Killer tomato or wonder fruit?

Killer tomato or wonder fruit?

By Sam Greenhill

Genetically engineered food is beginning to reach household tables but critics fear health and environmental disasters, particularly in developing countries, if biosafety measures are not improved.

JAKARTA (JP): In the health-conscious 1990s, the prospect of walking into a restaurant and being served up a "test-tube tomato"is probably enough to put you completely off your meal. But this might soon happen, because food that has been genetically engineered is no longer the stuff of scientific waffle. Slowly but surely, it is making its way into the kitchens and diets of ordinary people, and with it has come a furious debate about the benefits and dangers of test-tube food.

The ongoing argument was a dominant theme at the international conference on biodiversity in Jakarta, which ended yesterday.

From early next year, British supermarkets will stock tomatoes that have been genetically altered to resist rotting, while Americans have been drinking milk from cows injected with bovine growth hormones since the technique was officially approved in 1994.

Apart from the benefits to retailers and consumers of a longer-lasting tomato, scientists say genetic engineering can help farmers improve their yields. Staple crops can be engineered with a built-in defense against disease and pests -- cutting down the need for environmentally polluting pesticides -- and they can even be made drought-tolerant, a boon for developing countries.

But there are concerns that genetic food may not be safe, and people in countries like Indonesia may be more vulnerable to the risks than others.

"There is ample scientific evidence of the serious consequences of genetic engineering, including a threat to human health," said Gurdial Singh Nijar, one of several contributors to a report on biological safety. He said consumers with allergies may increasingly find they cannot eat once-familiar foods. Scientists may take a gene from a Brazil nut and transfer it to a soya plant to increase its protein production. But someone allergic to Brazil nuts could then be allergic to the soya plant too.

There are also fears that eating genetically modified food could lead to cancer, because modified genes, unstable in a new environment, may unexpectedly mutate. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, of the Open University in Britain, said in a recent report that the consequences of transferring genes are "impossible to predict".

For the Third World, there is another problem. Consumers in developing countries may be at greater peril from the possible hazards of genetically engineered food than those in the North. Zumrotin K. Susilo of the Indonesian Consumers' Organization is worried that many Indonesians will not be aware of the safety issues when genetically engineered food arrives.

"Many Indonesian consumers will be attracted to the new food if it is bigger or prettier, but they won't hear about the dangers, if there are any," she said. "Even if it is advertised as being genetically engineered, many people wouldn't know the implications. Besides, poor education means that hardly anyone bothers to read the labels on food anyway."

Critics also believe there is a threat to the environment. Indonesia is home to a great diversity of plants and animals, but there are fears that super-genetic crops -- specifically designed to be more robust -- could dominate, and eventually wipe out, weaker species. This could have a catastrophic effect on Third World farmers, who depend on having a variety of crops.

Opponents of genetic engineering say the scientists are playing with fire. "No one knows what will happen," said Nijar, who is also a member of Third World Network, a group calling for a moratorium on genetic engineering research. "What these scientists are doing is totally different from Darwin's 'natural selection' because species barriers are being crossed. Fish genes are being injected into tomatoes, which could never happen naturally. The consequences are unknown."

Third World Network warns of a potential "ecological time- bomb", saying a genetically engineered seed declared "safe" in the short-term could eventually prove dangerous. Once it has passed the safety checks, a genetically modified seed can be used commercially for growing food. But opponents say there may be problems that slip through the safety net, and it could be years before they are discovered.

Some scientists believe problems could arise out of the fact that genes are never stable. "They are subject to a host of natural processes that move parts around, duplicate, delete, mutate, rearrange and convert them," said Dr. Mae-Wan Ho. A mutant gene could replicate itself all over the environment by attaching itself to a virus.

"It's not like a faulty car, that can be recalled by the manufacturer," said Nijar. "How do you recall a virus? You can't even cure a common cold because there are so many mutations of it. These scientists are playing with fire."

The biotechnology industry, which has been conducting research into genetic engineering for two decades, dismisses these fears. "Yes, we are playing with fire, but we are playing with fire with asbestos gloves," said Michael Roth, an official with the U.S.- based Biological Industry Organization. "I don't think any responsible bioengineer proposes to release genetically engineered organisms into the environment to 'find out what happens'."

He said genetically modified plants are kept in isolation when they are first released, surrounded by nets to stop insects from spreading their pollen.

"Typically, all the plants will be destroyed before they can flower or grow fruit," he said. "To suggest that, in 20 years, something is going to happen that is totally unexpected, is to suggest we can't do science at all."

The rift in opinion has led to a fierce debate about biological safety and the need for global biosafety regulations. Industry opposes them, saying they will encumber scientists with unnecessary administration. But others believe a global biosafety protocol is the only way to ensure that developing countries are not exploited. They say genetic engineers in industrialized countries face tough regulations, and many are now moving their operations to places where the rules are less strict.

In Indonesia, according to Greenpeace, there are research projects on genetically engineered rice and transgenic oilpalm. Konphalindo, a non-governmental environmental group, has called for new laws against testing, to ensure that Indonesia does not suffer biological pollution.

However, the Biotechnology Industry Organization claims that Indonesian companies are able to develop pineapple seedlings cheaply using biotechnology. Worldwide demand for pineapple, a major export crop, rose sharply at the beginning of the 1990s and the organization says genetic technology helped Indonesian farmers to keep up.

As the debate rages on, consumers can be sure of just one thing: This is just a taste of things to come.