|
In late 2003 I attended a presentation about genetic engineering given to a gardening group to which I belong. The gardening groups interest is in fruit trees, and it was considered an idea to get informed about this topic. Members of our group had many different opinions and levels of knowledge about this technology prior to the presentation, as would be expected from any group of ordinary Australians. A lecturer from the local university was invited to give a the presentation and to have a questions/answer time.
Based on this presentation, prompted me to look further into the issue, as several things were claimed and stated which did not appear completely correct. This further investigation led me to believe that many of the claims were inaccurate or unsubstantiated by the lecturer. Claiming that genetically modified food is fundamentally no different from foods we have been eating for centuries, and that it is simply the next step of selective breeding as practiced for thousands of years is misleading. Particularly when the terminology used by the presenter and various propents of the the technology encourage this confusion.
Quoted from PSRAST: Therefore genetic engineering is a tedious and very costly procedure. Only a small proportion of all the attempts will result in an organism that seems "substantially equivalent" with the natural counterpart. But even then, it may have a chemical abnormality that is hazardous to the health of those eating it. The trouble is that there is no fully reliable method to detect dangerous substances. And the existing methods for safety testing are very costly and time consuming.
This is why the biotechnology industry has taken great pains to make the regulators to regard genetic engineering as just a variation of breeding. If so, they can accuse the authorities for unjust discrimination of their products. - If food from conventionally bred organisms must not be tested, why should food from organisms bred through genetic engineering have to be tested is their argument. Unfortunately, in the first round, the industry has been successful with this strategy. They have been able to make the regulators believe that there is no important difference between genetic engineering and conventional breeding. This claim has however no scientific basis, see Conventional breeding is fundamentally different from genetic engineering. And most importantly, the differences are so important that consumers will be exposed to potentially serious health risks if they are neglected.
Terms such as genetic engineering and genetic modification are used quite freqently in varying contexts. As per the presentation I attended, the term genetic modification was used to blur distinctions to the point the presenter claimed his daughter could genetically modify plants in the bathroom. Purposely made to sound very simple and safe.
Each of us could be viewed as a genetic modification of both our parents genes during the normal and natural process of sexual reproduction. We take on various characteristics from each of our parents based on who had a dominant gene for that characteristic. The same could be said for various plant breeding and improvements methods used over the centuries where farmers worked with nature whether by hand pollinating, grafting or working with tissue culture.
Genetic engineering in the context of the concerns being raised here refer to Recombinant DNA which requires laboratory equipment and expertise to isolate one or more genes from one organism, modify or slice out a part of this gene, and then transfer it to another organism by basically firing into it like a shotgun blast. This technique bypasses any laws of nature that traditional breeding techniques with their built in safety mechanisms they may have which science may not know of. Regardless of whether the newly introduced gene is from the same species or not, they are randomly inserted into a host on the assumption that the order of genetic sequences as provided by nature does not matter.
In June 2003 a public debate took place in UK called GM Nation?. The executive summary of this debate are highligted below:
From the executive summary in relation to point 2 above, In particular, the more they choose to discover about GM the more convinced they are that no one knows enough about the long-term effects of GM on human health. On a personal note, this is certainly correct, as the more research I do into the area the more I am against genetic engineering. This is based on reading other scientific opinions and concerns from a scientific point, and problems with some of the claims of social benefits to farmers and/or the starving. Claims by proponents of genetic engineering follow best scientific practices are not true, when one looks at the evidence of what tests are done, who does them, and who verifies them.