the possibility of an allergic reaction to them is preserved. One documented case of such a reaction is among the most widely cited arguments in favour of banning the GM procedure. Yet the allergenic properties of these proteins are equally present when natural nuts are used in a salad — though, for some reason, demands to ban the preparation of salads meet with no support from activists. Perhaps the most widely known experiments based on this questionable logic were conducted in 1998 by Arpad Pusztai, a researcher at the Rowett Institute in Aberdeen (United Kingdom). He fed rats lectin (a toxin present in both transgenic and ordinary potato) and recorded adverse health effects (an expert review found that Pusztai's experiments provided no basis for comparing natural and modified potato). One recent news report states that phytohormones present in GM soya provoke impotence. For this conclusion to be taken seriously it must be independently verified, and in the context of the GM products debate it must be assessed whether the recorded effect is related to consequences of the GM procedure (phytohormones with adverse effects on libido may also be present in natural soya). Yet for the majority of the public, a premature sensation is quite sufficient to stop purchasing not only soya but any other GM products. Recall how, after poor relatives visited a prosperous family, the silverware went missing? "The spoons turned up, but the bad taste lingered..." In any event, no significant harm to health caused by consumption of GM products has yet been recorded. American citizens — who are capable of winning astronomical damages from companies that fail to warn them that pouring hot coffee on themselves may cause burns — have, after ten years of intensive consumption of transgenic food, found no grounds to bring lawsuits against its producers. The possibility that genes from GM organisms may spread through natural processes appears to be not a fiction: it has been documented in several well-designed studies. Where opinions between opponents and supporters of GM products diverge sharply is in their assessment of this fact. The former speak of an ecological catastrophe. The latter point out that horizontal transfer of genetic material (facilitated in part by viruses, which genetic engineers also employ) has occurred in nature since time immemorial and has caused no catastrophe. Beyond the merits and drawbacks of GM technology, it is worth addressing the myths that have become attached to it. We will consider just one example from the many available. "Remember what you get from crossing a hedgehog with a snake? Barbed wire. Yet tomatoes that have been given genes from deep-sea sharks remain tomatoes but acquire the ability to keep at room temperature for more than half a year without spoiling. <...> After all, before swallowing food, a person has the right to know whether it contains genes from a scorpion or a deep-sea shark." (G. Shishkin). This same theme was developed on the air of the Mayak radio station by a member of the presidium of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, T.B. Dmitrieva, and the director of the Centre for Risk Management Policy in the Genetic Engineering of Living Organisms, A.G. Golikov. Dmitrieva: "...we were speaking about a tomato that can keep for six months. They added one gene from a North Atlantic herring, or something of that sort." Golikov: "You are presumably referring to the flounder gene. That is one of the oldest myths and hoaxes. A tomato with a flounder gene has never existed. People began wondering why the deep-water flounder is cold-resistant. It turned out to have cryoproteins, and two company men (this all happened at some reception over cocktails) got into a conversation about the idea that if these cryoproteins could be produced in a tomato, it too might become frost-resistant... That really is an anecdote, and the delayed-ripening tomato simply had the gene responsible for ripening removed. That is all." So what drives supporters of GM to overcome fierce resistance? Profit, of course, on one side. But their opponents do not forget about business either. It became paradoxical that in the post-Soviet space, at conferences calling for a ban on GM organisms, so-called "ecologists" ("greens") sit alongside manufacturers of pesticides. Unlike the hypothetical harm from transgenic organisms, the harm from pesticides has been demonstrated many times over and very convincingly. For example, when debating the admissibility of spreading transgenic potato resistant to the Colorado beetle, one must take into account, among other things, the damage caused by chemical pest-control agents. The Bioengineering Centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences offered a prize of 10,000 dollars to anyone who could provide substantiated evidence of harm to human health caused by the Colorado-beetle-resistant potato. The prize has not been claimed. But what would become of the business of manufacturers of anti-Colorado-beetle pesticides if that potato came into widespread use? On the other hand, beyond short-term market