Environmental Risk or Millions' Best Hope for Survival?

According to recent reports, the world may soon be out of bananas. Because of the starchy fruit's unique method of reproduction, it seems, banana plantations in Africa, Asia and Central America are uniquely susceptible to fungi, viruses and pests. Unless scientists can find a way to genetically enhance the banana's ability to ward off parasites, we could be bananaless in ten years.

Several agroscience companies believe they can genetically engineer such an invincible banana by copying parts of the genetic codes of other fruits and instilling them into the banana. The problem? Increasing opposition from environmental activists and some governments to genetic meddling with nature.

The banana crisis provides a nice jumping off point for a discussion on the general costs and benefits of genetically modified organisms. What potential harm could be done by the "new banana?" How likely are these harms? And, considering that the banana is a dietary staple for entire populations of people in some parts of Africa and the Caribbean, what are the costs of not assembling a new, improved superbanana?

By most estimates, up to 70 percent of the processed foods at your local grocery story contain at least one ingredient that's been genetically altered. That is, certain genetic attributes not native to the food have been "cut" from the DNA of another organisms and "pasted" into, for example, your strawberries. Such modifications are usually done to enhance the things we like about certain foods - their nutritional content, for example, or how long they can stay fresh without spoiling, or their brilliant color. Modification can also enable crops to emit their own insecticides to ward off pests, or to cause plants to yield more grain per plant on less land, or with less water, or in less fertile soil.

But the practice of genetically modifying our foodstuffs isn't without its critics. And these critics also raise some important questions. How safe are foods that have been modified? Have the health effects of these modifications been tested? What are the risks involved? What are the benefits?

The Wonders of Modern Science

Modern agroscience has produced some astonishing innovations in the last several years. We now have grains and cereals that can tolerate early frosts, acidic soil, and drought. A 1999 study published in the journal Nature Biotechnology found that 96.2 percent of genetically modified plants could survive freezing experiments, versus just 9.5 percent of unaltered plants. When subjected to drought conditions three-fourths of the GM plants survived, compared with just two percent of the traditional plants.

Unless scientists can find a way to genetically enhance the banana's ability to ward off parasites, we could be bananaless in ten years.

We now have strawberries, bananas, raspberries and melons that can stay ripe on the shelves for days longer than their natural forbearers. We can even grow plants that have been bioengineered to absorb toxic metals from the soil, enabling land tainted by mercury or lead, for example, to be usable again for agriculture.

Variations on maize and corn are under development right now that would make each plant yield kernels more substantive and suited for livestock, meaning cows and pigs and chickens would require less feed, meaning we'd need less land to produce more meat.

Scientists are also looking at ways of applying the leavening characteristics of wheat bread to other grains, such as rice or maize.

There's even research underway to grow foods for human consumption that are engineered to deliver vaccines and medication, making it to both feed and medically treat the poorest areas of the world.

But What Are the Risks?

Critics of bioengineered agriculture, however, point out that such breakthroughs don't come without costs. They argue that tampering with the genetic makeup of plants can have unforeseen consequences, such as the offspring of "super weeds" resistant to herbicides. They say it's possible that plants emitting their own toxins could cause natural pests to mutate into bigger, stronger, more resistant bugs. Critics also say that not enough tests have been done on the health effects such foods can have on humans, particularly over the long term. They worry about hidden allergens. If an apple, for example, is embedded with part of the genetic code of a peanut, might those with severe peanut allergies be adversely affected by eating that apple? And should that apple be labeled to warn them of the possibility?

A final concern involves "genetic pollution" or cross-contamination. GM foods opponents worry that pollen from genetically-modified fields will eventually find its way to organic crops, and even to wild plants, potentially creating untested and unpredictable strains of plant life.

Research underway has begun to attempt to grow foods for human consumption that are engineered to deliver vaccines and medication: to both feed and medically treat the poorest areas of the world.

Because of these concerns, critics of genetically modified foods - which include Greenpeace, the Green Party, the Friends of the Earth, and the European Union, among others - argue that public policy ought to follow the "precautionary principle," an edict long used by environmental advocates that states, simply, "better safe than sorry."

With respect to bioengineered agriculture, the precautionary principle says, "we aren't yet sure what kinds of effects these foods could have on humans, on similar plants, or on the environment. Until we're sure, they should be avoided."

At the very least, they say, genetically altered foods should be labeled, so that those who wish to avoid the unnecessary risks associated with them can. The European Union requires such labeling, and the state of Oregon recently voted down a ballot initiative calling for similar measures.

Critics note the once widespread use of DDT, a pest killer that proved so effective at fighting malaria and typhus, it was put into use as a general insecticide. By the 1950s, they point out, DDT was found even in human breast milk. DDT was also blamed for the thinning eggshells of dozens of bird species, including the bald eagle. It was banned from public use in 1972.

Critics cite DDT as an example of how failure to embrace the precautionary principle - how forging ahead with new innovations without first weighing their potential harms - can lead to catastrophic and unforeseen consequences.

The Risks of Not Embracing GM Technology

Proponents of GM foods counter that we can never be 100 percent sure of a new innovation's safety. And if we applied this most extreme interpretation of the precautionary principle to every scientific breakthrough before it was implemented, we'd never move forward as a society. Pointing out that nearly all innovation carries some risk, Steve Milloy, editor of the website JunkScience, said of a GM foods critic, "if [he] had been around in prehistoric times, he would have discouraged the use of fire."

But breakthroughs don't come without costs - critics argue that tampering with the genetic makeup of plants can have unforeseen consequences.

