Killer tomato or wonder fruit?<\/p>\n
By Sam Greenhill<\/p>\n
Genetically engineered food is beginning to reach household
\ntables but critics fear health and environmental disasters,
\nparticularly in developing countries, if biosafety measures are
\nnot improved.<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): In the health-conscious 1990s, the prospect of
\nwalking into a restaurant and being served up a \"test-tube
\ntomato\"is probably enough to put you completely off your meal.
\nBut this might soon happen, because food that has been
\ngenetically engineered is no longer the stuff of scientific
\nwaffle. Slowly but surely, it is making its way into the kitchens
\nand diets of ordinary people, and with it has come a furious
\ndebate about the benefits and dangers of test-tube food.<\/p>\n
The ongoing argument was a dominant theme at the international
\nconference on biodiversity in Jakarta, which ended yesterday.<\/p>\n
From early next year, British supermarkets will stock tomatoes
\nthat have been genetically altered to resist rotting, while
\nAmericans have been drinking milk from cows injected with bovine
\ngrowth hormones since the technique was officially approved in
\n1994.<\/p>\n
Apart from the benefits to retailers and consumers of a
\nlonger-lasting tomato, scientists say genetic engineering can
\nhelp farmers improve their yields. Staple crops can be engineered
\nwith a built-in defense against disease and pests -- cutting down
\nthe need for environmentally polluting pesticides -- and they can
\neven be made drought-tolerant, a boon for developing countries.<\/p>\n
But there are concerns that genetic food may not be safe, and
\npeople in countries like Indonesia may be more vulnerable to the
\nrisks than others.<\/p>\n
\"There is ample scientific evidence of the serious
\nconsequences of genetic engineering, including a threat to human
\nhealth,\" said Gurdial Singh Nijar, one of several contributors to
\na report on biological safety. He said consumers with allergies
\nmay increasingly find they cannot eat once-familiar foods.
\nScientists may take a gene from a Brazil nut and transfer it to a
\nsoya plant to increase its protein production. But someone
\nallergic to Brazil nuts could then be allergic to the soya plant
\ntoo.<\/p>\n
There are also fears that eating genetically modified food
\ncould lead to cancer, because modified genes, unstable in a new
\nenvironment, may unexpectedly mutate. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, of the Open
\nUniversity in Britain, said in a recent report that the
\nconsequences of transferring genes are \"impossible to predict\".<\/p>\n
For the Third World, there is another problem. Consumers in
\ndeveloping countries may be at greater peril from the possible
\nhazards of genetically engineered food than those in the North.
\nZumrotin K. Susilo of the Indonesian Consumers' Organization is
\nworried that many Indonesians will not be aware of the safety
\nissues when genetically engineered food arrives.<\/p>\n
\"Many Indonesian consumers will be attracted to the new food
\nif it is bigger or prettier, but they won't hear about the
\ndangers, if there are any,\" she said. \"Even if it is advertised
\nas being genetically engineered, many people wouldn't know the
\nimplications. Besides, poor education means that hardly anyone
\nbothers to read the labels on food anyway.\"<\/p>\n
Critics also believe there is a threat to the environment.
\nIndonesia is home to a great diversity of plants and animals, but
\nthere are fears that super-genetic crops -- specifically designed
\nto be more robust -- could dominate, and eventually wipe out,
\nweaker species. This could have a catastrophic effect on Third
\nWorld farmers, who depend on having a variety of crops.<\/p>\n
Opponents of genetic engineering say the scientists are
\nplaying with fire. \"No one knows what will happen,\" said Nijar,
\nwho is also a member of Third World Network, a group calling for
\na moratorium on genetic engineering research. \"What these
\nscientists are doing is totally different from Darwin's 'natural
\nselection' because species barriers are being crossed. Fish genes
\nare being injected into tomatoes, which could never happen
\nnaturally. The consequences are unknown.\"<\/p>\n
Third World Network warns of a potential \"ecological time-
\nbomb\", saying a genetically engineered seed declared \"safe\" in
\nthe short-term could eventually prove dangerous. Once it has
\npassed the safety checks, a genetically modified seed can be used
\ncommercially for growing food. But opponents say there may be
\nproblems that slip through the safety net, and it could be years
\nbefore they are discovered.<\/p>\n
Some scientists believe problems could arise out of the fact
\nthat genes are never stable. \"They are subject to a host of
\nnatural processes that move parts around, duplicate, delete,
\nmutate, rearrange and convert them,\" said Dr. Mae-Wan Ho. A
\nmutant gene could replicate itself all over the environment by
\nattaching itself to a virus.<\/p>\n
\"It's not like a faulty car, that can be recalled by the
\nmanufacturer,\" said Nijar. \"How do you recall a virus? You can't
\neven cure a common cold because there are so many mutations of
\nit. These scientists are playing with fire.\"<\/p>\n
The biotechnology industry, which has been conducting research
\ninto genetic engineering for two decades, dismisses these fears.
\n\"Yes, we are playing with fire, but we are playing with fire with
\nasbestos gloves,\" said Michael Roth, an official with the U.S.-
\nbased Biological Industry Organization. \"I don't think any
\nresponsible bioengineer proposes to release genetically
\nengineered organisms into the environment to 'find out what
\nhappens'.\"<\/p>\n
He said genetically modified plants are kept in isolation when
\nthey are first released, surrounded by nets to stop insects from
\nspreading their pollen.<\/p>\n
\"Typically, all the plants will be destroyed before they can
\nflower or grow fruit,\" he said. \"To suggest that, in 20 years,
\nsomething is going to happen that is totally unexpected, is to
\nsuggest we can't do science at all.\"<\/p>\n
The rift in opinion has led to a fierce debate about
\nbiological safety and the need for global biosafety regulations.
\nIndustry opposes them, saying they will encumber scientists with
\nunnecessary administration. But others believe a global biosafety
\nprotocol is the only way to ensure that developing countries are
\nnot exploited. They say genetic engineers in industrialized
\ncountries face tough regulations, and many are now moving their
\noperations to places where the rules are less strict.<\/p>\n
In Indonesia, according to Greenpeace, there are research
\nprojects on genetically engineered rice and transgenic oilpalm.
\nKonphalindo, a non-governmental environmental group, has called
\nfor new laws against testing, to ensure that Indonesia does not
\nsuffer biological pollution.<\/p>\n
However, the Biotechnology Industry Organization claims that
\nIndonesian companies are able to develop pineapple seedlings
\ncheaply using biotechnology. Worldwide demand for pineapple, a
\nmajor export crop, rose sharply at the beginning of the 1990s and
\nthe organization says genetic technology helped Indonesian
\nfarmers to keep up.<\/p>\n
As the debate rages on, consumers can be sure of just one
\nthing: This is just a taste of things to come.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/killer-tomato-or-wonder-fruit-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}