GMO or non-GMO, that is the question… There is no doubt about the controversy and debate over this timely topic, and there is no shortage of those that will line up on either side of the argument. The answer to this question, in my mind is not a done deal, though the recent data by a University of California at Davis researcher, Alison Van Eenennaam, Ph-D, tends to push the pro-GMO argument in the lead. Her data clearly favors the numerical safety argument that 9 billion animals have been fed feed that is 80-90% GE (genetically engineered) and have had no statistically different health issues relative to animals fed non-GE feed sources before the introduction of these products the mid-90’s. What this suggests is that the animals are not suffering mutilating cancers, deformities, or catastrophic genetic changes. Extrapolation of this data also suggests that we humans, who consume these products, are also free of the zombie apocalypse mutations predicted by the conspiracy wonks and lunatic fringe scientists that are ringing the warning bell of doom. But wait, is it game over for the non-GMO supporters? Not yet, in my opinion. There are still unanswered questions and here are the important ideas in this debate: We have been genetically modifying crops and animals for millennia. Gregor Mendel is the famous monk that is considered the father of modern genetics. His modifications of pea plants gave us the science behind manipulating organisms. We can point to corn, soy, wheat, other grain plants, cattle, sheep, chickens, fish, llamas, and other animal species that have been modified by our ancestors to enhance many characteristics that have improved yields and nutrient values. My concern is that the speed of modern manipulations, by inserting biologically different species of DNA, may not express complications or harmful effects in a time frame that makes it apparent to researchers before a problem develops. The deliberateness of the time required to promote natural generational modifications in the genome insures that catastrophic changes are going to be allowed to be expressed “naturally.” The rapid pace of bioengineered genetic material may more easily introduce negative traits that may not be apparent until after their release in the environment. Introduction of foreign genetic material into a species different from the donor, although generally predictable, can raise some concerns for expression of unintended consequences. The modern transfer of small amounts of genetic material has reached such precise manipulation that there is little worry of a dangerous mutation - the risk, though, is not zero and even a subtle change in a DNA strand can, albeit in rare circumstances, be lethal. There is historical data that contaminated genetic material has been inadvertently introduced into the genome (DNA) of the recipient host. This has caused concern of diseases such as simian lymphocytic leukemia and similar virally-mediated pathology. Again, the chances are exceedingly small, but not nil. Science is increasingly improving techniques that are enhancing the plant and animal genome in ways that are increasing yields, allowing billions to be fed and reducing famine on a global scale. Yet, there are still issues regarding the use of proprietary hybrids that are patented and therefore utilized and controlled by private corporations. Newer manifestations of these hybrids require proprietary herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers, etc., to grow the crops efficiently. At each stage of the hybridization and gene introduction process is a potential and potentially amplifying possibility of unwanted and possible catastrophic mutation. Most of the time science wins, but it only takes a monster mutation that could wipe out an entire crop or multiple crops. What is the chance? What about the bees? Still unanswered. Think of the dark side…what if someone engineers a Trojan virus that, like in computers, is introduced into the dominant hybrid used in the Argentinian or Ukrainian breadbasket and some Dr. Evil character decides to wipe out the entire potential harvest! Eco-terrorism! It is simple and defined science. Hmmmm….. Ok, so these are clearly unlikely events but, as those that know me understand, I posit that even though science has advanced, and we are living better, longer, generally healthier than our relatives only 100 years ago, we have to consider the what ifs! Knowledge is power. I can safely say that, in the short view, GMO’s have given us tremendous advantages, fed a great percentage of the 7 billion inhabitants of the Earth, given us spectacular and unique variations in food choices, but it is not without a potential cost or a real defined cost. It just comes down to what you decide is the risk/reward equation is likely to be… I’m a Thrive Tomato sort of old school guy when it comes to this science (I choose organic and non-GE organisms) and, sadly, I am sure that most of us are going to be reasonably powerless to stop the introduction of manmade and manipulated GMO’s — I just hope they get it right!
Posted on: Sun, 04 Jan 2015 16:37:31 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015