G.M.O. F.A.Q.

(MEHRABADI REMIX)
By Azar Mehrabadi
(this is one of many FAQ files found at Terry)

What are genetically modified organisms (GMOs)?

GMOs are plants and animals which have been genetically altered under laboratory
conditions by the insertion of genes from other organisms into their natural genetic
makeup.

Why should I be concerned about GMOs?

To understand the debate surrounding GMOs, we must first understand the problems
associated with the world’s food supply. According to the United Nations (UN), the
number of hungry people in the world rose to an astounding 852 million in 2002, an
increase of 18 million since the mid-1990s. The harmful effects of chemical fertilizers
and pesticides are another problem, with the World Health Organization (WHO)
estimating that chemical pesticides cause 20,000 deaths a year and millions of cases of
poisoning, the majority of which occur in developing countries. The continual reduction
in the world’s biodiversity is a further cause for concern. Biodiversity is vital for proper
nutrition, the development of new medicines, and adaptation to harsh environments and
resistance to harmful pests. According to the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO),
the genetic diversity of agricultural crops has been reduced by three-quarters over the last
century. Just a dozen species of animals provide 90% of the animal protein consumed
globally. Half of plant-based calories in the human diet are provided by just four crop
species. This makes the world’s food supply more vulnerable to viruses, diseases and
pests. The reduction in biodiversity is therefore regarded as a serious threat to both food
security and sustainable agriculture.

What is the debate surrounding GMOs?

Right now the vast majority of GM crops (approximately two-thirds) are designed to
tolerate herbicides. The company Monsanto dominates this technology, having introduced
the first major GMO product, “Roundup Ready” soybeans, in 1996. The “Roundup
Ready” soybeans are designed to withstand the company’s own Roundup herbicide. The
next most common crop is Bt corn, which is inserted with a gene from the Bacillus
thuringiensis, or Bt, and gives the plants a toxic protein that kills the corn borer pests.

The debate surrounding GMOs is about whether or not genetically engineered foods can
help improve the situation for the world’s hungry by providing people with nutritional
foods in a manner that is sustainable and has the least possible impact on the environment
and on health. To assess this fundamental question, scientists, policy makers and the
public alike have to ask themselves whether or not GM foods are safe to eat and whether
or not biotechnology can increase food yields and biodiversity in a sustainable manner.
Equally important is whether or not GMOs reduce pesticide use, what their overall costs
and benefits are to farmers, whether viable alternative exist in their place, and whether
there could be potential for disastrous environmental effects.

What are some potential benefits of GMOs?

Those promoting GMO use generally agree that technology has helped improve food
production. For evidence, they point to the “green revolution” when agriculture became
industrialized and large-scale fertilizer and pesticide use became common practice. GMO
advocates believe that GMOs will continue this tradition of technology advancing food
security for the growing human population. Critics argue that the indicators used to
determine these improvements have not properly measured the long-term environmental
effects of pesticides and fertilizers. GMO proponents believe that GMOs have the
potential of reducing pesticide and herbicide use, providing better nutrition by increasing
the nutritional content of crops, improving crop yields to feed a rapidly growing world
population, promoting market competitiveness, and overcoming environmental
conditions such as drought and heat.

What are some potential risks of GMOs?

Critics argue that GMOs can reproduce and interbreed with natural organisms, thereby
spreading in uncontrollable and unpredictable ways. It is difficult to maintain a separation
between GMO crops and non-GMO crops due to uncontrollable cross-pollination.
Although GMO supporters believe biotechnology can overcome these problems with
more advanced products, critics of GMOs argue that the long term effects of this
contamination are unknown and potentially disastrous for biodiversity, food security and
health. Scientists argue that GMO genetic material is very much unlike ordinary genetic
materials. The gene-constructs are said to be designed to invade genomes and to
overcome the natural species barriers, thus making the cross over of bacterial, herbicide,
and pesticide resistance a much more common occurrence than in non-GM foods. The
creation of “super-bugs” that could affect humans and crops is said to be a very real
threat by some scientists who warn of the heightened potential for this type of gene
transfer. This view contrasts with that of GMO supporters, who maintain that genetic
engineering is simply an improvement on the slow and imprecise agricultural methods
used for decades, such as selection, hybridization, wide crosses and use of radiation.

