The terms
genetically-modified (GM) or genetically-engineered (GE)
foods and genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) refer to
crop plants created for human or animal consumption using
the latest molecular biology techniques. These techniques
of modern genetics have made possible the direct
manipulation of the genetic makeup of organisms. Combining genes from
different organisms is known as recombinant DNA
technology and the resulting organism is said to be
"genetically modified," "genetically
engineered," or "transgenic." Cambridge
Scientific Abstracts has an excellent introduction to
this topic entitled: Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or
Helpful? (by Deborah
B. Whitman, April 2000). Like most human planetary
management issues today, such as global climate change,
the GM foods issue is hugely complex. GM foods have great
promise and great dangers. AAEA leans in the direction of
aggressive market production with needed oversight
regulations in a global management context. If all goes
well, one thing is certain, we will have to feed about 12
billion people everyday in the next 50 years.Good and evil are moral choices humans are
free to make. As applied to technology, these moral
choices present great opportunities and great dangers. We
manipulate atoms to light our buildings and to make
weapons of mass destruction. Companies produce chemicals
to make our lives easier, but sometimes cut corners in
the management, storage and disposal to maximize profits.
We utilize coal, oil and gas for our cars, businesses and
utility needs, but these same natural resources pollute
our air and water without adequate protections. Twenty
first century choices face us in stem cell research,
cloning and genetically modified foods. Proponents and
opponents present their cases and policy-makers are faced
with protecting the public interest. Unfortunately, human
history is littered with cases of indiscretions by people
with evil intentions. It is within this context that we
look at the case for genetically modified and engineered
organisims and foods.
We support prudent
use of genetically modified foods. We believe that labels
should be placed on all GM products. We also understand
the risks involved, but believe the benefits far outweigh the costs.
Starvation is much more dangerous to more people than any
threat presented by GM foods. Droughts and famine are
increasing throughout the world, particularly on the
continent of Africa. Although some traditional
environmental groups insist that they are simply
providing facts about potential health and environmental
effects of GM foods, others oppose it as a Frankenstein
product. Of course, none of these groups have programs to
feed the world's hungry. Some USA based social justice
groups, such as the Africa Faith & Justice Network
are opposing USA policies that impose GM food aid on
southern African countries facing severe drought and
famine. In addition to concerns about health effects,
they think it is a tactic to blatantly benefit
agri-business, not poor and hungry people. We understand
the health concerns, but see nothing wrong with
agri-business profiting from such exchanges. Captialism
feeds America. In fact, Americans are suffering more from
overeating than lack of food. As planetary managers, we
must understand that there are no benign systems that can
provide for human needs and we are obligated to protect
the planet to the maximum extent possible. One major
advantage of GM food is that crops genetically engineered
to resist weeds and bugs enable farmers to decrease
pesticide and herbicide use. Of course, superweeds and
bugs could also be inadvertently created. Planetary
management is very complex and serious business.
The fight over the use of
genetically modified corn provides a good example to
illustrate the issues involved in the use of this
product. Interestingly, one of the leading opponents to
new GM produce, Europe, has preliminarily approved (January 2004) the sale of GM corn via the
European Commission. The Council of Ministers will make a
final decision this year. Opponents promise to sue to
stop the use of GM corn in the EU. Environmental
opponents believe GM products threaten biodiversity and
will release potentially harmful contaminants into the
environment. We support Friend of the Earth's proposed
"GM Contamination and Liability Bill" being
introduced in the British Parliament. The bill calls for
a strict approach to any future planting of GM crops,
including those planted for trial purposes. It stipulates
minimum separation distances between GM and
organic/conventional crops, clarifys liability issues if
cross-contamination occurs, and ensures the regulation of
GM is simple and that all overseeing bodies are
self-funded. We do not support the Five Year Freeze
associated with the bill.
Genetically modified technology
will not eliminate hunger and malnutrition because
dysfunctional governments and economies create problems
with production, access and distribution of food. Flawed
policies, greed and imcompetence will always keep some
people in ignorance and poverty. However, GM foods can
improve survivability and increase productivity of plants
in inhospital conditions. GM foods can also reduce the
need to use large quantities of herbicides and pesticides. Of course, this does not stop
Mendocino County, California -- considered by some to be
the center of America's anti-biotechnology movement--
from holding a vote to prohibit GM plants and animals
from being raised or kept in the county. Such anti-GM
entitites consider it to be the biggest uncontrolled
biological experiment going on in the world today.
Although proof of serious harm to humans, animals and
plants has yet to be definitively proven, opponents fear
that humans and the environment could be damaged through
accidental cross-pollination of GM products with natural
plants. This is a legitimate fear, but is not sufficient
to ban the use of all GM products. Proponents point out
that negative effects are nonexistent, pointing out that
not a single stomach ache has been reported since the
Food and Drug Administration first approved genetically
engineered crops for human consumption in 1994. Great
Britain's Food Standards Agency also favors the use of GM
foods. Of course, most health effects of concern,
including cancer and the results of long-term damage to
the immune system take years to become evident. And then
there would be the complex task of directly associating
any damaging effects with GM products.
All types of foods
and organisms have been genetically engineered: corn,
cotton, tomatoes, soybeans, sugarbeets, oilseed rape,
maize, salmon, pigs, cows, and the list goes on. With
about 6 billion people eating everyday, we need every
reasonable tool known to man to assure adequate nutrition
for Earth's residents. GM foods, property utilized, can help meet
these needs in a number of ways: pest resistance,
herbicide tolerance, disease resistance, cold tolerance,
drought tolerance and salinity toleranc, among others.
Many countries are growing GM crops: U.S., Canada, China,
Argentina, Australia, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Mexico,
Romania, South Africa, Spain and Uruguay. Interestingly,
according the USDA approximately 54% of all soybeans
cultivated in the U.S. in 2000 were genetically-modified.
In the U.S., three government agencies have jurisdiction
over GM foods: EPA evaluates GM plants for environmental
safety, the USDA evaluates whether the plant is safe to
grow, and the FDA evaluates whether the plant is safe to
eat. Mandatory food labeling is also a complex issue. The
FDA's current position on food labeling is govered by the
Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, which is only concerned with
food additives, not whole foods or food products that are
considered GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe). The FDA
contends that GM foods are substantially equivalent to
non-GM foods, and therefore not subject to more stringent
labeling. If all GM foods and food products are to be
labeled, Congress must enact sweeping changes in the
existing food lableling policy. The Genetically
Engineered Food Right to Know Act (HR 2916) is probably a
good place to start for food labeling.
Just as AAEA supports nuclear power
with the belief that there should be serious oversight,
we support the use of modified foods in the same way. We
believe that traditional environmental groups go to far
in calling for a ban on nuclear power and GM. They could
still provide 95% of the same constructive criticisms and
oversight in these areas, but are extremist when calling
for bans on useful, relatively safe products. We
understand that part of this extremism partially comes as
a reaction to the extremism of greedy,
unscrupulous capitalists abusers. As part of a minority
group with a long history of disadvantage, we do not have
time for these games. However, we have serious concerns
about human genetic engineering, particular cross species
modifications and cloning. We fear that the Hitlerian
contingent will take experiments with human DNA into an
area of manufacturing humans for some ungodly reason and
mad scientists will inexorably attempt to pierce the
species genetic barrier and mix humans with animals FOR
IMPROVEMENTS. Cinema has caught these images in The
Matrix and The Island of Dr. Moreau. We
would join our extremist colleagues in the traditional
environmental movement in calling for a total ban on this
type of unethical and immoral activity.
|