GM foods proponents point out that a panoply of respected health and environmental organizations have already signed off on the technology's safety, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the American Medical Association, the National Academy of Sciences and the World Health Organization. What's more, the very fact that 70 percent of the processed foods Americans eat are bioengineered - and that there's yet to be a major public health incident traceable to genetic modification - is testimony to their safety.

Proponents of GM foods also apply a modified version of the precautionary principle to GM foods as they relate to the current world population dynamics. It works like this: Because of the rapidly escalating populations in poor countries with little farmland, because there are more mouths to feed and precious little land to do it, and because we'd like to preserve what few untouched lands that are left (the rain forests, for example), we can't afford to not look for new ways to grow more food on less land. We need to embrace new technologies immediately, or face calamitous repercussions.

In other words, inaction often carries more risk of harm than action. Not moving ahead with technological innovations has costs. "Better safe than sorry" is still good advice. But in this case, "safe" means exploring new ways to feed more people on less land. "Sorry" means standing idly by while people go hungry, even when potential remedies are within reach.

A good example of how aversion to new technology can cause suffering occurred last fall in Zambia. That African nation has been battling a drought for years now. Without outside help, almost 3 million Zambians face starvation. But - in following the lead of Europe - the Zambian government recently turned down 18,000 tons of emergency grain from the U.S., for the sole reason that the food had been altered genetically. Some reports even suggest that European Union officials "leaned on" the Zambian government to turn down the aid, and let its people starve.

GM proponents also argue that for decades now, many of the same opponents of GM crops have also adamantly opposed the mass use of insecticides and herbicides, mostly on the same premise - that we can't be sure what damage such chemicals might do to the environment over the long term, so we ought not take the risk of using them.

And, some are now saying, when put into perspective, even the DDT example is starting to lose some of its appeal. In his book The Precautionary Principle, the economist Indur M. Goklany explains that despite the environmental harm it caused, environmentalists too often overlook the good DDT did.

Critics of genetically modified crops argue that we can't be sure what damage such chemicals might do to the environment over the long term, so we ought not take the risk of using them.

He points out that in the 1940s, malaria afflicted over 300 million people worldwide. In 1930, 1,740 per million died of the disease. But by 1950 after widespread use of DDT began, that number had dropped to 480. By 1970, it was down to just 160. And since the ban on DDT went into effect in 1972, Goklany notes, malaria has again asserted itself in the developing world.

So, GM food proponents might argue, it's possible that more harm may have been done if we hadn't invented DDT than what came because of its widespread use.

U.S. agriculture has made tremendous strides over the last century, thanks in large part to the very types of technologies proponents of the precautionary principle have long opposed. In 1942, U.S. farms produced 56 million tons of corn on 77 million hectares of land. In 2000, they produced 252 million tons on just 29 million hectares. That's nearly a five-fold increase in just 60 years.

Feeding 7 Billion People

By the end of the new century, the earth's population of 7 billion is expected to swell to 12 billion. The International Food Policy Research Institute estimates that as much as 90 percent of future agricultural production will need to come from land already being used for farming.

In other words, we need to figure out ways to get more food from the same plots of land. If we don't, the growing population will need to be fed from land that's currently covered in forests, meaning less habitat for wildlife, and less biodiversity.

In his book, Goklany estimates that if global agricultural productivity were able to increase between just 1 and 1.5 percent each year, we'd actually need 98 million fewer acres of croplands over the next century to feed a bigger and wealthier population.

Most supporters of genetically modified foods predict that if we don't figure out new ways to get more food from less land, the most likely victims will be the poor and impoverished people of the third world.

Emerging GM technology, proponents argue, can easily push productivity up that 1 to 1.5 percent, if not significantly higher. And many can accomplish higher rates of productivity without the use of insecticides and herbicides that many of these same environmentalists oppose.

Failing to Feed People

Most GM proponents predict that if we don't figure out new ways to get more food from less land, the most likely victims won't be the activists in wealthy countries who are most opposed to GM foods development, but rather the poor and impoverished people of the third world, those most likely to feel the first effects of a world population too large to sustain itself.

In his book Bountiful Harvest, Dr. Thomas R. DeGregori quotes the African scientist Florence Wambugu, director of an organization attempting to bring biotechnology to Africa. Wambugu says that opposition to GM foods is a "northern luxury," reserved for those who already have plenty to eat. "The biggest risk in Africa is doing nothing," she says, "I appreciate ethical concerns, but anything that doesn't help feed our children is unethical."

Back to Bananas

The question, then, is this: Is the banana worth saving, even if we need to tamper with its genetics to do so? (Many of the world's poor depend upon the banana as a part of their diets.) Perhaps there are risks to such an endeavor, though none have yet been conclusively identified. But there's a risk to not meddling with the banana, too. That risk - which most scientists agree is almost certain to happen - is a world without bananas. And a world without bananas is a world without banana bread, banana pudding, and banana splits. More importantly, it means millions of people who live in communities that depend on bananas for trade and sustenance will soon find themselves without a dietary and financial staple. It means more poverty and, probably, more famine.

That's what's important to remember when we're debating about the future of genetically modified foods and agroscience technology: For all the yet-to-be-proven costs and unidentified harms that could potential result from genetic modification, there also exist a number of certain, identifiable, and easily-proven harms that come from not embracing new technology, too.




Contributed by Radley Balk, a freelance writer living in Arlington, Virginia. Reprinted with permission from aWorldConnected.

To read another Global Envision article about whatever subject is, see Hungry Nations Demand Truth About GM and Food Aid.



Return to top