Critics argue that the introduction of GMOs into the environment will have adverse
effects on beneficial insects, plants and ecosystems. The interaction of the introduced
genes with the original genes of the organism may have the potential to cause previously
unknown allergens and toxins. GMO critics argue that the introduction of genes is still a
new science with too many uncertainties to be safe for widespread agricultural use and
consumption. They contrast this to conventional foods which have been part of the
human food chain for thousands of years and evolved over billions of years. GMO critics
call for more extensive testing of GM goods, more transparency and independence in the
research process, and more regulatory oversight before the release of the foods to the
public. Until then, many critics call for a complete ban on GMOs, along with increased
funding to sustainable agriculture techniques which have proved successful in the past.

Why is an Arts/Science perspective important in addressing GMOs?

Many now agree that science and technology are never neutral or value-free but always
embedded in a social and political context. Scientists and the Sciences have been
criticized for adopting an overly reductionist perspective in addressing pervasive global
problems. Although scientists’ perspectives work brilliantly in addressing specific
problems in closed systems, they have their limitations in the complex systems in which
humans live. The so-called genetic determinism perspective, whereby genes are seen to
lead directly to certain physical characteristics and behaviours has long been discredited.
We now know that organisms, however minute, are constantly interacting with their
environments and this, along with their particular genetic compositions, determines their
traits. Despite idealistic visions, scientists are now realizing the limitations of trying to
change the world’s most devastating problems, such as world hunger, with the addition or
alteration of single genes in GM foods.

Furthermore, scientists, and molecular biologists in particular, have been criticized for
having their research and its applications driven by profit rather than public good, and for
the technological research being heavily directed toward the priorities of the developed
world. This, they say, is as a result of many in the field of genetics having vested interests
through partnerships with or shares in the biotechnology industry. Scientists such a
Miguel Altieri and the well-known Vandana Shiva argue that agricultural research is often
oriented towards agricultural industry research rather than research that supports the
needs of poor farmers. Research that makes use of indigenous practices and human
resources rather than biotechnology, they argue, can provide an affordable and
sustainable means for poor farmers to improve their condition without endangering the
environment. They further reason that “first world” farming practices and scientific
research cannot simply be imported over to the “third world” where the physical,
economical and social environments are drastically different. These scientists argue that
GMO technologies are created for giant, American super-farms rather than the small-
scale agriculture characterizing the majority of the developing world. Other important
considerations for scientists and the public are the ethical and legal implications of
patents on seeds, GMO products, and even naturally occurring genes.

A complete understanding of the impact of GMOs requires us to understand not only the
science and the technology behind GMOs, but the social, political, and economic
implications of these products.

What is the political climate surrounding GMOs?

Europe and the U.S. are engaged in a giant struggle over agricultural market domination.
Some similarities exist between the strategies used by the two powers. For example, both
maintain enormous subsidies for their agricultural sectors, which lower international
prices for many agricultural commodities, thus reducing the competitiveness of products
grown in the developing world. However, there are differences between European and
American subsidy programs. The subsidies from the EU have a significant environmental
component, while the U.S. subsidies prioritize supporting the largest actors. The U.S.
does not consider organic agriculture while the EU values it highly, and the EU takes a
cautious approach to GMOs, while the U.S. is a leading advocate of GMO products.

The forum for this agricultural battle between the U.S. and the E.U. soon became the
World Trade Organization (WTO). This happened when the U.S. claimed the E.U.’s
cautious approach to GM foods represented a barrier to trade. In 2004 the E.U. lifted its
ban on new GMOs. The U.S. would not lift its challenge and pursued further charges
over Europe’s regulations on labelling GMO products and Europe’s rigorous system of
verification and tracing of GMO foodstuffs.

Many see developing countries as the greatest victims of the GM food battle. Foreign aid
sent to developing countries has been criticized as an underhanded way of imposing GM
foods on the developing countries without their knowledge or consent.

Are there any international agreements to regulate GMO use?

The Biosafety Protocol is the first international agreement to regulate the international
trade of GMOs. It is unique in that it advocates sustainability, prioritizes consideration of
human health, and adopts the “precautionary approach.” The “precautionary approach” is
from the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, which states that “[w]here
there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall
not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental
degradation.” In the case of biotechnology, the risks are to biodiversity and human health.
The Protocol simply requires countries to label shipments of seeds and organisms when
they are meant to be released into the environment, and to include information about the
genetic alteration made. According to the Protocol countries are permitted to reject GM
imports if they have scientific reasons to doubt their safety. They are also permitted to
consider socioeconomic factors in their decisions. The Biosafety Protocol came into force
in September 2003 and stems from the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD),
signed by over 150 governments at the Rio “Earth Summit” in 1992. Countries such as
the U.S., Argentina and Canada which produce 90% of GM crops world-wide have not
ratified the Biosafety Protocol.