considerations, there are weighty strategic reasons for switching to GM varieties. Their productivity is 15–25% higher than that of traditional varieties, their cultivation requires far fewer pesticides and fertilisers, and the agricultural technologies involved are less resource-intensive. United Nations experts see no way of meeting the food needs of the Earth's population, which is set to grow by several billion in the coming decades. The development and implementation of GM technologies could, however, feed all those new mouths until population growth rates decline for natural reasons. One technology of particular importance for hunger-stricken countries is the introduction into plant proteins of essential amino acids characteristic of animal food. This would not only save the lives of many people suffering from hunger but would also spare them from alimentary marasmus (the deterioration of mental capacity caused by an inadequate diet). Humanity stands before a sobering fact. Its numbers are far greater than can be sustained by "natural" technologies. The call to "return to the way of life of our great-grandparents" must be supplemented with concrete recommendations about what to do with those for whom resources would be insufficient. Until such recommendations exist, dreams of a simple and natural life remain utopian. As public opinion surveys show, a significant proportion of the population does not know what genetically modified organisms are, yet is convinced that GM products are dangerous — if for no other reason than that they contain genes foreign to humans. But all food contains genes foreign to humans. Like other animals, we can subsist only on other organisms or their remains, which almost inevitably contain DNA. Bread, for example, is a product of the processing of plant seeds (which contain DNA) by unicellular fungi (whose cells contain their own DNA). Dough is kneaded with water containing living or dead microorganisms and, consequently, their DNA as well. Other DNA-containing ingredients can be added to bread (eggs, spices); it can be spread with butter containing fragments of bovine DNA and topped with fish roe containing fish DNA... A cell is not an environment in which any foreign genetic information can simply be activated. The method of obtaining a dinosaur — depicted in Jurassic Park — by transferring its DNA into a toad's egg cell is entirely implausible. The result of such a procedure would be nothing more than a toad egg cell with a destroyed hereditary apparatus. In the course of genetic modification of organisms or the treatment of genetic diseases, two formidable problems must be solved: how to deliver the required DNA into the nucleus, and how to make it function there. So — does a person have the right to know what they eat? Of course. But they also have the right to a correct understanding of that knowledge. What does the average person know about modified organisms? That they are somehow dangerous. That people protest against them. That a special warning is required about their presence (presumably harmful). That scientists, as ever, say something incomprehensible. No, it is still frightening! The first democracies, in which the form of governance now regarded as optimal was taking shape, operated with strict voting qualifications. For example, only a free adult male who owned a certain amount of property might hold the right to vote. Beyond the obvious reasons connected with the ruling class's desire to retain power, there was also a fairly sensible idea at work. Only those people from whom the formation of an independent opinion could be expected were able to influence decisions on questions brought before the democratic process. The opinion of an illiterate slave or of a girl who had never left the women's quarter of her house was not counted — it was not an independent opinion. Votes can be counted on a "one vote for one vote" basis only when they are comparable and independent! We live in an era of universal literacy and the potential for inner freedom extending to all members of society. Any voting qualification is now meaningless and impossible. But how are we to account for differences in the degree of independence of different people's views? A person of sufficient education will not seek to impose their opinion in a field they do not understand — but are all people like that? The rapidly advancing technologies of advertising, public relations, agitation, propaganda, public campaigns, and other forms of brainwashing only reduce the proportion of opinions that can be regarded as genuinely independent. On the one hand, the question of what to eat is the most democratic of all, requiring that the opinion of every member of society be taken into account. On the other hand, what is the value of the opinion of a person who does not know what genetically modified products are, yet is convinced they are harmful?
6.21. (Addendum) Main Stages of Anthropogenesis
D. Shabanov, M. Kravchenko. Ecology: Interaction Biology Section 6. Human Ecology and Nature Conservation
6.23. (Addendum) Principles of Rational Environmental Ethics