|
|
|
What all the fuss is about
GROUPS supporting GM crops claim that the crops can give us healthier food, produced in a more efficient and environmentally-friendly way. They believe that giving the go-ahead to GM crops can boost an economy and encourage biotechnology companies to invest in research and development.
Anti-GM groups, on the other hand, argue that only the multinational biotech companies will reap any reward, and claim that few farmers will benefit. The potential risks of GM crops to health and the environment outweigh the possible benefits, they say.
In Britain, the prime minister’s strategy unit was charged with weighing up the costs and benefits of GM crops. The study, published on July 11, 2003, concluded that the current generation of GM crops offers no benefits to consumers, and only marginal benefits to farmers.
The study adds that, although GM crops could be slightly cheaper and more convenient for farmers to grow, weak consumer demand, at least in the near term, would limit any economic advantages of introducing them.
Only a few GM crops available now are suited to conditions in the UK but, in future, more beneficial crops could become available. Crops that have been genetically modified to repel pests and resist diseases, have allergenic proteins removed or produce pharmaceuticals or vaccines could offer more tangible benefits.
The benefits of growing GM crops have to be weighed up against the advantages of growing non-GM or organic crops, which often sell at a premium. To minimize the risk of contaminating non-GM crops with genes from GM crops, the two have to be separated and measures need to be brought in to check the purity of the GM crops, the study said.
The government’s strategy unit also looked at how accepting or rejecting GM crops might affect jobs and investment by biotechnology companies in the UK. Commercial GM crop research has already declined significantly in Britain, and any further reduction would have a minimal impact, the report concludes.
However, if companies feel that the UK has become more accepting of GM technology, they may expand or open new research facilities in the country, which could bring significant economic benefits.
The process
There are two main ways to do it. The first uses a natural soil bacterium called agrobacteria tumefaciens. In nature, these bacteria infect plants.
Once inside the plant’s cells, the bacteria wedge some of their own genes into the plant’s genetic material. In the wild, this makes the plant produce damaging tumours. But geneticists can extract these tumour-causing genes from the bacteria, rendering them harmless, and replace them with genes for useful traits, such as pest resistance or herbicide tolerance. When plant cells are exposed to these modified bacteria, they transfer the useful genes to the plant instead of the disease genes.
The second method is the gene gun. This fires tiny gold particles coated with genes that produce useful traits directly into a plant’s cells.
Both techniques have a high failure rate, so thousands of attempts are needed before the new genes integrate with the plant’s genetic material.
How do GM crops work?
There are two main types of GM crop being grown at the moment. The first can tolerate herbicides that wipe out all other plants. The idea is that farmers can spray their crop with a “broad-spectrum” herbicide that will wipe out every plant in the field except the crop.
Since weeds compete for water, sunlight and soil nutrients, such GM crops might produce higher yields. They may also require less herbicide than conventional crops, so growing them may do less damage to the environment.
The second major type of GM crop is modified to produce a toxin that kills pests that feed on it. So far, the most common is known as Bt cotton, a cotton plant modified with poison-producing genes taken from the bacterium Bacillus thurigiensis.
Controversial issues
There are many. Some people object to GM technology because it can be used to create unnatural organisms. For example, a plant can be modified with genes from another species of plant, or even an animal. Another concern is that genes used to modify crops could escape into wild plants, creating “superweeds” that are highly resistant to pests, or alter plants in other ways that might cause damage to the environment. Some worry that GM crops themselves might prove to be harmful to either wildlife or the people who eat the crops.
The concerns continue. If the go-ahead is given for growing genetically modified crops, some groups worry that genes escaping from the crops could pollinate non-GM crops that are being grown organically. This could ruin business for farmers whose livelihood are based on organic produce, and reduce consumer choice rather than increase it.
They argue that if GM crops are approved for cultivation, other crops will quickly be irreversibly contaminated. There are many more issues that divide opinion on GM technology.
Where are GM crops grown?
The only GM crops that have been grown in Britain are for the government’s Field Scale Evaluations, a four-year experiment to assess the impact of growing GM crops on the environment. Worldwide, GM crops are grown by at least six million farmers in 16 countries: the US, Argentina, Canada, China, Australia, Bulgaria, Colombia, Germany, Honduras, India, Mexico, Romania, South Africa, Spain and Uruguay. The four main crops that are grown are soya beans, maize, cotton and oilseed rape.
The producers
Monsanto produces more than 90 per cent of crops worldwide. Another four companies, Syngenta, Bayer Cropscience, Dow and Du Pont, produce the rest. The fact that production lies in the hands of so few multinationals worries some who feel the companies will have too much control over world food production. — Dawn/The Guardian News Service
|
|
|
|
